¹ The quoted expressions are taken from editorial titles in the People's Daily of June 1 and 2, 1966, respectively.

² Yao's article entitled “A Criticism of the New Historical Play ‘The Dismissal of Hai Jui’,” was reprinted again in many publications, including the People's Daily on November 30, 1965, and the Li-shih Yen-chiu (Historical Research), No. 6 (1965)Google Scholar.

³ People's Daily, November 30, 1965.

⁴ For example, Ming-sheng, Fan, Yu, Sheng and Sheng-kuai, Ma, “Letter from Three Comrades of the Shanghai Dramatics Academy,” Wen Hui Pap, 11 27, 1965Google Scholar.

⁵ For example, Tzu, Ch'iao, “Also on Hai Jui and ‘The Dismissal of Hai Jui,’” People's Daily, 12 15, 1965Google Scholar.

⁶ One of the sharpest critics was Wen-chin, Ts'ai, “Beautification of the Feudal Ruling Class,” People's Daily, 12 25, 1965Google Scholar.

⁷ For example, “Stories of Hai Jui,” Wen Hui Pao, December 10, 1965, and “Discussing Hai Jui,” People's Daily, December 11, 1965.

⁸ For a more detailed account of this self-criticism, as well as of the earlier part of the Wu Han campaign through March 1966, see Uhalley, Stephen Jr's, “The Wu Han Discussion: Act One in a New Rectification Campaign,” The China Mainland Review, I, No. 4 (03 1966), pp. 24–38Google Scholar.

⁹ People's Daily, December 30, 1965.

¹⁰ Yen, Ma, “Comments on Comrade Wu Han's Bourgeois Concept of History,” Red Flag, 02 11, 1966Google Scholar.

¹¹ Shih, Fang, “Questions About A Criticism of the New Historical Play ‘The Dismissal of Hai Jui’,” People's Daily, 02 3, 1966Google Scholar.

¹² Yu, Lu, “Does ‘The Dismissal of Hai Jui’ Not Have Positive Meaning?” People's Daily, 01 19, 1966Google Scholar.

¹³ Han-jen, Shih, “Several Different Points Regarding the Criticism of ‘The Dismissal of Hai Jui’,” People's Daily, 02 10, 1966Google Scholar.

¹⁴ For example, Han-jen, Shih was attacked in Hsueh Hsu's “Do Not Use Moderationism to Confuse Right from Wrong,” People's Daily, 03 16, 1966Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Han, Wu, “Revolution or Inheritance?” Peking Daily, 01 12, 1966Google Scholar. References to Wu Han's “first” and “second” self-criticisms refer only to his articles of December 28, 1965, and January 2, 1966. The actual “first” self-criticism of Han's, Wu that I know of is his article, “I Overcome the Above-Class Viewpoint,” Lun Ke-ming-jen Sheng-kuan (On the Revolutionary's View of Life) shanghai: 1950, p. 55–63Google Scholar.

¹⁶ It is mentioned briefly in an article by the Hsi-chü Pao's File Room, entitled “Criticism of Hal Jul Relieved of His Office and Hsieh Yao-huan Gradually Deepens,” Hsi-chü Pao (Drama), March 10, 1966, as translated in Survey of China Mainland Press (SCMP) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate-General), No. 528, 06 13, 1966Google Scholar. It receives a one sentence mention in passing in I-ch'ang, Huang, Hsiang-hui, Chang, Hui-yeh, Wang, Tseng-ch'i, Liu and I-liu's, Chin “Carrying Out Anti-Party Activities Under the Pretext of Holding a Symposium,” People's Daily, 05 12, 1966Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Principally through his essay “Hai Jui Ma Huang-ti” (“Hai Jui Criticises the Emperor”) which has been attacked many times.

¹⁸ This theme was implicit, according to his critics, in Wu Han's play on Hai Jui. The point was made increasingly clear, however, in the sharper criticisms of April and later, although P'eng Teh-huai was still not mentioned by name.

¹⁹ See Shao-p'in's, Shih “Hu Shih and Wu Han,” People's Daily, 04 13, 1966Google Scholar, and “Iron-clad Evidence of Wu Han's Affiliation with Hu Shih,” People's Daily, June 3, 1966. Shih Shao-p'in has been a particularly vehement antagonist of Wu Han.

²⁰ See Szu-ch'un, Li, “Wu Han—Strategist of the Chiang Family Monarchical Dynasty and Helper of American Imperialism,” People's Daily, 04 27, 1966Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Shao-p'in, Shih, “On Wu Han's Javelin-Throwing,” Red Flag, No. 6 (04 29, 1966)Google Scholar.

²³ Among many such pages devoted to such contributions, see the articles under the general title “Workers, Peasants and Soldiers Criticize Wu Han's Standing Position and Thought in Opposing the Party and Socialism,” People's Daily, April 19 and May 4, 1966.

²⁴ See Sung, Yun, “T'ien Han's ‘Hsieh Yao-huan’ is a Big Poisonous Weed,” People's Daily, 02 1, 1966Google Scholar; Ch'i-fang, Ho, “Criticism of ‘Hsieh Yao-huan’,” People's Daily, 02 24, 1966Google Scholar; and the Editorial Department of Drama Daily, “Whom Does the Advocacy of T'ien Han's Play Serve?” People's Daily, 03 8, 1966Google Scholar. The play was reprinted in the Kuang-ming Daily on February 2, 1966. See Hsi, Po, “Three Poisonous Arrows Aimed at Socialism,” Nan-fang Jih-pao (Canton), 02 9, 1966Google Scholar. See also, for example, Chüeh-fei, Wen. “T'ien Han Tells Lies.” Yang-ch'eng Wan Pao (Canton), 05 6, 1966Google Scholar, transl. in SCMP, No. 3699, 05 17, 1966, pp. 12–14Google Scholar; and Shih-wen, Wu, “Refute Comrade Tien Han's Preposterous Views Against Revolutionary, Contemporary Plays,” Kuang-ming Daily, 05 5, 1966, transl. in SCMP, No. 3703, May, 1966, pp. 1–6Google Scholar.

²⁵ Pen-yu, Ch'i, Chieh, Lin and Ch'ang-kuei, Yen, “Comrade Chien Po-tsan's Historical Outlook Should be Criticised,” Red Flag, No. 4 (03 24, 1966)Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Ch'un-yuan, Wang, “On Comrade Hsia Yen's Collected Works on Motion Pictures,” Kuang-ming Daily, 03 11, 1966Google Scholar; Hsin, Mu, “On the Reactionary Thought of the Play ‘Sai Chin Hua’: Dissecting and Analysing a So-called ‘Famous Play’ of the Thirties,” Kuang-ming Daily, 03 12, 1966Google Scholar; and Ch'i-fang, Ho, “There are Bourgeois Ideas in Comrade Hsia Yen's Works,” People's Daily, 04 1, 1966Google Scholar. All translated in Current Background (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate-General), No. 786 (05 16, 1966)Google Scholar.

²⁷ For example: “Several Opinions from Discussions on the ‘Good Officials’ Problem,” People's Daily, February 28, 1966; also summaries of views of discussants in both Shanghai and Peking on the same theme in People's Daily, March 11, 1966.

²⁸ For example: Shao-p'in, Shih, “Support the Revolutionary Direction of Historical Science,” People's Daily, 03 27, 1966Google Scholar; and Ta, Yin, “The Revolution in Historiography Must Be Carried to the Very End,” Red Flag, 02 27, 1966Google Scholar.

29 Teng, a prominent Sung Dynasty specialist, is under attack for advocating “historical idealism and class reconciliation” in his work on a Sung official named Hsin Ch'i-chi. Teng had made the same mistake as Wu Han in depicting a traditional official as having fought for the interests of the people. See Ming, Ch'en, “ What Kind of Historical Viewpoint and Method is This?” Kuang-ming Daily, 02 13, 1966Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ch'i Hsia, less prominent, is an associate professor of history at Hopei University, accused of being a close follower of Wu Han and Chien Po-tsan and of propagating the bourgeois historical viewpoint under the cloak of Marxism-Leninism and the thought of Mao. See “Hopei Daily and Tientsin Daily Expose Ch'i Hsia's Anti-Marxist Historical Viewpoint,” Kuang-ming Daily, 05 18, 1966, trans, in SCMP, No. 3710Google Scholar, June 2, 1966.

³¹ See “The Enemy on the Screen,” China News Analysis (CNA), No. 614 (06 3, 1966)Google Scholar, for a good review of related developments.

³² For example, Hung-t'ao, Ssu-ma, “Criticize Chien Po-tsan's Outline of Chinese History,” People's Daily, 06 1, 1966Google Scholar.

³³ See Kuo's, speech given before the 30th session of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on April 14, 1966, and published under the title “Learn from the Masses of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers and Serve Them,” Kuang-ming Daily, 04 28, 1966Google Scholar. Kuo in this impromptu talk had said that all of his writings were worthless because he had failed to follow properly Mao's thought.

³⁴ Interestingly, this sudden self-exposure was simultaneously published in the Canton Yang-ch'eng Wan-pao and broadcast over the NCNA. See translation in SCMP, No. 3686, 04 28, 1966Google Scholar.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Chu, Kao, “Open Fire at the Black Anti-Party and Anti-Socialist Line,” Liberation Army Daily, 05 8, 1966Google Scholar.

³⁷ See the excellent early account of this development in CNA, No. 612 (05 20, 1966)Google Scholar.

³⁸ People's Daily, May 9, 1966.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ “Using the Name of Introducing ‘Hygienic Knowledge’ But Really Opposing the Party and Socialism,” People's Daily, May 20, 1966.

⁴¹ Wen-yuan, Yao, “Criticize ‘The Three Family Village’,” Ta Kung Pao, Hong Kong, 05 25, 1966Google Scholar; translated as “On ‘Three Family Village’,” in the Peking Review, No. 22 (05 27, 1966)Google ScholarPubMed. Seven of the key articles in the campaign have since been translated and published in The Great Socialist Cultural Revolution in China, 2 vols. (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

⁴² See, for example, “How Teng T'o Shields Wu Han,” People's Daily, May 14, 1966

⁴³ In I-ch'ang, Huang et al. , “Carrying Out…”, People's Daily, 05 12, 1966Google Scholar; see “An Example of the Way Front Line Magazine Defends Teng T'o and Suppresses Criticism,” Kuang-ming Daily, May 9, 1966; and Chien-min, Liang, “What Trick Does Peking Daily Play by Returning Manuscripts and Letters Submitted to It?” People's Daily, 05 10, 1966Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Chien-tseng, Shih et al. , “Introductory Statement in Ch'ien Hsien's Inaugural Issue is a Revisionist Manifesto,” Yang-ch'eng Wan-pao, 05 29, 1966, trans, in SCMP, No. 3711Google Scholar, June 3, 1966.

⁴⁵ Hsien-chou, Liu, “Teng T'o Defends the Treachery of Li Hsiu-ch'eng,” People's Daily, 05 24, 1966Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ See the two articles: Huang I-ch'ang, et al., “Smash Teng To's Conspiracy of Inciting Youths to Oppose the Party in the Cultural Revolution” and “Take a Look at the Irrefutable Evidence of How ‘Three Family Village’ Harms and Woos Youths,” a summary of comments by Teng T'o at a symposium of students on December 13, 1966, in Chinese Youth News, May 14, 1966, trans, in SCMP, No. 3709, 06 1, 1966Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ From among thousands of articles see, for example: “Minority Language Translators and Publishers Denounce Teng T'o's Black Gang,” NCNA, Peking, 05 27, 1966Google Scholar; and “People of Various Nationalities in Nanning Vow to Root Out Teng T'o's Black Gang,” Yang-ch'eng Wan-pao, Canton, 05 13, 1966, trans, in SCMP, No. 3705Google Scholar, May 25, 1966.

⁴⁸ CNA, No. 612, p. 6.

⁴⁹ See “Big Plot Exposed by a Big-Character Paper Posted by Seven Peking University Comrades,” People's Daily, 06 2, 1966, translated in SCMP, No. 3719Google Scholar June 16, 1966.

⁵⁰ Joint Announcement of State Council and CCP Central Committee, People's Daily, June 18, 1966.

⁵¹ Yang, who had been head of the CCP Higher Party School until 1961, was criticised in 1964 for his propagation of the “Unite Two into One” heresy.

⁵² Chou, a prominent non-Party historian, was attacked in 1964 for his ideas on history and aesthetics.

⁵³ Feng, a leading Communist philosopher and Chairman of the Peking Philosophy Society, was attacked in 1964 on several points, including the negating of class struggle, promotion of peaceful international competition, opposition to the cult of personality and propagation of individualism.

⁵⁴ Shao, Vice-Chairman of the Chinese Writers' Union, had himself played important roles in earlier campaigns, notably against Hu Feng and Hu Shih in 1955 and in the 1957 anti-Rightist mop-up. But in 1964 he was attacked for portraying the majority of Chinese as “people in the middle,” neither militant Party stalwarts nor reactionaries.