Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T03:07:42.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Study of Oriental Despotisms as Systems of Total Power

Review products

Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. By WittfogelKarl A.. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. xix, 556. Notes, Bibliography, Indices. $7.50.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

S. N. Eisenstadt
S. N. Eisenstadt
Affiliation:
The Eliezer Kaplan School of Economics and Social Science, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , May 1958 , pp. 435 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This summary is taken from , Wittfogel, “Chinese Society: An Historical Survey,” JAS, XVI (May 1957), 344Google Scholar.

2 According to Wittfogel, the political system of the Chou period in China was not feudal but “hydraulic.”

3 See for many criticisms of this aspect of his theories the symposium on “Irrigation Civilizations—A Comparative Study,” Pan American Union, Soc. Sci. Monographs (Washington, D. C, 1955), especially the papers of Beals and Steward.

4 See, for example, Wright, A. F., “The Economic Role of Buddhism in China,” JAS, XVI (May 1957), 408–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which summarizes the important work of J. Gernet. See also Wright's other works on Chinese Buddhism.

5 It is interesting to note here that although we canfindin the bibliography Wellhausen's “Arab Kingdom,” his celebrated essay on the religious oppositionary groups is missing. No mention is made of Lewis' researches on Ismailism or his general interpretation of Arab history or Cahen's work on Muslim cities. Similar selectivity can sometimes be found in bibliographies on other countries and on theoretical topics.