contribution." ("Treatise on Literature" in the History of the Former Han Dynasty.) This is what Liu Hsin says about the historical origin of the ten schools. His interpretation of the significance of the schools is inadequate, and his attribution of certain of them to certain Ministries is in some cases arbitrary. For instance, in describing the teaching of the Taoists, he touches only on the ideas of Lao Tzu, and omits those of Chuang Tzu altogether. Moreover, there appears to be no similarity between the teaching of the School of Names and the functions of the Ministry of Ceremonies, save that both emphasized the making of distinctions.
A Revision of Liu Hsin's Theory
Yet though the details of Liu Hsins s theory may be wrong, his attempt to trace the origin of the schools to certain political and social circumstances certainly represents a right point of view. I have quoted him at length because his description of the various schools is itself a classic in Chinese historiography.
The study of Chinese history has made great progress in China in recent times, especially during the few years just before the Japanese invasion of 1937. In the light of recent research, therefore, I have formed a theory of my own in regard to the origin of the philosophic schools. In spirit this theory agrees with that of Liu Hsin, but it must be expressed in a different way. This means that things have to be seen from a new angle.
Let us imagine what China looked like politically and socially in, say, the tenth century B.C. At the top of the political and social structure, there was the King of the Chou royal house, who was the "common lord" of all the different states. Under him were hundreds of stales, each owned and governed by its Princes. Some of them were established by the founders of the Chou dynasty, who had allotted the newly conquered territory as feudal fiefs to their relatives. Others were ruled by the former rivals of the Chou house, who now, however, acknowledged the King of Chou as their common lord.
Within each slate, under the Prince, the land was again divided into many fiefs, each with its own feudal lord, who were relatives of the Prince. At that time, political power and economic control were one and the same. Those who had the land were the political and economic masters of it, and of the people who lived on it. They were the chiln tzu, a term which literally means "sons of the Princes," but which was used as a common designation of the class of the feudal lords.
The other social class was that of the hsiao jen, meaning small men, or
O56 ' THE ORIGIN OF THE SCHOOLS
shu min, meaning common people or the mass. These were the serfs of the feudal lords,
who cultivated the land for the chtin tzu in time of peace, and fought for them in time of war.
L
The aristocrats were not only the political rulers and landlords, but also the only
persons who had a chance to receive an education. Thus the houses of the feudal lords were not only centers of political and economic power, but also centers of learning.
Attached to them were officers who possessed specialized knowledge along various lines. But the common people, for their part, had no chance to become educated, so that among them there were no men of learning. This is the fact behind Liu Hsin' s theory that in the early Chou dynasty "there was no separation between officers and teachers."
This feudal system was formally abolished by the First Emperor of the Ch' in dynasty in 2.2.1 B.C. But hundreds of years before that, the system had already begun to disintegrate, whereas thousands of years later, economic remnants of feudalism still remained in the form of the power of the landlord class.
Historians of modern time are still not agreed as to what were the causes of the disintegration of the feudal system. Nor is it within the scope of this chapter to discuss these causes. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say that in Chinese history the period
A Revision of Liu Hsin's Theory
Yet though the details of Liu Hsins s theory may be wrong, his attempt to trace the origin of the schools to certain political and social circumstances certainly represents a right point of view. I have quoted him at length because his description of the various schools is itself a classic in Chinese historiography.
The study of Chinese history has made great progress in China in recent times, especially during the few years just before the Japanese invasion of 1937. In the light of recent research, therefore, I have formed a theory of my own in regard to the origin of the philosophic schools. In spirit this theory agrees with that of Liu Hsin, but it must be expressed in a different way. This means that things have to be seen from a new angle.
Let us imagine what China looked like politically and socially in, say, the tenth century B.C. At the top of the political and social structure, there was the King of the Chou royal house, who was the "common lord" of all the different states. Under him were hundreds of stales, each owned and governed by its Princes. Some of them were established by the founders of the Chou dynasty, who had allotted the newly conquered territory as feudal fiefs to their relatives. Others were ruled by the former rivals of the Chou house, who now, however, acknowledged the King of Chou as their common lord.
Within each slate, under the Prince, the land was again divided into many fiefs, each with its own feudal lord, who were relatives of the Prince. At that time, political power and economic control were one and the same. Those who had the land were the political and economic masters of it, and of the people who lived on it. They were the chiln tzu, a term which literally means "sons of the Princes," but which was used as a common designation of the class of the feudal lords.
The other social class was that of the hsiao jen, meaning small men, or
O56 ' THE ORIGIN OF THE SCHOOLS
shu min, meaning common people or the mass. These were the serfs of the feudal lords,
who cultivated the land for the chtin tzu in time of peace, and fought for them in time of war.
L
The aristocrats were not only the political rulers and landlords, but also the only
persons who had a chance to receive an education. Thus the houses of the feudal lords were not only centers of political and economic power, but also centers of learning.
Attached to them were officers who possessed specialized knowledge along various lines. But the common people, for their part, had no chance to become educated, so that among them there were no men of learning. This is the fact behind Liu Hsin' s theory that in the early Chou dynasty "there was no separation between officers and teachers."
This feudal system was formally abolished by the First Emperor of the Ch' in dynasty in 2.2.1 B.C. But hundreds of years before that, the system had already begun to disintegrate, whereas thousands of years later, economic remnants of feudalism still remained in the form of the power of the landlord class.
Historians of modern time are still not agreed as to what were the causes of the disintegration of the feudal system. Nor is it within the scope of this chapter to discuss these causes. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say that in Chinese history the period
Similar Books
