The Shih Chi (Historic Records) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien of the early Han dynasty says: "The premier helps the emperor regulate the ying and yang, rule the four seasons, settle and make comfortable all things, pacify the outlying districts and feudal lords, domesticate the people and charge the various government officials with appropriate duties." The premier was responsible only to the emperor.
The premiership existed during the Spring and Autumn Period (770-481 B.C.). It became an office of the central government in the Ch'in dynasty (221-206 B.C.). Chang Tai-yen says in his work on Chinese imperial officials: "The premier is an officer of protocol. He serves directly under the emperor."
During the Spring and Autumn Period, diplomacy was important. Kings hired men well versed in the etiquette of diplomacy to help them communicate with other states. Being close to the emperor, the chief of protocol rose in position and accumulated authority in domestic politics.
During the period of Warring States (403-221 B.C.), commoners were recruited to become protocol officials. They became the ranking administrators.
When Shih Huang Ti (First Emperor) unified China in 221 B.C., he named Wang Wan and then Li Sse as premier.
The premiership system of the Chin dynasty was inherited by Western Han. The premier became very powerful.
The Eastern Han established a three-power administrative system headed by the Ta Hsi Tu (premier of limited power), chief of the armed forces and a grand censor. The Tu Yu Tung Tien (General Institutions by Tu Yu) says in a chapter on premiership: "Western Han abolished the omnipotent premiership and the censorship. In their places were established the Ta Hsi Tu (premier), chief of the armed forces and a grand censor to manage the nation's affairs. This three-power junta acted as the premier."
In the Sui dynasty (589-618) and the Tang (618-907 A.D.), the ministers of Shang Shu Shen, Men Hsia Shen and Chung Shu Shen shared the premiership. Decisions of each minister were subject to the consent of the other two. The Shang Shu later gained military power and acted as the premier.
In the Sung dynasty (960-1280), the premier was restricted to carrying out imperial orders.
During the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368), the three shen (ministries) were reorganized into one with a premier and two vice premiers.
At the beginning of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), the Yuan system was inherited. However, after Premier Hu Wei-yung's revolt against the imperial court, Emperor Tai Tsu abolished the premiership and distributed power among six ministries, each responsible to the emperor. Later the tremendous amount of work made it impossible for the emperor to handle everything himself. Some administrative power fell into the hands of the imperial scholar (secretary-general to the emperor).
At the beginning of the Ch'ing dynasty (1644-1911), the imperial scholar held the powers of the premiership. During the reign of Emperor Yung Cheng (1723-1736), the Grand Council of State was established and took over administrative duties from the cabinet. During Emperor Kuang Hsu's administration (1875-1909), an office of political affairs was established. In the third year of Hsuan Tung (1911), a new cabinet system was implemented and the Grand Council of State abolished.
The premier of the imperial court had the following powers and duties:
1. The premier always acted as chairman of cabinet meetings but only the emperor had the authority to call meetings.
2. The emperor's decisions were made with the consent of the premier.
3. When the emperor's decision was non-procedural or was made without consent of the cabinet, the premier had the right of recall. This is set forth in the Chien Han Shu (Book of Western Han), Scroll 40, the Biography of Chou Ya-fu:
"The barbarian king Hsu Lu and four others surrendered to the imperial court of Han. Emperor Ching wanted to honor them with feudal titles. Premier Chou Ya-fu then inquired of the Emperor, saying: 'The five barbarians betrayed their master and surrendered to Your Highness. If Your Majesty honors them with feudal titles, how is it possible to ensure the loyalty of your own subjects while bestowing upon these foreign subjects such high honor?' The Emperor then decreed: "Without the consent of the premier, high honors of lordship shall not be bestowed upon them (the barbarians)." The barbarians were honored as "gentlemen."
4. The premier also had the power to revoke the emperor's orders which seemed unwise and the right to refuse to sign imperial decrees. This is set forth in the Book of Western Han, Scroll 86, the Biography of Wang Chia: "In accord with the will of the recently deceased Empress Fu, Emperor Ai of the Great Dynasty of Han had ordered Censor Yi of the House of Empress Wang, Mother of Emperor Chen, to bestow upon two thousand families of the aforesaid House honorary titles and establish the feudal lordships or Kung Hsiang, Ju Chang and Shin Kuo. Premier Wang Chia returned the imperial decree to Empress Wang, saying: 'Your humble servant has heard that fertile and prosperous land belongs to the Heavens. It is said in the ancient books that the Heavens will reward the good people. There is therefore no need for us to reward the good in haste.' "
The power of the premier in imperial China reflected the importance of the emperor. -Lio Fu-pen
Renaissance - History under Mao
When Li Ta-chao introduced Marxism to China, he divided Chinese history into these stages of evolution: primitive society, slavery, feudalism and capitalism.
Kuo Mo-jo was the first to use this theory of evolution to explain China's ancient history. Others who used the same method to study Chinese history included Fan Wen-lan, Chien Po-tsan, Hou Wai-lu and Lu Chen-yu. Their studies have been accorded great attention.
After the Communist seizure of the Chinese mainland in 1949, an all-out ideological struggle ensued in which historical studies were emphasized. To the evolution of Chinese history was added the stage of "Communist society" which comes after "capitalist society." Since "history is the most political of all sciences," such veteran Marxist historians as Kuo Mo-jo, Fan Wen-lan and Chien Po-tsan were given high government posts so as to lead the so-called "historians of old China" in studying history in ways to serve the Chinese Communist Party and the proletarian dictatorship. Many historians who disagreed with the Marxist-Leninist view of history were purged, criticized and struggled against. The self-styled veteran Marxist historian Kuo Mo-jo had to admit his mistakes during the "cultural revolution" and Chien Po-tsan and Ho Wei-lu were criticized and purged.
The Chinese Communists took over the mainland "Academia Sinica" in 1949 immediately after the National Government was moved to Taiwan. They reorganized the "Institute of History and Philology" of the "Academia Sinica" and the "Institute of History" of the "Peiping Research Institute" into the "Institute of Archaeology" and the "Institute of Modern History," both under the "Chinese Academy of Sciences." The "Institute of Archaeology," under the chairmanship of Hsia Nai, specialized in the study of the relics of the Yin dynasty (1766-1122 B.C.), the Period of Warring States, the Ch'in-Han periods and the culture of the Kingdom of Chou (740-330 B.C.). Publication of the institute included the Journal of Archaeology and articles on archaeology.
The institute cooperated with the Chinese Communist Cultural Bureau and Peiping University from 1952 to 1955 in sponsoring annual training classes for archaeological workers. After three months of training, the workers were sent back to their original posts to collect and categorize artifacts and relics. Under the "Ministry of Culture," cultural bureaus in administrative districts, provinces and municipalities were created and works on artifacts published. During this period many tombs were ransacked to the indignation of the public.
The "Institute of Modern History" was beaded by Fan Wen-lan, who conducted academic work through group study. The institute published collections of research papers on the Taiping Rebellion and textbooks on modern Chinese history for colleges and high schools.
The "New Historical Society of China," organized by historians in Peiping, became the "Chinese Historical Society" on July 28, 1951. At the inauguration ceremony, Kuo Mo-jo analyzed the changes in the method, style, objective and emphasis of the study of history in a speech entitled The New Age in (Communist) Chinese Historiography" as follows: "(1) Gradual change from old idealism to materialism; (2) gradual change from individual to collective research; (3) gradual change from "seeking personal fame and success to serving the people;" (4) gradual change from "treasuring the past and belittling the present to stressing the modern period;" (5) gradual change from "focusing on big nation chauvinism to national minorities;" (6) gradual change from "centering on Europe and America to giving attention to Asian history." The society was divided into research groups studying the historical development of Chinese society, modern history of China, the history of racial minorities in China and the history of Asia. The history departments of universities in Peiping and offices of the "State Bureau of Files" cooperated in publishing a series on modern Chinese history under 12 headings: Opium War, Taiping Rebellion, Mohammedan Uprisings, Nien Uprisings, Sino-French War, Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, Westernization of the Manchu Court, Boxer Incident, Hundred Days of Reformation, Wuchang Uprising and Nationalist Revolution, Northern Warlords and May Fourth Movement. The series was completed and published by 1959.
The general college curriculum centered around such courses as historical materialism, fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, new democracy, political economy and dialectical materialism and historical materialism. All history students were required to study selected readings on the history of Marxism-Leninism.
In October, 1953, Hsiang Ta, professor of history at Peiping University, charged historical research in mainland China was primitive and lacked strong and clear leadership. The "Chinese Academy of Sciences" had only two institutes, one on archaeology and one on modern history, without an overall historical research program. The "Chinese Historical Society" had provided little leadership in this regard, he said. Research in history lacked free discussion and self-criticism. Problems concerning slave society and feudalism in ancient China had been raised and solutions were needed but there was no discussion. Hsiang Ta said: "Since a few articles and reports, nothing more has been written. Academic studies cannot be improved and advanced without free discussion, criticism and self-criticism." There were no periodicals devoted to a comprehensive study of history. There was a lack of communication between history departments of universities.
In December of 1952, Ho Chu expressed agreement with Hsiang's opinions and pointed out that "little attention has been paid to world history." In this regard, he noted, the Institute of History of the Soviet Academy of Sciences was divided into 12 research groups, 7 of which were concerned with the study of world history.
Kuo Mo-jo's "Report concerning the Basic Situation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Its Future Tasks" of March, 1954, urged the strengthening of social studies. He said: "Presently we have four institutes on economics, languages, archaeology and modern history. Being planned are institutes for ancient history and medieval history. Other institutes on philosophy, international relations and Asian history are urgently needed. We are planning to concentrate our manpower to strengthen the existing institutes and carry out research work in the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and to hold various discussions in accordance with a plan so that the current academic disputes concerning the theory of and actual research in history may he gradually resolved."
In the same year three institutes of history were set up. The First Institute, headed by Kuo Mo-jo, engaged in the research of primitive history. The Second Institute, headed by Chen Yuan, engaged in the study of medieval history. The Third Institute, headed by Fan Wen-lan, engaged in the study of modern history.
The first issue of the Journal of Historical Research was published in February 1954 The editorial committee was composed of: Yin Ta, Pai Shou-i, Hsiang Tai, Lu Cheng-yu, Tu Kuo-hsiang, Wu Han, Chi Hsien-lin, Hou Wai-lu, Hu Sheng, Fan Wen-lan, Chen Yuan, Chen Ying-ko, Hsia Nai, Kuo Mo-jo, Chi Wen-fu, Tang Yung-ping and Liu Ta-nien. Kuo Mo-jo was chairman. A series of translations of Russian histories was published. The New Construction magazine became the official publication in early 1954 as part of the Kuang Ming Daily. Members of the editorial committee were largely historians, including Wu Han as chairman.
To promote the materialistic viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese Communists attempted to downgrade all other influential historical theories through purges. Hu Shih, who advocated the study of history by the experimental method, was the first to be criticized. This campaign was started soon after the establishment of the Peiping regime and reached a climax in 1953. Discussion meetings to liquidate Hu Shih's "academic thoughts" were held and criticisms were published in periodicals and newspapers. Hu was attacked for opposing the theory of class struggle, negating the existence of primitive society, advocating gradual evolution and promoting textual research. In 1955 Hu commented on these criticisms, saying that his friends and students on the mainland did not even have the right to speak.
When the Communists were taking over, large quantities of ancient books were lost or damaged. The collections of many landlords were divided by peasants as profit and some were regarded as trash and burned. Some rural cadres believed that all classics were "feudal superstitions" and should be destroyed; some works were damaged by rats, insects, damp and mildew. People used classical books as materials for paper making or distributed them to groceries as wrappings. The quantity of books destroyed in this way was startling. In an editorial on October 25, 1956, Kuang Ming Daily said:
"Last year over 33,000 catties of classical books were purchased in Suian county, Chekiang province, and then shipped to Shanghai for paper manufacturing. Fortunately, it was discovered by the Shanghai Municipal Cultural Bureau, which quickly organized rescue teams to salvage them. Rescued were topographical records, medical books, family records, lithographic paintings and novels totaling 2,500 catties in weight and 10,400 volumes. In 1954, the Kwangtung Provincial Cultural Bureau discovered important notices and documents."
After six years of power, the Chinese Communists began to worry about the silence of the intellectuals. Mao initiated the "Let one hundred flowers bloom and one hundred schools of thought contend" movement. This turned out to be the prelude to the "anti-Rightist struggle." During the "bloom and contend" period, scholars in social studies recommended that to develop the social sciences, attitudes should be changed. This was pointed out in "Questions Concerning the Social Sciences" by Chang Po-chun and Lo Lung-chi in the name of the Provisional Group for Central Scientific Planning of the China Democratic League. Lo as well as Tseng Chao-lun, Chien Wei-chang and Tao Meng-ho were repudiated and Fei Hsiao-tung, Wu Chin-tsao and Li Chin-han were attacked as bourgeois Rightists. In May of 1957, "rectification" started. On September 18, 1957, Kuo Mo-jo spoke at a forum sponsored by the "Chinese Academy of Sciences." He said: "The Chang-Lo alliance has proposed an anti-socialist scientific program, which is a move of serious significance launched by the bourgeois rightists in their frenzied offensive against the Communist Party and the socialist system. Its objective is to use the bourgeois reactionary world outlook to oppose and replace the Marxist-Leninist world outlook."
In 1958, the Peiping regime called for the destruction of the "dynastic tradition" and a "revolution in historiography", i.e., stress on the role of the laboring masses in the writing of history. This was followed by heated argument. Most people maintained that it was impossible to "destroy the dynastic system." During this period, noted historians subjected to struggle included Lui Hai-chung, Hsiang Ta and Yung Meng-yuan.
In 1959, the Teaching-Research Group on Ancient and Medieval Chinese History of Tientsin Normal University published an article asserting that "the poison spread by Chien Mu's An Outline of Chinese History has not yet been thoroughly liquidated. Its philosophy has been constantly reflected in teaching and research in many forms." Chien, whose historical viewpoint was still influential in mainland China after the Communist occupation, was repudiated primarily for advocating that the political power of a state is a tool of class reconciliation and the culture of a nation determines the progress of history. Chien's opinion was obviously a fatal blow to the materialistic view of history.
In 1955, many historians were enlisted to set up a program of philosophy and social sciences for 1965-67. The 12-year development program for history called for a study extending from primitive society to the establishment of the Peiping regime, including the history of different peoples, economic and cultural histories of China and other countries, the history of world revolution, history of international relations and the history of Asia. Important historical and technical works of the dynastic period as well as modern works were to be edited and printed. Historical files, pictures, books' and documents were to be arranged and edited.
In 1958, the department of history of Peiping University proposed a five-year program of teaching and research. Renovations in ancient Chinese history followed the policy of "being liberal to the present and stingy to the past" and "applying the past to the present and thoroughly criticizing bourgeois academic ideology." Courses such as the development of Marxist-Leninist history in China, criticism and repudiation of bourgeois historiography and history of land ownership in feudal society were added. Graduate students were required to spend more than six months in labor training.
Renovation of modern Chinese history covered the period from the Opium War in 1840 to the present. Both the theory and study of current events and policy were emphasized. Class discussion was used to enliven the spirit of "bloom and contend" and to achieve the aim of benefiting both teaching and learning. Collective works that had to be completed within two or three years included writing and editing of the lecture notes totaling some 150,000 words and reference materials on modern and contemporary Chinese history as well as publication of books and periodicals in the fields of modern and contemporary history.
The revised history of Asia also included African history. In order to cooperate with Soviet Orientalists, modern and contemporary Japanese history and modern and contemporary Indian history were offered in 1958, history of the national liberation struggle of African countries and history of the liberation struggle of the Indian people in 1959, Thai history, history of the Japanese workers' movement and India's land system in 1960, history of Japanese peasant movements, the Indian caste system and Sino-Burmese relations in 1961, and histories of Ceylon and Nepal in 1962. Long-range projects included: (1) History of the struggle of the Asian people for "liberation;" (2) socialist construction and reform in Asia and (3) impact of the Chinese "revolution" in Afro-Asian nations.
A plan for arranging and publishing documents on modern Chinese history submitted by the Third Institute of History in 1958 covered reports to the throne, essay collections, notes, diaries and specialized writings. The work of arrangement was done by the institute in cooperation with the teaching-research sections in modern history of universities and individual researchers in modern history. The program, scheduled to be completed in ten years, was divided into two stages: 1. Processing of 100 million words in the first five years (1958-62), of which part would be carried out by the three institutes of history and the rest by concerned departments and personnel; 2. Processing of another 100 million words in the second five years (1962-67).
During 1962-67, the "Institute of Economics" of the "Chinese Academy of Sciences" compiled and edited reference materials on modern Chinese economic history. By 1965, those published were: (1) Materials on Modern Chinese Industry, 1840-1914, totaling about 1.4 million words; (2) Materials on Modern Chinese Agriculture, 1840-1937; (3) Materials on Modern Chinese Handicraft Industry, 1840-1948 and (4) Materials on Modern Foreign Trade, 1840-1895. Preparations were made for the editing of modern histories on railways and navigation.
The "China Book Company" was primarily concerned with publishing classics in literature and history, historical materials and modern academic writings.
In 1958-1962, the Chinese Communists launched the so-called "great leap forward" which resulted in a "great leap backward." During this period, there were many questions concerning evaluation of historical figures, elimination of the "dynastic system," farmers' war, policy of toleration, combination of historical facts and theories, historicism and class view, and history of the masses.
Chinese historical figures were re-evaluated by Chinese Communist historians. Heroes were downgraded. Legends and histories of kings and revolutionary leaders and heroes were rewritten. However, such rewritten history was not accepted the people. A renovation of the historical evaluation of historical figures emphasized the following eight points: (1) History of historical figures should be dated and localized; (2) historical developments centering around such figures should be emphasized; (3) political rather than personal activities and philosophies should be emphasized; (4) anchronisms should be eliminated or avoided; (5) historical figures should not be dramatized and overemphasized; (6) history should be written from the viewpoints of production struggle and class struggle; (7) analysis of historical material should follow the principles of historical materialism; (8) class struggle in the development of history should be emphasized.
Elimination of the "dynastic system" in historical studies was first advocated in 1958. However, Kuo Mo-jo and Chien Po-tsan argued in favor of keeping the dynastic system a convenient method of treating historical events chronologically.
The farmers' war and the policy of toleration of the farmers in their struggle with the feudal lords were considered as logical developments of history. In 1951, Chien Po-tsan pointed out in his theory on farmers' war that the farmers rose up against the suppression of feudal lords and landlords but did not struggle against them as a class. The farmers rose up against the tyranny of the emperors but did not consider monarchism as a subject of their struggles.
Articles on historical studies devoted most of their space to expositions of Marxism-Leninism rather than research on historical facts. The trend to replace history by theory was attacked by Wu Nai and others.
Historicism and the class viewpoint became heated topics of discussion in1963 and 1964. The discussion was brought out by Professor Liu Chieh of the Chung Shan University in Canton. He advocated that the Marxist method of class analysis should not be used in the study of the history of ancient Chinese philosophies. To combat such ideological "poison," the Communists began to expound on the intimate relations between historical materialism and the class' viewpoint.
Chinese Communist historical research institutions began with the "Chinese Academy of Sciences" under which there were the "Institute of Archaeology" and the "Institute of Modern History." In 1954, the First Institute, Second Institute and Third Institute of History replaced the former establishments and conducted research in ancient history, medieval history and modern history. In 1960, the three institutes were renamed the History Research Institute and the Medieval History Research Institute. The History Research Institute is a merger of the First and Second Institutes of History and is subdivided into five research offices. Kuo Mo-jo became director and Yi Ta and Hou Wai-lu deputy directors. The Third Institute was renamed the Institute of Modern History with Fan Wen-lan as director and Liu Ta-nien and Li Shu as deputy directors. In September, 1964, the Institute of History published the History Series. The preface states that the "institute follows the party's political line and the party's mass line."
In October, 1962, the editorial office of New Construction published Wen Shih (Literary History) which included articles on ancient and medieval history, philosophy, languages and history of scientific technology.
After start of the "cultural revolution," Mao Tse-tung ordered historians to do research in villages and factories and write the so-called "five histories," i.e., factory history, social history, village history, family history and street history. In the universities, modern history was emphasized, especially the period after the May Fourth Movement.
Dogged adherence to Marxist-Leninist materialism has created a stifling and sterile atmosphere in Chinese Communist historical studies and research. -Sung Hsi