|
|
|
Book Review
Asia
| Lynn A. Struve, editor. Time, Temporality, and Imperial Transition: East Asia From Ming to Qing. (Asian Interactions and Comparisons.) Honolulu: University of HawaiÎi Press. 2005. Pp. x, 300. $52.00.
|
| It is no exaggeration to say that different perceptions and periodizations of the segments of time often arise in coincidence with the changing practice of historical writing. This phenomenon is particularly salient in Chinese historiography. In 1902, when Liang Qichao (1873–1929) called for a "historiographic revolution," he chose to target the age-old practice of dynastic historiography, or the tradition of constructing the notion of time on dynastic cycles. In place of the dynastic framework, students of Chinese history since then, particularly those working in the United States, have used (borrowed) new periodizations like "medieval" and/or "late imperial" from Western historiography to generalize the change and continuity in Chinese history. But the new periodizations remain cognizant of the significance of dynastic transitions, such as the ending of the Han in the third century and the Tang in the tenth. |
1
|
|
What about the Ming and Qing transition? Should they be lumped together in constituting the "late imperial" period? In this well-researched and pleasantly coherent collection of essays, Lynn A. Struve and her contributors prompt us to ponder this question by looking at "the multidimensionality of time" (p. 9). The book is not intended directly to challenge the use of the term "late imperial" among China scholars today, nor to propose a new periodization. Instead it invites us to examine the Ming-Qing dynastic transition from a cross-cultural, multiethnic scope and perspective. In the first chapter, Mark Elliott presents a detailed analysis of the invocation of history by the early Manchu rulers in founding the Qing. In preparing for and justifying their southward conquest, he states, Manchu elites harked back to the experiences of such "frontier dynasties" as the Liao and Jin in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Particularly, the Manchus made effort to identify themselves with the Jin and elevate the latter's success. In other words, in the conjuncture of the Ming-Qing transition, there were multiple historical times at play. Elliott's article ends before the actual founding of the Qing, which piqued the reader's curiosity about what happened afterward. Did the Manchus persist in their effort to remain a "frontier dynasty"? At the very end of the essay, Elliott notes that the Manchus accorded homage to Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Ming, which suggested that they had hoped to emulate Zhu's success (pp. 62–63). |
2
|
|
The impact of the Qing establishment on the change of historical consciousness is dealt with more directly by Roger Des Forges in the second chapter, albeit with a different focus. Des Forges examines how the Han Chinese in the Central Plain, or the Henan province/region, reacted to Manchu rule. Like the Manchus, the Han Chinese resorted to historical memory to justify their action (collaboration or resistance) under the new ruler. If the Manchus fell short of finding an appropriate historical precedent in legitimizing their regime, it seemed that the Han Chinese had found one for them by equating the Qing succession to the Ming with the Zhou's succession to the Shang in the eleventh century b.c.e. The example of the Tang seemed also useful because, while founded by the steppe people, it constituted a golden period of Chinese culture, that Qing literati hoped to replicate. |
. . . |
There are about 543 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
