Content created 2017-02-15
File last modified:
Go to
Procursus,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
The patrician families of great influence and prestige had been very important in establishing social classes and in “fixing” the pattern of social relations. It was mentioned in Chapter I that the shì jiā 世家 of Hàn 汉 [period 6] and the méndì 门第 of Jìn 晋 [period 8] and the Six Dynasties 六朝 [period 7e] were conspicuous social distinctions. [See note.] Shì jiā were long-lasting families of the most prominent officials, or they were wealthy scholar-official families. Méndì 门第 means the established social status of such families. The people of such families, generally separate from the commoners, [and having] accorded themselves the highest social positions, refused social calls from families considered lower than theirs or families with no social and political prestige. Gradually the common people recognized them as a higher social class and felt inferiority in the presence of members of such families. Even some of the emperors had to admit that this tradition was an established one and that there was nothing they could do to interfere with it.
[Note: Shì jiā 世家 or “generational family” refers to a family influential for many generations. For many purposes it can best be glossed “elite” or “aristocrat.” Yang tends to use the slightly Roman translation “patrician.” Méndì (which can be written either 门第 “door rank” or 门地 “door place”) usually means simply “family status” (often symbolized in verbal expressions by the word “door”), but here refers to families of high status. —DKJ]
In the period of the Six Dynasties [period 7], the nationally known patrician families were the Cuī 崔 (including the famous Cuī Zōngbó 崔宗伯) and Lu 卢 (the family of Lú Mǐn 卢敏) in the north, Wáng 王 (the family of Wáng Dào 王道) and Xiè 谢 (including Xiè Ān 谢安) in the south. Next to these four were many others, such as Zhū 朱, Zhāng 张, Yáng 阳, Zhào 赵, Lǐ 李, Wèi 魏, etc. At this time, the present north China was invaded and occupied by the Mongols and other northern tribes. The Jìn royal court had to move across the Yangtze River [Chinese: Chángjiāng 长江] to the south. Many of the high officials and their families went along. Then the culture in the south was still low compared with that of the north. For this and other reasons, the northern emigrants, especially those of the “high brow” class, felt superiority toward and wanted to keep themselves separate from not only the local people but also the lower class of emigrants. As a result, there were so-called “emigrant high families.” (qiáo xìng 侨姓). Humiliated or influenced by these outsiders, the local shì 士 leaders also built up their patrician families. These were called by historians the Wú families (Wú xìng 吴姓) meaning the local big families, because the south was then generally called Wú.
[Note: Remember that through most of Chinese history "North" referred to the Yellow River basin and "South" to the Yangtze river basin. On a modern map of China, both rivers strike us as central. —DKJ]
Not all the gentry families left the north to emigrate to the south. Those who remained were not molested by the foreign rulers but received a certain degree of protection. Thus, these families were not only able to keep what they had but were also to increase their size and social prestige. They were the patrician families in the north.
Culturally, the foreign rulers were much lower than the Chinese. Fortunately, they were eager to adopt or to imitate the Chinese. One of the Chinese characteristics which the nomad appreciated and tried to build up was the patrician family and its prestige. Consequently, some of the foreign high officials adopted Chinese names and imitated all the etiquette of the then Chinese patrician families . Thus, there were in the north, also, two kinds of patrician families, the Chinese kind and the kind of foreign origin.
Yáng Yúnrú 扬筠如 made a study of the patrician families of the Six Dynasties period [Note] (a good work), in which he listed five causes for the rise of patrician families at that time.
[Note: Jiupin zhongzheng yu lu chao menfa by Yáng Yúnrú 扬筠如. Commercial Press, Hong Kong, 1950.
Author Yang does not provide Chinese characters for this item, but printed at the end of the succeeding note he places the closely similar string Jiǔpǐn zhōngzhèng yǔ Yuáncháo ménfá 九品中正与元朝门阀. If this is the title, then either the “lu” in his transcription or the 元 in the Chinese title is wrong. —DKJ]
Cause 1. One is a remote cause. In the periods of Western Hàn (Xīhàn 西汉 [-206-8, period 6b]) and Eastern Hàn (Dōnghàn 东汉 [25-220, period 6d]), there was already the social trend of emphasizing and exalting the families of many generations, long traditions, and high officials. This was especially evident in the Eastern Hàn time. Starting from this period, special favor or attention was given to families of higher social positions in the selection of candidates for government officials. This favoritism is indicated in an imperial edict which tried to stop this trend. It says, for example:
In selecting candidates from among the people, meritorious achievements should be emphasized. Now the local officials who are responsible for the selection seem to not understand the true meaning and purpose of their duty. They base the selection chiefly on family status or the person’s genealogy. This is wrong and meaningless. Formerly, candidates were selected from among people of all social levels. Some have come from humble farms, or small villages. Family status or genealogy was not a prerequisite. … I approve this kind of selection.(Hòuhànshū 后汉书卷三, p. 3; Si bu pi yao ben. [No characters provided. But see previous note. —DKJ])
Cause 2. The second cause for the rise of patrician families was the corruption of the selection system of Jiǔpǐn zhōngzhèng 九品中正 [“promotion by recommendation” — see note.].
[Note: The jiù pǐn 九品 or “nine grades” in the expression jiǔpǐn zhōngzhèng 九品中正 refer to the nine levels of official rank used in imperial China as a hierarchical classification of officials and the posts they held, somewhat as civil services ranks are used today. Sources conflict about the origins of the system, usual dates being about AD 220 or AD 550. In most periods ranks were clustered into a couple of classes as higher or lower. In the Qīng 清 dynasty (period 21) these were called “first” and “second” class in English, but zhèng 正 and cóng 从, “proper” and “follower” in Chinese. Most ranks also had subdivisions within them. Historians tend to refer to them as “rank 3c” or “rank 9b2” and the like. Although I have never discovered an English writer who explicitly says so, the numbering seems to run from 1 at the top of the system to 9 at the bottom, the opposite of University of California professorial “steps.” (Having the high number at the bottom reduces the “grade inflation” caused by adding more numbers to the top of the system, as the University of California has done over the years.) The zhōngzhèng 中正 in the expression jiǔpǐn zhōngzhèng means “fairness.” The system referred to here is one of recommendation for official office, as opposed to the later use of a more universalistic civil service examination system. —DKJ]
First, the selection was completely controlled by people of already exalted families in high positions. Such people would undoubtedly give best opportunities and high positions to their own kind. As a result, there were no people of humble origins in the high bracket of public offices, nor people of high families in unimportant positions. The patrician families had high officials in every generation whereas the families of the common people had almost no way to make even a little advance.
Second, in picking a candidate, usually his family background and personal reputation were first taken into serious consideration whereas his actual achievements were lightly passed up as a secondary point. One conscientious person wrote to Wáng Dào 王道, a powerful political figure, saying,
“The reason for China’s becoming weak and for the collapse of the empire is the corruption of the selection system. In administering the selection, empty reputation comes first and facts last. Consequently, people compete to build up exaggerated reputations and get false commendations from each other. Those who have words from important people get the first class of positions and those who have introductions from lesser people are put in the last. When this situation is wide spread, the selection system must collapse. (Jìnshū, juàn 71 晋书卷七十一, p. 13.)
Third, because of this situation, the administration of the selection had to devote a major part of its time to the study of the genealogies or family histories of the whole country. Thus, it was impossible for it to examine and compare the candidates’ characters and achievements. Gradually, the selection was dependent entirely upon family status, no longer a choice of true and able personnel. High government offices were in the hands of the big families. Humble people did not have the opportunity or courage to hold the lower offices. Thus, the distinction between the shì class and the commoners became very apparent.
Cause 3. The third cause for the rising of patrician families was the change of social attitude. The fact that from Hàn time more attention was given to those socially high families was not all wrong or baseless. Many of the families did have members of great character and courageous conduct against the corrupting forces of a decaying period. Such people would undoubtedly draw admiration of the people as a whole. When people learned that many of these people were from the top class families, they came to the conclusion that good people generally came from great families and that only great families can produce good and capable people. It was then also believed that a few capable persons may have come from humble families; but that either they are a few exceptions or they are not morally good.
Cause 4. The fourth cause was the change of the economic system. In the Hàn period every family paid taxes to the government regardless of its political or social position. A family of the commoners had to pay the taxes and so had a family of the aristocracy. But in the later Jìn and the Six Dynasties periods, the politically powerful families and the socially high families could all avoid the obligation of paying taxes, or they could pay much less than they ought to pay. Consequently, the families of the commoners had to pay more so that the nation’s revenue could be kept from shrinking. Those were great injustices. But the humble families could do nothing about it. Only if one could build up a strong and aristocratic family would he have the privilege of being free from certain taxes. Therefore, there was a great economic incentive in trying to establish a patrician family. The difference between the aristocratic families and the common families was not only social and cultural but also political and economic. Whenever political and economic factors are involved in social distinctions, the social class struggle becomes serious and hostile.
Cause 5. The fifth cause was the “we-group” feeling, or the consciousness of self-preservation. As has been pointed out previously, the high class gentry families which followed or assisted the Jìn royal court to move to the south felt social and cultural superiority toward the local people, yet at the same time they must have also felt insecure in a new land. In order to preserve the superiority for themselves and in order to protect themselves from being superseded by the local people, they formed a nucleus of northern families. In reacting to or counteracting this tendency, the local southerners declared that theirs were also great families and they also formed associations. The same social interaction happened in north China. But in the north it was the Chinese traditional families, which were in the position of the emigrant families in the south. The families of foreign origins were in the position of the southern local families.
The patrician families of the Six Dynasties period had great influence upon politics, upon the social life, and upon the intellectual development as well. Politically, most of the high government offices were occupied by people of such families and the nations’ administration was by and large under their control or in their charge. This situation produced a number of vital results. The good ones were that a national policy, whether in regard to war or civil construction, could easily be formulated and put into practice and the forces for carrying out the policies could also be easily mobilized and manipulated for good purposes. In other words, when the politics were in the hands of good patrician families, the government and the nation were on a sound base.
Unfortunately, the great families also had bad political influences. They had been long used to occupying high government offices. They assumed that they are always entitled to the privilege. They had no feeling of appreciation when appointed to high offices. On the other hand, if they were given a position lower than what they wished, they immediately felt insulted and got angry with the emperor and the royal court. Some even went so far as to harbor rebellious ideas. It is no exaggeration that many of the patrician families had no loyalty or allegiance to the royal house or to the nation. Thus, the power of the emperor and of his court was weakened and the traditional emperor-minister relationship endangered. This situation finally produced a number of the well-known usurpers such as Wáng Dūn 王敦 (266-324) and Huán Xuán 桓玄 (369-404).
The big families had also made the government corrupt and inefficient. This result was due partly to their own selfishness, short sightedness, and extravagant way of living and partly to their negligence as to how duties were performed in their offices. Because their daily life was so extravagant, they had to have big amounts of wealth all the time. The easiest way to amass big amounts of wealth was the manipulation of their political power and privileges through their high government offices. The result was corruption in the government. Then, most of the high officials who came from the big families did not actually work in the office. They delegated their duties to their subordinates. Many of the subordinates were people of bad character, low moral standards, and little cultural cultivation, who got into the offices through bribery and other infamous methods. They were the cause of political and administrative inefficiency.
Socially, the big families’ influence was that they kept the old traditions and other cultural heritages intact. They made changes and created new ones for the society. They kept and increased people’s interest in culture and social values. At times of social decadency and social confusion the good patrician families stood firmly for justice, uprightness, established social values, and other good virtues. They had the courage to defy all the fashionable but corrupting forces. They also had the wisdom to differentiate what is right and what is wrong. With these families as the North Star, or as a beacon in the dark, the common people or the weak-minded people had been helped or encouraged to follow the right course in the social disturbances.
Again, the influences had not always been good. Sometimes they were bad or undesirable in many aspects. As has been pointed out previously, many of these families led an extravagant daily life, which they set up as the way to lift up a family’s social status. Consequently, there was a keen competition of extravagance among these families themselves and a great yearning to “keep-up-with-the-Joneses” among the ordinary people who were influenced by the big families. A great part of the nation’s wealth was wasted in luxurious spending and very little went to construction work, and still less to the improvement of the common people’s lot.
Another undesirable aspect of the social influence was that the patrician families looked down upon people who did not belong to their class and stubbornly refused to have any social or matrimonial relations with them. Consequently, the common people and those who already had political positions, but culturally were still out of the patrician family class, grew in their hearts bitterly resentful against the big families; the small people accumulated a feeling of inferiority toward these people; and the distinction between the two social classes became sharper and sharper as the class consciousness of each group increased.
The intellectual development of the Six Dynasties period was greatly influenced by the big families. Many people of these families spent all their time in practicing the art of “empty discourse” (qīngtán 清谈). In the empty discourse no practical affairs or problems were touched, but only subjects of metaphysical thinking. The thoughts of Lǎozi 老子 and Zhuāngzǐ 庄子 and the philosophy of Buddhism were mostly favored topics in such conversations. Out of these empty discourses grew the Chinese metaphysics and the elaborated etiquette in conversation. It was also these people who first expounded Buddhism alongside of Chinese thoughts and started the blending of the two different ways of thinking which formed a clue to the Lǐxué 理学 philosophy of the Sòng 宋 period (960-1279, period 15).
Many of the scholars produced by the big families vigorously attacked Confucianism and all the traditions based on it. The traditional attitudes, thoughts, and principles established in Hàn times based on Confucian teachings were in great danger under the ferocious fire of these carefree scholars, or míngshì 名士, the well know “Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove” (Zhúlín Qīxián 竹林七贤).
In summary, it is safe to say that the patrician families of the Six Dynasties period had great influence over every aspect of the people’s life. Politically, socially, and economically, they all occupied key positions and played very important roles. Unfortunately, the influence was not always desirable and the creation or fortification of the distinction between the shì class and the common people was the worst.
According to history, the patrician families lost their political power and social prominence in the Táng 唐 period (618-907, period 12). The losses were attributed to two facts. One fact was that Táng Tàizōng 唐太宗, second emperor of Táng (reign12a-2), and many of his successors, all purportedly tried to suppress the power and prominence of the deep-rooted big families.
It has been mentioned formerly that the patrician families occupied high government offices, controlled the nation’s administration and many of them had no loyalty toward the emperor and his royal court. Some even became usurpers. They formed a great threat to the royal house and not a few dynasties were actually overthrown by the powerful families. Táng Tàizōng took the past events as good warnings and decided to dislodge or at least to weaken the position and prestige of the big families.
It should, however, be pointed out that Táng Tàizōng’s effort was not to suppress the old patrician families. He only disapproved the patrician family as an institution. His chief point was that selection of government officials and arranging social ranks for prominent families should he based on present merits and achievements, not on old or long established family status. In other words, family prominence should be achieved, not inherited from forefathers. Thus, what Táng Tàizōng actually did was to suppress the traditional big families but to build up new ones on achieved merits. The traditional big families, had not been really suppressed. They were merely deprived of the top rank of social importance. Even this deprivation was only official, that is, only in government records. In the people’s mind they remained as first class prominent families long after Táng Tàizōng’s time.
But the old patrician families did eventually disappear. Their disappearance was attributed to a new social attitude. This new attitude was that there must be good fame based on real moral, social, and cultural achievements by its members before a family can be exalted as a great family. Those whose members no longer render any service to the nation or to the local community and no longer conduct themselves as great characters will not be considered great families, in spite of the fact that they had been in the high positions before. When such social attitudes were firmly established, those old but “empty” patrician families soon collapsed and before long they were forgotten, or only remembered as historical events. It is true that new great families grew up, in due course, and the “Jones” class was still in existence. But the new ones were different from the old ones in that the new ones did not have a feudalistic nature, or, in other words, their status was not to be inherited by their offspring. From now on, if a family had great people and they had distinctive merits, it was a great family and it belonged to the upper class. As soon as it no longer produced great characters and showed no significant achievements it stopped being a great family and dropped out of the upper class feature. Lǐ Jì 李绩, statesman of Táng, once talked with his brother Bì 弼 about the rise and fall of great families. He said lamentably:
Look what had happened to the families of Fáng Xuánlíng 房玄龄, Dù Rǔhuì 杜汝晦, Gāo Jìfǔ 高季辅, etc. (All great statesmen of early Táng). These people worked hard to establish their families in a patrician status. They must have hoped that this would benefit their progeny and their progeny would keep it. But now that high status is lost to all these families. It was lost because of the failure of their offspring. (Xīn Tángshū, juàn 93 新唐书卷九十三, p. 11)
A scholar named Liǔ Pín 柳玭 of later Táng wrote in his family teaching:
All those great famous families were established through their ancestors’ hard work, thrifty living, and good characters. But then they all declined to the extent of dissolution because of the misbehavior and extravagance of their offspring. In building up a family it is as hard as trying to climb up to the sky, but in destroying it, it is as easy as burning a dry feather. (Tōngzhì juàn 25 通志眷二十五, p. 1.)
Patrician families and the class of patrician families have been in existence from very early times up to the present. But those which existed in the periods between Eastern Hàn and the beginning of Táng were of a feudalistic nature. Once such a family was established, it could last through many generations. The patrician status was actually, if not institutionally, passed down from one generation to the other regardless of whether or not the next generation was worthy of it. It was under this tradition that some great families of the Six Dynasties period could last many hundred years.
[Note: Yang's use of the term "feudal" here is misleading, since it does not refer to a system in which political authority is held in feud, but rather what would today would be termed a system of political patrimonialism. —DKJ]
From Táng on, this institution of a feudalistic nature was broken. The Táng emperors made it clear that patrician families could only be built upon and kept by their members’ distinctive achievements and extremely worthy characters. The Táng authority did not succeed in actually suppressing the then long established patrician families, but it did succeed in paving the way for a significant social change. Public opinion from then on endorsed actually earned high social status and discarded that which has only a conspicuous front door but inside of the home is empty. This attitude has been true ever since and that is why the rise and fall of families have been frequent in the past fifteen hundred years.
Pān Guāngdàn 潘光旦 made a study of ninety-one common descent groups in the district of Jiāxīng 嘉兴 [in Zhèjiāng 浙江 Province], in which he discovered that one zú 族, or common descent group, lasted twenty-one generations, almost five hundred and fifty years. (Míngqīng liǎng dài Jiāxīng de wàngzú. 明清两代嘉兴的旺族 Commercial Press, 1937.) The shortest one is of four generations, a little over one hundred years, and the average length is of over eight generations, over two hundred years. While such length seems to refute the assumption that the rise and fall of families are frequent, actually it does not, because a family might be able to last for many generations but it could not all the time be a great or patrician family.
The gentry-bureaucracy, or the shìdàfū 士大夫, as a social class is not to be identified with the patrician families. The patrician families were only a part, the top part of the gentry-bureaucracy class. Undoubtedly most of the gentry members had the ambition of building-up a patrician family, but few actually succeeded. Therefore, a discussion is due the whole gentry-bureaucracy class.
As was pointed out at the beginning of this writing, shì was the last and the lowest rank in the hierarchy of the ruling class in the Zhōu 周 period (period 4). At that time, a learned person among the common people was also called shì. Whether this latter shì was a true commoner with the quality of learning or was a lesser member of the ruling class who for some reason was dropped to the class of the common people is a question yet to be answered. It is possible, however, that some of the shì of the ruling class were degraded to the common people’s rank but still allowed to retain the shì title, or the commoners just continued to address them in the same old way. At any rate, shì was a learned person in comparison with the common people. After Zhōu, or since Confucius established his system of education, any person who received education or learning up to a certain degree was called shì. Because education, or education up to a certain degree, was limited to a portion, and a small portion, of the population, the learned people have been treated as a special class, that is, the gentry class.
In the feudal period, only people of the ruling class could have education. Educated men and rulers were identified to each other, although by no means every ruler had education, nor was every educated person a ruler. After the feudal period, China has through all the generations been ruled or administered by educated people. All officials, from the premier down to the county magistrate’s assistants had to be selected from among the educated people, and at various times the education had to be up to a certain degree, that is, the passing of a certain kind of imperial or state examination. Consequently, educated people, or the gentry, have always been closely related to government offices or officialdom. While not all educated men became officials, officialdom was a primary incentive for a majority of those who had chosen to endeavor in study. It has been a universal understanding among the. educated people and the common people as well, that study is for becoming an official and that an official is a man of study. With this historical background, it is small wonder why China has had from very early days a gentry-bureaucracy class.
Recently, a number of sociological and historical studies have been made on the traditional Chinese gentry. Of these The Chinese Gentry by CHANG Chung-li (Zhāng Zhònglǐ 张仲礼) and “State and Society in Nineteenth-Century China” by Franz MICHAEL, are the most objective and systematic treatises. PĀN Guāngdàn’s works on this subject are concentrated on the tracing of genealogies with the emphasis on heredity and genetics. FEI Hsiao-tung’s (Fèi Xiàotōng 费孝通) study is too much biased with condemning the whole gentry as exploiters, usurers, bad landlords, and associates of corrupted officials. With the same weakness are studies made by people who have too much of a “liberal’s” disposition. For the sake of objectivity and thoroughness The Chinese Gentry is used as the main reference in this discussion. [Note]
[Note: Fei Hsiao-tung’s (Fèi Xiàotōng 费孝通) book China’s Gentry: Essays on Rural-Urban Relations appeared in 1953 from the University of Chicago Press and was based on field case histories. This won it an introduction by Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the most prominent living anthropogists the era, and general acclaim from a western social-science establishment eager for field studies from China. Chang’s (Zhāng Zhònglǐ 张仲礼) The Chinese Gentry: Studies on Their Role in Nineteenth-Century Chinese Society appeared in 1955 from the University of Washington Press, with an introduction by China historian Franz Michael, and it immediately became the standard scholarly study. Although Chang and the present author, Martin Yang, occupied academic posts outside of communist China, Fei chose to remain after the Communists came to power. In pre-Communist days he was the author of Peasant Life in China: A Field study of Country Life in the Yangtze Valley (London, 1939) and Earthbound China: A Study of rural Economy in Yunnan (London, 1948). Fei was perhaps Communist China’s most prominent rural sociologist. By the time Yang’s Chinese Social Structure was published in 1969, from which our reading is taken, Fei, always sympathetic to the situation of China’s lower classes, had been forced to take more and more strident stands in support of the Communist Party's falsifications of history, and during the Cultural Revolution he was forced to denounce all social science as an imperialist oppression. This background may help to explain his condemnation in this paragraph by Yang, who was, after all, writing during mainland China’s Cultural Revolution from staunchly anti-Communist Taiwan. —DKJ]
First, an inquiry into the constitution of the gentry. Strictly speaking, not all people who entered school or studied the Chinese classics could be considered gentry, but only those who possessed an academic degree or title. Generally, an academic degree or a title could be earned only through passing the official examination. In some cases however the degree could be purchased or be granted by the emperor. After a degree was acquired, in either way, the bearer would then be admitted to, or become automatically, a member of the gentry.
Those who came in through examinations were called the “regulars”, whereas those whose acquisition of a degree was through purchasing or outright grant were called “irregulars”. Ordinarily, the “regulars” looked down upon the “irregulars” for the former thought that the degree of the latter was not earned with hard study and the ordeals of the examination and, therefore, was cheap. Because of this discrimination the “irregular” gentry could not have all the important prestige and privileges of the “regulars”, and in most cases, the “irregulars” had to admit their inferiority and become contented with a lesser number of privileges and a lower presige. Since, however a member of the gentry with a purchased or a granted degree could also be given a leader’s position in his local community, or be appointed to a government office, he had the opportunity to make good and to show his capability. If he succeeded, he would gradually be able to win over the regular gentry and then enjoy the same prestige and have the same privileges attached to a regular degree.
The fact that an academic degree could be purchased or granted had a great deal to do with the social mobility in the old times. Traditionally, an ordinary merchant had great difficulty in trying to become a book-study man. There were many kinds of written and unwritten regulations barring him from taking part in the government examination. A rich merchant, however, could spend a big sum to purchase a degree, either for himself or for his son. If it had to be a low one, he could then study hard in order to acquire the higher ones in the future. Anyhow, he or his son was inside of the gate. There was another way. A millionaire merchant could contribute large amounts of money or materials to the government while it was in great need. For such contributions the emperor was glad to grant the merchant or his sons a degree. Although, as pointed out before, wealth alone could not win a family high social position it could put the family on the way of acquiring the position, or, in other words, it could, if properly used, break the barrier which kept the family from becoming eminent.
Of the regular gentry there were two groupings: the upper grouping and the lower grouping. The upper grouping included those who possessed the higher degrees such as:
The lower grouping included those who were only shēngyuán 生员, or those who had just passed the first official examination.
[Note: Another title, xiùcái 秀才 “outstanding talent” referred both to those who passed the county-level examinations and to exam passers in general. —DKJ]
The irregular gentry were also classified into upper and lower classes. Those who had only purchased the degree, such as jiànshēng 监生, student of the imperial college, or gòngshēng but without further advancement belonged to the lower class while those who had purchased the degree and had become officials later belonged to the upper class.
[Note: For a table of gentry positions, also based on Chang’s work, click here. —DKJ]
Generally, the upper class gentry were nationally, provincially, or regionally known scholars and officials of not lower than county magistrate ranks. The lower class gentry were village and town school teachers and were leaders only in their native local community. There were undoubtedly exceptions, for example one of the gentry with only a shēngyuán might become a widely admired philanthropist or dispute mediator.
One great service rendered by Chang and Michael in their respective studies is that they, for the first time, clarified the wrong impression that all the gentry people in the past were big and bad landlords and that all those in that capacity were oppressors of the poor peasants. Now it is proved that not all the gentry were landlords and that not all the gentry landlords were peasant oppressors. Michael [in his introduction to Chang’s book] says that:
A great number of the gentry can be assumed to have been private landowners, and most of these had their land worked by tenants. However, this fact should not lead one to confuse gentry and landlords. The two groups overlapped but did not coincide. A gentry member was not necessarily a landlord, nor was a landlord necessarily a member of the gentry. A gentry member could be very powerful even if he had no land, while landownership without gentry status gave no such power. (The Chinese Gentry, Introduction, p. XVII, Univ. of Washington Press, 1955.)
This statement has been substantiated by Chang Chung-li’s findings in The Gentry in Nineteenth Century China: Their Economic Position as Evidenced by their share of the National Product. Briefly, the findings are:
These figures show us that the large majority of the gentry, especially the lower gentry, but also most of the upper gentry, received their main income not from land but from public service. Therefore, a great majority of the gentry were not big land-lords. Another fact is that those upper gentry families who were large landowners usually acquired their land after they gained prominence and wealth in public service. Zēng Guófān’s 曾国藩 family is a good example.
Some writers like to libel the whole gentry as a landlord usurer class ruling and exploiting the poor peasant people. No doubt there were many such gentry. In almost every community there had been a few local villains, and bad gentry. But to say that all gentry are ruthless exploiters and usurers is far from being true. Generally, the traditional gentry provided indispensable leadership for the Chinese community under which it had been able to function.
As has been pointed out previously, traditionally the Chinese community has been a self sustained and self-managed society. The government did very little in helping the common people to improve their living conditions or to avoid the damage of various calamities. That the people have been able to live in communities and make progress, though slow, generation after generation was due, at, least partly, to the leadership played by the gentry. It is fair to say that there were bad gentry, but there were also good gentry; and the gentry as a whole had bad conduct but also had good records.
Specifically, the gentry had been active in the construction and repairing of roads and bridges, either with their own finances or acting as organizers and leaders of the construction projects. In the 道光 period of Qīng 清 (priod 21a-6), for example, a jiànshēng of Huázhōu 华洲 in Shǎanxī 陜西 Province financed the building of more than 100 lǐ of roads through the mountains, spending 10,000 taels on the project. In Huìzhōu 惠州 prefecture, Guǎngdōng 广东, the gentry’s activities in the building and repair of bridges and ferries during the Qīng dynasty are shown in the following table (Chang p. 56):
| Bridges | Ferries | |
|---|---|---|
| Joint effort of officials and gentry | 3 | 1 |
| Officials | 10 | 1 |
| Gentry | 34 | 17 |
| Commoners | 18 | 4 |
| Unspecified | 48 | 72 |
The gentry of Róngxiàn 容县 [in Guǎngxī 广西 province], were even more active in such activities. This is shown in the following table (Chang p. 56).
| Bridges | Ferries | |
|---|---|---|
| Officials | 3 | - |
| Gentry | 52 | 21 |
| Unspecified | 32 | 22 |
Many such projects were handled by individual members of the gentry. For projects covering a larger area a number of gentry would have to pool their resources and abilities together in order to carry through the work. Members of the upper gentry usually took the lead. To finance such projects the gentry members often used their own money, but sometimes used funds collected from the local inhabitants. At some times, they promoted and directed the projects but then they turned over the financial burden to the government.
The gentry were very active in irrigation projects. For instance, in Zhuōxiàn 涿县, Zhílì province 直隶 [modern Běijīng 北京 and Héběi 河北], a shēngyuán in the Jiāqìng 嘉庆 period (reign 21a-5) promoted an irrigation project for his rural district. The canal built with his effort irrigated more than 3,000 mǔ 亩 (about 500 acres). The gazetteer of Zhuōxiàn, which was compiled in the Republican period, states that the villagers were still benefiting from this project. Another example is that a jǔrén of Qīngyuán 清源, Zhílì, in the Guāngxù 光绪 period (reign 21a-9) promoted and carried out an irrigation project as a remedy after a serious drought. The project irrigated several hundred thousand mǔ. He himself advanced the cost of the labor. In many of the gentry’s writings are great concerns with the problems of irrigation. The writers considered themselves responsible for such work.
A gentry member of Zhèjiāng 浙江 province was so interested in irrigation problems of his own and neighboring areas that he traveled extensively through many localities of Jiāngsū 江苏 and Zhèjiāng provinces and carefully studied the causes of flood and drought. He worked out detailed plans for correcting the situation throughout the entire area, pointing out at which places rivers should be dredged and at which places water should be conserved.(Chang p. 59)
Gentry members were also responsible for the construction and management of granaries. in many localities. Zhū Xī 朱熹 (1130-1200) and his fellow gentry members were the founders of the famous shècāng 社仓 [public granary] institution. It functioned very effectively while it was under their management. Fàn Zhòngyān 范仲淹 (989-1052) started the well-known yìzhuāng 义庄 and later on it became an important social-welfare program of almost every big clan. According to history, when the granaries were managed by conscientious gentry members the people were really benefited and as soon as they became an official program, deterioration started and they changed into a burden to the people. The gentry had also a great share in other local welfare matters. The gentry were invited by the magistrates for consultation on relief projects and they were often appointed as managers of relief bureaus. In other cases, officials merely approvedd the organization of relief works, public cemeteries, foundling homes and other such undertakings, while the funds and management came from the gentry.
Traditionally, gentry members were sought out to settle disputes between local individuals, families, or groups. They had no judicial power in a strict sense, but they settled disputes by acting as arbitrators. It is a well-known fact that in the old days very few people brought their problems to the magistrate unless the settlement of the problem was beyond the ability of the local gentry. For example,
… one shēngyuán was described as so skilful in settling disputes that the villages of his area were seldom involved in lawsuits. Another shēngyuán who was described as straightforward and righteous, often settled disputes on property divisions among family members of households in his area. A gòngshēng was described as so capable in settling disputes that for more than ten years no lawsuits occurred in this village. (Chang p. 59)
One of the main aspects of the gentry’s role in Chinese society was that they functioned as guardians of the traditional moral teachings. In their whole life the gentry represented the Chinese cultural traditions, They were actively engaged in teaching and illustrating the moral principles. The upper gentry members contributed heavily to the establishment of shūyuàn 书院 [private tutorial schools] and other private educational or literature institutions. The gentry also contributed funds and land, the proceeds of which were used to subsidize students. They were ardent supporters of the examination system and the construction and repair of examination halls, for local examinations were regarded as the responsibility of the gentry. In Qīng dynasty there was the institution of expounding the sixteen politico-moral maxims of the “Sacred Edict” intended to indoctrinate the masses with the official ideology. Responsibility for carrying on the expounding and instruction was placed upon the gentry. It is said that in the country-side expounding pavilions were established in big villages and strategic points and trustworthy and law-abiding gentry were selected to be the heads and speakers.
Another traditional function of the gentry was organizing and leading a local defense program whenever social disturbances were prevailing. This function was especially needed when the government forces were weak or deteriorated. “Referring to almost any local gazetteer that recorded the growth of local corps organization in the nineteenth century, it will be found that the organizers and leaders were mainly gentry members. It hardly needs to mention how Zēng Guófān 曾国藩 while a member of the gentry in his native town organized the local corps which later on developed into the famous Hunan militia which eventually succeeded in suppressing the Tàipíngs. But the government had not always been happy in seeing the gentry have a strong and efficient local corps in hand. When conditions were critical such local corps were welcomed by the government. But when the situation improved or got under control the government then tried to either take over the corps or have it dissolved. In some cases the government succeeded but in others, covert resentment or open conflict resulted between the government and the local forces. It was not uncommon that the suspected local corps revolted against any attempt to dissolve it.”
In addition to all the functions mentioned in the foregoing the gentry traditionally played a political role. Generally, the gentry had a duty to represent the opinion and sentiment of the people of their community to the government on unusual occasions, such as a severe drought, flood, locus epidemic, a serious failure of the main crop, heavy damage caused by war or rebels, or grievances due to the presence of notoriously bad government servants. When any such calamities happened, the people would be in great need of help. The kinds of help the people mostly asked for were the lessening or exemption of taxes, the outright granting or lending of grain, the permit and assistance to those who wished to migrate to other parts of the country or to beg for food in better off areas, and the removal and punishment of the evil-doing government servants from the afflicted districts. All such helps were either completely in the jurisdiction of government or directly related to it. Therefore, the people’s needs and their wishes had to be presented to the government and some kind of influence or persuasion had to go with the presentation. Traditionally, it was the local gentry who had always taken up the responsibility of presenting the people’s needs and requests to the government. It was also true that only the upper gentry members could apply influence or the power of persuasion upon the officials. The common people themselves were unable to do it unless they could organize an uprising. But such movements must have gentry members as organizers and leaders; otherwise they would soon be crushed.
The gentry were not officially appointed by the government to represent the people nor were they formally selected by the people. At the beginning it was simply because the gentry were the only educated people in the community and they were the only people supposed to know affairs beyond the common people’s capacity. Moreover, they had the privilege of seeing the officials at any time and expecting a cordial hearing from them. In view of such qualifications it was only natural that the people should have asked their local gentry to see the magistrate or other officials in their behalf. It happened that most of the early interviews and visits between the gentry and the officials bore good results and the people’s wishes were answered. With this happy experience both the people and the gentry did the same thing whenever social crises arose. Subsequently, the practice became a recognized institution.
Good gentry members always felt the responsibility of relieving the people’s hardship or redressing their wrongs by presenting the problems to the government and seeking its action. By “recognized” it means the government implicitly recognized such a role of the gentry. When the gentry came to present the people’s needs and wishes they were duly received and listened to and their problems discussed; when the government had the need of knowing the people’s opinion and sentiment it was also the gentry’s assistance that was solicited.
That the gentry could play such a political role was not only because they had the privilege of seeing officials and being cordially treated but also because some of them had one kind or another of relations with officials or influential people above the county or district magistrates. When such relations were known to the magistrates, the gentry member could speak more effectively before them. If a magistrate should choose to ignore words of the gentry member, the latter could go to a higher official by passing over the former’s office. If the higher official accepted the plea, as he usually did, the magistrate would be in a very embarrassing position. For this reason, many of the district and county magistrates were afraid of the influential gentry and tried to maintain good relations with them. The gentry could either make good use of this situation to serve the people’s cause, or exploit it for selfish purposes. There were numerous instances for both.
So far only the benevolent side of the gentry’s traditional position has been presented. As has been pointed out at the early part of the section, there were bad members among the gentry and the same gentry member might have been benevolent in one aspect of his life but be selfish or harsh in another. Many of them were apt in exploiting their privileged position for selfish purposes. The most evident exploitation was in the field of taxation. Powerful gentry members were able to evade payment of taxes, or even direct some of the revenue into their own pockets. Uneven payment of taxes was quite common. “Gentry members called themselves:
They called the commoners
These terms were used for making differentiations in tax payments.” (Chang p. 43 [Chinese terms restored following Chang.])
Another kind of exploitation was shown in the inequality in allocation of labor conscription and in the practices of gentry in helping others avoid labor service. These exploitations became so serious that they were quite frequently discussed during the Qīng dynasty. The gentry had a privilege of being exempted from labor conscription. Among the commoners the conscription was based on the amount of land owned by the family — more land, more labor. Some of the commoners in trying to avoid or to lesson the labor conscription had allowed their land to be reported by the gentry as belonging to the latter. This arrangement had not only enabled the gentry to charge the commoners a high fee but the commoners’ land could actually be taken over by the gentry. When some commoners had through the gentry’s help been able to avoid the conscription other commoners had to have a greater share of the labor burden. This grievance was at least partly due to the gentry’s exploitation.
There were many other ways in which the gentry could take advantage of their privileged position. Through the manipulation of influence or bribery gentry members could claim public mountains or beach land as their private property. Temples were controlled by gentry who used them as their personal property or to exchange for favors. On some occasions, land belonging to temples was confiscated through gentry effort, the rent being reserved for gentry benefit. Gambling was often backed by gentry who could obtain fess from gamblers. The gentry’s participation in the management of local affairs also gave them opportunities for illegal or unethical economic gains.
For example, there were malpractices in the management of the ever-normal granaries. The purpose of the granaries was to lend grains in the spring and collect grains in the autumn so that the people could receive help, while the grains thus stored had a yearly turnover and did not decay. However, it was often not the poor but the gentry and local bullies who received the benefit of the loans. (Chang p. 51)
It was also a widely spoken fact that some of the landlord-gentry used to exploit their tenants or to absorb the little fields owned by little farmers. Good gentry had been effective arbitrators or peace makers through their good offices. Many a local dispute was happily settled. But bad gentry members used their influence to instigate disputes so they could fish in the muddy water. At any declining period the local villain and the bad gentry were most feared people in a community.
The commoners were people who had no gentry position and who could not enjoy the gentry’s privileges. They were the plain people or the ordinary people. Culturally, the commoners had no formal education; a small number of them may have had a few years of schooling. Those who did go to school had no ambition to take part in the official examination and therefore they had no academic titles. Although they had their social manners, traditions and customs they were still considered people without etiquettes or “culture.”
The commoners included mainly the farmers and the artisans. For a long time the merchants were considered one of the low special groups. They were listed with the so-called “mean people”. In everyday life the “mean people” were not particularly discriminated against by broad-minded people, but on formal occasions they were not supposed to have an equal position with the commoners. They were required to stand or to sit in an inferior seat. The demarcation between the commoners and the gentry had also been quite fluid. In everyday life, a well known scholar enjoying great popularity may say that he is only a lǎobǎixìng 老百姓, a plain commoner [literally: “old hundred names”]. A retired high official living in his native community may like to mingle with the old timers among the commoners and declared that he is just one of them, While many of those who made such expressions might just have been joking, others were quite sincere. In such cases, whether the well-known scholar or the retired official should be considered a gentry or a commoner is quite uncertain. According to convention, they undoubtedly belonged to the gentry. But when they comfortably mingle with the commoners and genuinely declare that they are common people they should be considered commoners. Such people must have had a really happy life, for they could rightfully belong to the gentry class and be welcome and they could easily associate themselves with the common people enjoying their friendship.
While it is true that the commoners did not have the privileges enjoyed by the gentry-bureaucracy, they were not always subjected to the gentry’s oppression without any chance of redressing themselves. In other words, the commoners were not the gentry’s object of lawful exploitation. The gentry members of a community were supposed to be the common peoples’ leaders, their teachers or counselors, and their representatives in dealing with the government or with outsiders. Actually, many of the gentry members successfully carried out such functions or responsibilities. The point to be made here is that, while in individual cases and at various times the Chinese lǎobǎixìng had suffered numerous injustices and ill-treatment from the gentry, or the upper class, they as a whole and according to social ethics were free people and they had the right to demand for themselves human dignity and social justice.
Economically, the life picture of the commoners as a whole had also bright areas and blighted regions. Basically, the commoners were not serfs of any class. The farmers were in many areas and at various times independent and self-sufficient land-cultivators while in other regions and at other times they were poor and exploited tenants subjected to many kinds of exploitation. Due to the lack of other opportunities they were almost permanently bound to the land.
The artisans in towns and cities were always able to make a moderate living but only a few of them ever become important figures of wealth. They were by and large independent shop workers or journeymen. Their economic activities were, however subjected to rigid control of their own guild associations. In the countryside, the farmers and the handicraftsmen were the same people, because most of the farmers and their family members made articles in their slack seasons for both home use and for sale. Fei Hsiao-tung [Fèi Xiàotōng 费孝通] observes:
In China the chief industries such as textiles, are mainly peasant occupations. Owing to the smallness of the farm, the peasants cannot live entirely upon the land. It is a matter of necessity to have some additional income. Moreover, since agriculture cannot give full employment to the peasants, they have plenty of time to carry on industrial jobs in their homestand. (Hsiao-tung Fei, “Peasantry and Gentry: An Interpretation of Chinese Social Structure and Its Changes,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 52, No.1, June, 1946, p.6.)
Since a majority of the traditional commoners were farmers, they did not live in towns but in the countryside. Only the urban or professional artisans lived in towns. To the farm commoners the town was a seat of the gentry. The farmers looked at the seat of the gentry with a mixed feeling of repulsion and admiration. With repulsion because they had to pay taxes, rent, and interest to the gentry living in the town. The annual tribute was their burden. This economic reason was sufficient to arouse the ill will of the farmer toward the town. “However, the town remained the ideal, the dream, and the incentive of peasants. It seems that they were not antagonistic toward the town, nor the gentry, as such. What they are against is their own inability to become one of those who exploit them.” Their desire is that someday they will also live in the town.
The commoners were really the foundation and the main body of China. Numerically, the common people composed 98 per cent of the Chinese population in the 19th century (according to Chang Chung-li and Franz Michael the gentry class of that time occupied two per cent of the population.) Economically, these people were the producers and the manufacturers. Finally, it was these people from whom the gentry and the officials were originally derived. Mencius was absolutely right when he said that the people are important, the state is secondary. Here the people meant the common people and the state meant the ruling class-the gentry-bureaucracy.
Return to top.
Go to next chapter.