Chinese Dynasties

robto said:

You are true on that. It's very difficult to define what is a "Chinese" in historical periods.

Click to expand...

My point was the fall of literary Chinese in Japan. Korea and Vietnam. This shift happened with the rise of Japan and the fall of Qing Empire. We saw the popularity of non-Chinese systems like kana, hangul and chữ quốc ngữ. Do these indicate that Hua people outside the domain of Qing dynasty started moving away from the concept of Hua during time as they started regarding it as a matter of past and outdated system.

mnsr said:

My point was the fall of literary Chinese in Japan. Korea and Vietnam. This shift happened with the rise of Japan and the fall of Qing Empire. We saw the popularity of non-Chinese systems like kana, hangul and chữ quốc ngữ. Do these indicate that Hua people outside the domain of Qing dynasty started moving away from the concept of Hua during time as they started regarding it as a matter of past and outdated system.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but if you mean the Literary Chinese, I think the Japanese stopped using it a long time ago, long before the fall of Qing.

heavenlykaghan said:

The text also considered the Shu region to be a land of frontier barbarians and the Shu Han was using barbarian forces trying to conquer the "superior state” (geopolitical China)
且亮 既據蜀，恃山嶮之固，不達時宜，弗量勢力。嚴威切法，控勒蜀人；矜才負能，高自矯舉。欲以邊夷之眾抗衡上國 。

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It says Zhuge Liang attempted "to exploit the multitude of barbarians to resist the superior state", i.e. Wei. Note that China was split into three states at this point, and each claimed to be the legitimate China.

San Guo Zhi was also written and sanctioned by the Jin court, a direct successor of the Wei dynasty. It makes sense for them to emphasize the legitimacy of the Wei at the expense of the Shu and Wu.

Changsu Wang said:

I could be wrong but if you mean the Literary Chinese, I think the Japanese stopped using it a long time ago, long before the fall of Qing.

Click to expand...

As per my understanding Japanese still study it in high schools and its influence rather declined only after the Meiji period, especially during the rise of Japanese Empire in 1930s and 40s

y11971alex said:

No it doesn't. It says Zhuge Liang attempted "to exploit the multitude of barbarians to resist the superior state", i.e. Wei.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant semantics. The point being, the Shu region was considered a barbarian region and not the Central State.

Here is another quote from Zhuge Liang in the Shu section of the San Guozhi urging Sun Quan on using the "the people of Wu and Yue against the Central State".
亮曰：「事急矣，請奉命求救於孫將軍。」時權擁軍在柴桑，觀望成敗，亮說權曰：「海內大亂，將軍起兵據有江東，劉豫州亦收眾漢南，與曹操並爭天下。今操芟夷大難，略已平矣，遂破荊州，威震四海。英雄無所用武，故豫州遁逃至此。將軍量力而處之：若能以吳、越之眾與 中國抗衡，不如早與之絕.

And here is a passage from the Wu section where Sun Ce telling his subjects: "Zhongguo is in chaos. With the people of Wu and Yue, and the firmness of the three rivers, we can (wait and) witness how it unfolds."
策單騎出，卒與客遇，客擊傷策。創甚，請張昭等謂曰：「中國方亂，夫以吳、越之眾，三江之固，足以觀成敗。」

It's clear that Dong Wu and Shu Han were not considered part of Zhongguo but a region of the Manyi. It's not even until the Southern dynasties period that we see the southern regimes using Zhongguo to metaphorically refer to itself, yet even there we have situations where the geographic Zhongguo was clearly separate from the south. For example here is a passage from Song Shu about a woman coming from Zhongguo to Jiangdong (East of the river, or Southeast China today):

晉中興初，有女子，其陰在腹，當齊下。自中國來江東，性甚淫，而不產

Note that China was split into three states at this point, and each claimed to be the legitimate China.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have yet to see Dong Wu being ideologically driven in declaring that it is the sole legitimate dynasty; it seems to be the Wei and Shu Han which is adamant in fighting over that. In this case, Dong Wu is no different from Dai Viet.
Also, the claim for legitimacy pertains to all under heaven, which is the whole world that matters, including Vietnam and North Korea at the time, which were under the control of the Wu and Wei respectively, not just the central state (northern China).

San Guo Zhi was also written and sanctioned by the Jin court, a direct successor of the Wei dynasty. It makes sense for them to emphasize the legitimacy of the Wei at the expense of the Shu and Wu.

Click to expand...

Sanguozhi also cites directly from the Wu and Shu records, and the quotes I presented are from the Shu and Wu sections of the book respectively. Throughout the entirely of the Sanguozhi, there isn't a single passage I've seen where Zhongguo referred to anything but the north.

If Zhongguo being used metaphorically by the southern dynasties meant that it is the same state as the north, then even Dai Viet is more "Chinese" than Dong Wu; because it used Zhongguo at least to metaphorically refer to itself while the later didn't.

mnsr said:

As per my understanding Japanese still study it in high schools and its influence rather declined only after the Meiji period, especially during the rise of Japanese Empire in 1930s and 40s

Click to expand...

Did they study it as a foreign language or as a necessity to help formulate written documentations, as was the case in Korea?

RollingWave said:

One can view this through many ways, the historical approach in China before modern time is simply that all dynasty that established themself in what is China is counted as a dynasty, and historians immediately after their end would write history on them.

It helps that pretty much all of them adopted large amount of local system anyway, if not outright assimilated.

That doesn't mean the concept of nation state or ethnic nationalism didn't exist, those did too to some extend, but it's all relative, the official lines of how history is written is generally still accepted that even the Yuan dynasty for example (probably the least Chinese dynasty of all.) were part of the package.

It's the same issue in most places anyway, in England's history class your still going to teach Celtic and Roman and Anglo Saxon England, even though the current England's legacy is almost entirely from the Norman era on, the language has become devoid of any Celtic influence and only some Roman. It's more or less an Germanic language that has some cultural influence from Latin.

By the time the Northern dynasties took over the South and formed the Sui, it was very much a sinized state with some nomadic influence, some names are clearly of nomad origin but they wrote poems in Chines etc..

Click to expand...

When you say "China", I assume you mean "China proper", which before the Ming period, only referred to the Central Plains (the north).
There is no reason to treat regimes like Nan Yue and Dai Viet differently from Min Yue or Dong Wu other than the preferences of those who writes the history books (usually in retrospect, since Dai Viet was not conquered by the Song and Nan Yue was too small of a state to present a legitimate check against the Han, not to mention, it also declared vassalage).

I don't care what Dai Viet calls itself (it has the right to name itself what it likes), but if you know that these are not direct quotes. No history book written in this fashion uses direct quotes, and terms are regularly edited to reflect the perspective of the compiler. The dialogues are all attributive, to make the prose more fluid and dramatic, not historical.

I should emphasize that there are definitely several ways in which to use the word "middle state". As you mentioned, and I grant, that there is a geographical sense. But there is also a political sense, where the entire ruling dynasty was called "middle state". Instances abound where such an interpretation is necessary or the sentence would not make sense. Hence, given the context of the San-guo-zhi, since it is written by the historians of the Jin dynasty, I would contend that in all the examples you cited, the "middle state" is simply an epithet for the state of Wei.

In the book of Jin: 與中國壤斷土隔，不相侵涉，賦役不及，正朔不加 "Manyi are separated from the middle state by land, and they do not invade each other; taxes are not imposed, and the calendar is different." This context requires the middle state to be interpreted politically as well as geographically. I think in this case, the reason why the two other states aren't part of the middle state is because they aren't governed by the Wei, which was the legitimate successor of the Han in the perspective of the historians of the Jin dynasty.

吳之先祖，起自荊、楚，遭時擾攘，潛播江表。劉備震懼，亦逃巴、岷。遂因山陵積石之固，三江五湖浩汗無涯，假氣游魂，迄茲四紀。兩邦合從，東西唱和，互相扇動，距捍中國。 This requires the middle state to be synonymous with Wei to make sense.

If "middle state" is used in a geographical sense, you can tell it's being used this way. For example: 其玄孫曰費昌，子孫或在中國，或在夷狄。

y11971alex said:

I don't care what Dai Viet calls itself (it has the right to name itself what it likes), but if you know that these are not direct quotes. No history book written in this fashion uses direct quotes, and terms are regularly edited to reflect the perspective of the compiler. The dialogues are all attributive, to make the prose more fluid and dramatic, not historical.

Click to expand...

Whether they are direct is not relevant. They would probably still be direct quotes from the Wu and Shu records even if they are not the direct words of the historical figures; unless they are politically sensitive terminologies to the Wei, and considering the Wei does not really feel culturally distinct or threatened by Wu and Shu Han, there is no reason to create Hua-Yi distinction terms like the Song did with the Liao and Jin. The fact is that southern regimes were never referred to as Zhongguo, either geopolitically or metaphorically in records regarding the three kingdom period, and that stands in stark contrast with later records.

I am firmly of the opinion that the context mandates the reading of "middle state" as Wei or the ruling dynasty of the time, viz.

晉武帝太康後，江南童謠曰：「局縮肉，數橫目，中國當敗吳當復。」

皆曰：「虐虜見驅，後出赤族，以騎蹙步，未戰先死，此親將軍所見，非敢背中國也。」

Book of Song: 僭稱大號，部眾殷強，歲時遣使詣京師，與中國亢禮，西域諸國焉耆、鄯善、龜茲、姑墨東道諸國，並役屬之。無城郭，逐水草畜牧，以氈帳為居，隨所遷徙。 Here the middle state must refer to the Song.

Book of Southern Qi: 是年，王肅為虜制官品百司，皆如中國。Here middle state refers to itself.

Book of Liang: 至魏景初三年，公孫淵誅後，卑彌呼始遣使朝貢，魏以為親魏王，假金印紫綬。正始中，卑彌呼死，更立男王，國中不服，更相誅殺，復立卑彌呼宗女臺與為王。其後復立男王，並受中國爵命。Here middle state must be interpreted to mean the Wei dynasty, because the middle state as a location can't grant a title.

heavenlykaghan said:

When you say "China", I assume you mean "China proper", which before the Ming period, only referred to the Central Plains (the north).

Click to expand...

I think we can find this concept in Buddhist texts where Cīna refers to Central Plains only and Maha-Cīna refers to 'Greater China', probably as the all areas under the Emperor of China. Xuanzang refers to the Tang Empire as Maha-Cīna in India.

Changsu Wang said:

Did they study it as a foreign language or as a necessity to help formulate written documentations, as was the case in Korea?

Click to expand...

Japanese study it as a compulsary subject to understand the Classical documentation.

My question was what cultural shift does this brought when Korean language replaced the study of Literary Chinese as the maincourse after the Gabo Reforms. And then slowly Hanja disappeared from Korean after 1940s. Same is the case with Japan and Vietnam.

mnsr said:

Japanese study it as a compulsary subject to understand the Classical documentation.

My question was what cultural shift does this brought when Korean language replaced the study of Literary Chinese as the maincourse after the Gabo Reforms. And then slowly Hanja disappeared from Korean after 1940s. Same is the case with Japan and Vietnam.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is the same case with Japan. It was only compulsory for the Japanese to study Classical Chinese to understand SOME classical and historical documentations (certainly not all as many were written in Japanese) but Classical Chinese was not used at all in ongoing formal communication day to day as they had abandoned the usage of Classical Chinese a long time ago, since the Heian period, I was told. Similar to the case with the Koreans and Vietnamese today, if one wants to study their many historical texts they have to study Classical Chinese but they have no other use for it.

In Korea it was much later. I believe it was the decline of Qing, also they were enticed by the Japanese to phase out the use of Classical Chinese. But it was a gradual process. Some decrees and appointments made as late as by Emperor Gojong were still completely done in Classical Chinese.

y11971alex said:

I am firmly of the opinion that the context mandates the reading of "middle state" as Wei or the ruling dynasty of the time, viz.

晉武帝太康後，江南童謠曰：「局縮肉，數橫目，中國當敗吳當復。」

皆曰：「虐虜見驅，後出赤族，以騎蹙步，未戰先死，此親將軍所見，非敢背中國也。」

Book of Song: 僭稱大號，部眾殷強，歲時遣使詣京師，與中國亢禮，西域諸國焉耆、鄯善、龜茲、姑墨東道諸國，並役屬之。無城郭，逐水草畜牧，以氈帳為居，隨所遷徙。 Here the middle state must refer to the Song.

Book of Southern Qi: 是年，王肅為虜制官品百司，皆如中國。Here middle state refers to itself.

Book of Liang: 至魏景初三年，公孫淵誅後，卑彌呼始遣使朝貢，魏以為親魏王，假金印紫綬。正始中，卑彌呼死，更立男王，國中不服，更相誅殺，復立卑彌呼宗女臺與為王。其後復立男王，並受中國爵命。Here middle state must be interpreted to mean the Wei dynasty, because the middle state as a location can't grant a title.

Click to expand...

As I stated before several times already, I cannot find a single instance of Zhongguo being used even metaphorically to refer to Shu or Wu during the three kingdom period; they are simply not Zhongguo in any context. You are just proving that point. The southern dynasties (after the Western Jin) sometimes use Zhongguo metaphorically, just like Dai Viet does to refer to itself, but its clear that they understood that the northern regime is a different state and geopolity where the ancient rites originated.

Changsu Wang said:

I don't think it is the same case with Japan. It was only compulsory for the Japanese to study Classical Chinese to understand SOME classical and historical documentations (certainly not all as many were written in Japanese) but Classical Chinese was not used at all in ongoing formal communication day to day as they had abandoned the usage of Classical Chinese a long time ago, since the Heian period, I was told. Similar to the case with the Koreans and Vietnamese today, if one wants to study their many historical texts they have to study Classical Chinese but they have no other use for it.

In Korea it was much later. I believe it was the decline of Qing, also they were enticed by the Japanese to phase out the use of Classical Chinese. But it was a gradual process. Some decrees and appointments made as late as by Emperor Gojong were still completely done in Classical Chinese.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Japanese boomed during the Heian Period but Literary Chinese again gained prominence under Tokugawa Shogunate and continued till Meiji Period. After Meiji it declined gradually like in Korea till the Second World War.

During WWII, Japanese came up with the idea of ' Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' which looks like a replacement of 'Confucian World' or 'Hua' and where Japanese would be leading the game. After the failure of Japanese in WWII and use of extensive military to achieve it, the idea has been abandoned since them.

mnsr said:

Yeah, Japanese boomed during the Heian Period but Literary Chinese again gained prominence under Tokugawa Shogunate and continued till Meiji Period. After Meiji it declined gradually like in Korea till the Second World War.

Click to expand...

Was it mostly promoted or used by the government officials or the literature circle in Japan?

mnsr said:

I think we can find this concept in Buddhist texts where Cīna refers to Central Plains only and Maha-Cīna refers to 'Greater China', probably as the all areas under the Emperor of China. Xuanzang refers to the Tang Empire as Maha-Cīna in India.

Click to expand...

In some Buddhist texts yes, Cina refers to only Northern China, but Buddhist texts aren't at all unified in this.
Cina is usually the equivalent of Maha-Cina but not always, there are however, numerous Cina Desa or Aparacina, or lesser or outer Cina, which often refers to the Dai region (in Inner Mongolia) during the Northern Wei or smaller fiefs within China. In Song texts, sometimes, Maha-Cina refers to the area around Guandong, and Cina refers to the rest of northern China. In the Qing period, Maha Cina refers to the entire region of China Proper, and most likely parts of "Manchuria" as well. Tibetan sources even refers to Korea as Great Rgya nag (which is Maha Cina in Tibetan, an extension of Cina (rgya nag) which refers to China, as Tibetan ideas of China by then is mostly Buddhist).

Changsu Wang said:

Was it mostly promoted or used by the government officials or the literature circle in Japan?

Click to expand...

I think the situation of Classical Chinese was same in the Tokugawa Shogunate as it was in the Kingdom of Joseon. The use of Classical Chinese was highly encouraged in literary circles, but I doubt if Classical Chinese has any official status in these states.

And situation in Greater Korean Empire and Greater Japanese Empire, with the rise of Nationalism the usage of Classical Chinese declined gradually.

heavenlykaghan said:

In some Buddhist texts yes, Cina refers to only Northern China, but Buddhist texts aren't at all unified in this.
Cina is usually the equivalent of Maha-Cina but not always, there are however, numerous Cina Desa or Aparacina, or lesser or outer Cina, which often refers to the Dai region (in Inner Mongolia) during the Northern Wei or smaller fiefs within China. In Song texts, sometimes, Maha-Cina refers to the area around Guandong, and Cina refers to the rest of northern China. In the Qing period, Maha Cina refers to the entire region of China Proper, and most likely parts of "Manchuria" as well. Tibetan sources even refers to Korea as Great Rgya nag (which is Maha Cina in Tibetan, an extension of Cina (rgya nag) which refers to China, as Tibetan ideas of China by then is mostly Buddhist).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think in the earlier Buddhist texts till the Tang period. Maha-Cina (Great China) was the Buddhist name for what Chinese called Han (&#27721 or Tang (&#21776. And Cina means Zhongguo (中&#22269 or Zhonghua (中&#21326, As Buddhism declined in China, and instead of Silk-route it started coming from Tibet, the meaning changed and started confusing from the Song Period.

heavenlykaghan said:

Hua is certainly a civilizational identity, but I don't seen it fundamentally different from say Christendom where the sense of "us vs them" is also quite strong. I would say that Han did become at times similar to an ethnic identity with language as a characteristic, but the problem is that "language" itself is a subjective criteria, for the difference between the different branch of Southern Chinese is as big or even bigger than that between German and English or French and Spanish.

A geopolitical China did exist, maybe even with an ethnic characteristic which rose in the Jurchen period (or even the Northern dynasties), but its largely restricted to the Central Plains until the Ming. At no point was the people of Southern China considered to be of the same group as a Han. However, by the Southern Song, the south clearly represented Hua more than the Central Plains under the Jin in the eyes of many people, both in the south and in Korea, so the notion that only geographical China is legitimately Hua is also sketchy. Similarly, in both Korea and Dai Viet, the Qing takeover often meant that the Central Plains was less Hua than the peripheries.

I find many southern dynasties to be little different from Chosun Korea in this case; most of the people that were ruled were not Han, and even many founders were non-Han people with a Hua culture and not situated in the Central Plains but with a strong sense of Hua identity. In fact, I find Chosun Korea to have a stronger Hua identity than dynasties like Dong Wu, which had no strong ideology to conquer the central plains.

Click to expand...

As a matter of historical perceptions at the time, I also agree that Joseon Korea's elites identified as closely with "Hua" as most southern dynasties, although it never referred to itself as "Zhongguo," not even metaphorically. An exception can be made for the Eastern Jin, which was a first generation northern emigre dynasty, and the Southern Song, for similar reasons, though after repeated military failure, these dynasties eventually settled into the more familiar pattern described above. With respect to the Eastern Wu and Min Yue, I think both were simply regional states, with the Eastern Wu being more "Hua" and Min Yue being significantly less so. Neither pretended they were successors to the "Zhongguo" dynastic line.

However, with respect to individual perceptions, I think it is necessary to distinguish between the southern native populations and the northern emigre families. The latter must have felt a much deeper connection with their homeland to the north, and continued to identify themselves with this lost 'place' for generations. It could well be this ancestral tradition that popularized the various folk memories of northern migration, which are prominent in southern China even today, and which constitute the ethnic basis for Han identity. By contrast, I do not think Joseon commoners were nearly as attached to such ideas.

To this end, I think it is necessary to look beyond the official court rhetoric for clues to the process of ethnogenesis. When you examine European history, you will get the impression that it is only intellectuals & writers who were involved in the construction of national identity. Yet the reception of the public to these ideas was much more critical for why ethnic groups exist today, and it cannot be said that ethnogenesis was strictly a matter of the elites declaring it so and the rest following like sheep, or else the history of the modern world would have, I think, involved a lot less fighting over borders & identities.