264 replies to this topic

[Tyler]

sorry I know almost nothing of chinese pinyon but isn't the slang for docter Dafie? Sorry my chinese is close to worst on earth.

[Kulong]

Daifu isn't a "slang" for doctor. In fact, Daifu is a much older term for doctor than Yisheng.

[RollingWave]

You sure about that Yun? i've yet heard anyone pronouce it DaFu in all my run up from middleschool to university (this include teachers... though i havn't taken univ classes on this)

[Yun]

Well, the most authoritative dictionary in mainland China says so :)

As for Daifu being "slang", I'm not suggesting that it isn't old, only that it was used less formally than the other terms for doctor in those times.

[Kulong]

As for Daifu being "slang", I'm not suggesting that it isn't old, only that it was used less formally than the other terms for doctor in those times.

What other terms were used back then for "doctor"? The only one I'm aware of is daifu.

[Yun]

In the imperial court and other formal or elite settings, doctors were known as Yishi 医师 or just Yi 医 (e.g. Yuyi 御医 [imperial doctor] or Taiyi 太医 [grand doctor]). See for example:

我国《周礼》中有“医师掌医之政令”的记载，说明了公元前11世纪时西周的医学分科与医事制度。这是我国最早的关于医事活动的法律记录。

西周时期，我国的《周礼·天官冢卑》一书中即记载了对医师的管理制度和对医疗失误的处理方法。例如，“死终则各书其所以，而入于医师”。即要求对于死亡的病例应分别记录死亡原因，报告给医师。“岁终则稽其医事，以制其食。”是要求医师在年终详细汇总各项治疗情况，以便根据其工作成绩确定其待遇。对于医师工作成绩的评定原则为：“十全为上，十失一次之，十失二次之，十失三次之，十失四为下。”这就是说，治疗中出现的失误率越高，待遇越低。这一原则，就其本质而言，是规定了对于医疗失误应依其程度予以惩处。

(from: http://www.37c.com.c...file=01/174.htm )

This quotation shows that in the Zhou dynasty royal court, the term Yishi was already used for doctors.

However, I've just realised something - the word 'da' 大 was pronounced 'dai' in this days, as it still is in Hokkien. So 大夫 would have been pronounced as 'daifu' whether it was referring to the official post or the doctor. As with many other usages in modern Chinese, the pronounciation of the more formal meaning of the term has changed with time, while that of the more colloquial usage of the term (used by commoners as a form of respectful address for doctors) has not. A similar example is the term of address 'dawang' 大王 ("O great King"), which is still pronounced as 'daiwang' in traditional Chinese operas.

[Kulong]

In the imperial court and other formal or elite settings, doctors were known as Yishi 医师 or just Yi 医 (e.g. Yuyi 御医 [imperial doctor] or Taiyi 太医 [grand doctor]). See for example:

我国《周礼》中有“医师掌医之政令”的记载，说明了公元前11世纪时西周的医学分科与医事制度。这是我国最早的关于医事活动的法律记录。

西周时期，我国的《周礼·天官冢卑》一书中即记载了对医师的管理制度和对医疗失误的处理方法。例如，“死终则各书其所以，而入于医师”。即要求对于死亡的病例应分别记录死亡原因，报告给医师。“岁终则稽其医事，以制其食。”是要求医师在年终详细汇总各项治疗情况，以便根据其工作成绩确定其待遇。对于医师工作成绩的评定原则为：“十全为上，十失一次之，十失二次之，十失三次之，十失四为下。”这就是说，治疗中出现的失误率越高，待遇越低。这一原则，就其本质而言，是规定了对于医疗失误应依其程度予以惩处。

(from: http://www.37c.com.c...file=01/174.htm )

This quotation shows that in the Zhou dynasty royal court, the term Yishi was already used for doctors.

However, I've just realised something - the word 'da' 大 was pronounced 'dai' in this days, as it still is in Hokkien. So 大夫 would have been pronounced as 'daifu' whether it was referring to the official post or the doctor. As with many other usages in modern Chinese, the pronounciation of the more formal meaning of the term has changed with time, while that of the more colloquial usage of the term (used by commoners as a form of respectful address for doctors) has not. A similar example is the term of address 'dawang' 大王 ("O great King"), which is still pronounced as 'daiwang' in traditional Chinese operas.

Thanks for the information regarding the ancient word for "doctor".

It's interesting that 大 was pronounced dai as opposed to da. In Cantonese, it's also pronounced dai, so is in Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese.

[cniht]

You've got to be very careful when using the term "feudal" society (封建社会) in talking about Chinese history, because Marxist Chinese historians apply that term to apply to all of Chinese history from the Zhou to the end of the Qing. This is because of the need to fit Chinese history into the Marxist paradigm of a movement from primitive socialism to slave society to feudalism to capitalism to socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to Communism (they truly classless society). Since slavery ceased to be an important part of Chinese society after the Shang dynasty, and capitalism only really began towards the end of the Qing, the 2,000 years or so in between is all classified as "feudal".

The Marxist Chinese historians' 封建社会 started with the beginning of the Warring States period and ended with the first Opium War. This is the orthodox framework in middle school history textbooks.

Indeed historians in the 1920s and 1930s debated over the application of "feudalism" to China of old. Most celebrated historians like Chen Yin Que (陈寅恪）and Fei Xiao Tong （费孝通）reasoned that if China had been feudalistic, that era must have ended with the fall of Zhou Dynasty. Qi Si He （齐思和）argued that 郡县制 (I don't know how to translate it) had been in effect during the Warring States period thus not a creation by Qin Dynasty. In the Marxist interpretation of Chinese history, the introduction of 郡县制 is a further step Qin Dynasty took to strenghthen centralisation of the ruler's power.

This explains the common use of "feudal" (封建) in Chinese speech to refer to anything old-fashioned and smacking of pre-republican times. Serious non-Marxist historians, however, should not use "feudal" to refer to imperial China, because the feudal system of the Zhou (if we can agree to call it that) did not last on into the Qin dynasty. What the Qin established was something new - a centralised imperial state where different administrative areas were under not feudal lords but centrally-appointed governors.

Furthermore, the governors in Qin Dynasty could not pass their appointment down to their descents. So far as I know, to pass the government down the family is a fundamental privilege a governor in a feudal society normally had.

[MengTzu]

It seems that Western "scholars" are obsessed with comparing China to the "West" and focus on what the "West" had but China didn't.  How about the things that China had and the "West" didn't? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know they can sound that way, but we should always be happy about this kind of studies: the unique features of Chinese culture have always been obscured because Western categories were imposed on them. For example, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are called religions by the West, and as a result people only think of them as three distinct sects, when in fact Chinese typically did not hold the idea that religious affiliation of laymen should be exclusive, and the type of religious organization that the Chinese had was significantly different. Don't take this type of study as indicating that because something is missing in Chinese culture, it is inadequate: certain things are missing but in their place there are, for better or for worse, other elements.

[cniht]

Today in Mandarin Chinese, Daifu refers to the doctor and Dafu refers to some noble class in ancient times. However, it is difficult to pinpoint what exactly the class the later refers to because it changed with time.
Dafu and Daifu are different pronunciations of ”大夫”. Maybe a qualified doctor would also be considered a qualified bureaucrat because the Chinese traditional medicine puts emphasis on the synthesis of the human body, which is similar to an overall vision a government functionary must possess.

The sage cures the disease before it surfaces, and stops the turbulance before it erupts. （圣人不治已病治未病，不治已乱治未乱——《黄帝内经 素问 四气调神大论》)

[cniht]

Specifically, were there subdivisions in the fiefs granted by the Zhou king? For example, did the vassals of the Zhou king grant parcels of their own fief to their retainers?

They definitely did. 商鞅 (Shang Yang), for example, whose surname was acutally 卫(Wei) is most well known as 商鞅 because then king of Qin 秦孝公 granted him the piece of land named 商. In his last days, he drafted his subjects to contest the army sent by 秦惠文王 (son of 秦孝公) but failed. 商鞅 lived in mid Warring States era, so we can safely guess the lords in earlier times must also be free to grant land to their servants. (I used "guess" because I am not a professional. The historians must be quite sure about that.)

And wasn't there a class of warriors (the shi) who, although they were chariot based aristcratic warriors instead of cavalry based, functioned in the same way knights did? I've also read somewhere that the shi were also granted land, and owed their allegiance to the lord of the fief, similar to the relationship between a knight and his lord. If this was not the case, then what exactly was the role of the shi, and the relationship to his superior? Did he serve the emperor directly?

The role of shi was not fixed in China.
It is appropriate to say in the Warring States era they served their immediate superior with little regard to the latter's lord, let alone the emperor. However, they were not bound to their lord via ownership of land. The noble men provided them with food and accommodation in exchange for their service in a variety of fields, including military and civilian affairs.
It would sound odd to label 商鞅 as a shi. Thus far there is no evidence that shi, in the Warring States period, were granted land for their service.

[cniht]

The Zhou dynasty implemented a policy known as "Junzhu Fengfen Zhi" (君主分封制), which means the 'act of granting fiefdom to relatives of the Zhou royalty house". This is equivalent to chinese feudalism. But I'm sometimes also confused by a chinese word "FengJian"society (封建社会), which also means feudalism. Basically "Fengjian" society

封 means 分封 (distribution of land)
建 means 建立 (establishment of states)
So even at the literal level, the Marxist interpretation of ancient Chinese society did not make sense. The rulers of the dynasties, from Qin onwards, rarely built their descents and relatives into heads of states that were loosely connected with the central authority. Feudalism in Europe, as I understand, is marked by its distribution of power among the king, the nobility and the church. This was absent in China after the Warring States era. Indeed, there was not any conflict between the State and the Religion as took place in Europe even in Zhou Dynasty.

[General_Zhaoyun]

However, I've just realised something - the word 'da' 大 was pronounced 'dai' in this days, as it still is in Hokkien

Actually, in Hokkien, 大 is pronounced as "Dua" and not "dai". "Dai" is cantonese.

[Jaak]

The role of shi was not fixed in China.
It is appropriate to say in the Warring States era they served their immediate superior with little regard to the latter's lord, let alone the emperor. However, they were not bound to their lord via ownership of land. The noble men provided them with food and accommodation in exchange for their service in a variety of fields, including military and civilian affairs.
It would sound odd to label 商鞅 as a shi. Thus far there is no evidence that shi, in the Warring States period, were granted land for their service.

Did small noble landowners exist?

Clearly, a ruler would very much object to a farmer who lived on his farm on his own, farmed it himself, needed nothing from the ruler and paid no tax to the ruler. The ruler would likewise object to a noble chieftain/landlord who lived in his village with his peasants, collected rents from them but gave nothing to the ruler and did not aid him in war. Such a nobleman would be treated as a rebel, traitor, deserter and tax dodger even if he did not go to fight against the ruler.

Now, a farmer could usually pay his taxes or rents to his rulers or noblemen and be left alone and protected for that. In the early Zhou times, before the changes in warfare of Warring States period, the rulers had little use for ill-trained infantry, so they had a small well-trained force of noble horsemen and charioteers, and the farmer could pay his taxes and be left to farm his field.

But what was acceptable from a noble landowner?

Could a noble landowner simply pay the taxes for himself and his villagers and tell the ruler to leave him alone and take care of hiring his army? Or was this regarded as suspicious of rebellion or desertion, so that the able-bodied nobles were requited to show up at war personally?

And were the nobles permitted to own their lands, collect rents from their own tenants and live in their villages in peacetime? Or did the rulers force the nobles to live in ruler´s town, get food from what the ruler collected from peasants and have no lands or peasants of their own?

[moobie]

Another main difference between "Western feudalism" and China's method is that there were no slaves in the Zhou period, while a vast number of Europeans were slaves well up until the 1600s.