Having read the works of Wang Ch'ung [A.D. 27-c. 100], I realized that they need to be recapitulated. Here I shall evaluate Wang Ch'ung and his thought and present what I feel to be the real significance that Wang Ch'ung's thought still has today.

In ancient times in our country, Wang Ch'ung was an eminent materialist and a brilliant atheist, a progressive thinker who opposed the orthodox feudal thought. This has gone basically unquestioned. This year the February 21 issue of Kuang-ming jih-pao printed in its philosophy section an article by Comrade T'ung Mo-an, "Is Wang Ch'ung a Peasant Class Thinker?" The article is an evaluation completely denying this. T'ung believes that the purpose of Wang Ch'ung's works was "to uphold the rule (...) of the Han," "ardently and unconditionally to sing the praises of the Han ruler and court," "to make sacred the rule of the Han," "to get the populace to live quietly, forever in a servile position," and "to view inimically and to slander peasant uprisings." "Wang Ch'ung was an orthodox thinker of the landlord class," "a thinker produced in the interests of the rule of the landlord class who confirmed the feudal orthodoxy." Although I myself am not praising Wang Ch'ung as a peasant class thinker or denying that in Wang Ch'ung's thought there are negative elements, I am completely unable to agree with the basic viewpoint that the author puts forward. (shrink)

The theory of ‘Confucianization of law’ put forward by T’ung-tsu Ch’ü in his book titled Law and Society in Traditional China has a great academic influence in the world. However, ‘Confucianization...

This Essay examines debates surrounding Qu Tongzu's ‘Confucianization of law’ theory. Qu's theory claims that Chinese law underwent a process of ‘Confucianization’ starting in the Han dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) and ending and culminating in the Tang dynasty (618–907), where the Confucian concept of li and other Confucian moral teachings were introduced and incorporated into the written law. I argue that Qu's theory should be properly characterised as a theory of descriptive jurisprudence and also a form of the mirror thesis. (...) In light of this characterisation, this Essay then lays out the possible counterarguments that could be raised against Qu's theory and then situates existing scholarship in the debate in these categories. I then test Qu's theory using a case study about kinship concealment in traditional Chinese law The Essay then concludes by urging that the debate should include more jurisprudential approaches. (shrink)