Statesmen’s Understanding of Agricultural Dependence on the Commodity Economy in Song China: A Reflection on the “Agricultural Foundation” Ideology

• Main Author: 楊承叡
• Other Authors: 梁庚堯
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/wrc5mu

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 歷史學研究所 === 102 === What was the perspective of the government and the elite on commercial activities in imperial china? An simple answer to this big question is the term “Chung nung I shang”(重農抑商)(literal translation “emphasize agriculture and restrain commerce”), or “Chung Pen I Mo”(重本抑末)(“emphasize the root and restrain the branches”). Due to the widespread use of such terms in edicts or statesmen’s discourses, it is safe to assume that the statesmen held the belief of “Chung nung I shang”. However, the saying itself is an ambiguous statement—what is the precise meaning of this linguistic practice? What are its concrete traits? What is the difference between “Chung nung I shang” and the more commonly used “Agricultural Foundation” ideology(以農為本、農本主義)? In general, the two terms are not distinguished within academia. Some scholars that perceive the two as different believe the former to have originated from the latter. The latter views agriculture as root and industry or commerce as branches, whereas the former is a more radical idea that discriminates against commerce. The author would like to offer a different interpretation by examining a crucial question—how did those statesmen understand the dependence of agriculture on the commodity economy—one may realize the possibility of a different interpretation. In academia, the term “I-Shang”(抑商) can be interpreted quite differently. The actual meaning of “I-Mo(抑末) type terms” in historical materials is also very ambiguous in academic texts as there lacks an effective standard to examine the word’s usage. Nevertheless, such historical linguistic practice constitutes the main evidence that the ancient Chinese believed in “I-Shang”(抑商) or “Ching-Shang”(輕商)( literal translation “disdain commerce”). First, if the ancient Chinese simply applied the “root and branch” analogy to agriculture and commerce, there is no implication of a negative connotation. Secondly, even though statesmen in Song China thought commerce was less important than agriculture, they took the health of commerce seriously. Once these two points are established, the author intend to clarify the meaning of “I-Mo(抑末) type terms” in Song Dynasty and the characteristic of “I-Mo(抑末)” idea in Wang An-shi’s political reform and then depict and explain the pattern to emphasize commerce at that time. This study constitutes two layers. The first estimates the statesmen’s understanding of the economic reality in Song China. Discussions brought forth in this estimate aim to further understanding of their perception towards commerce beyond literal translation of the previously mentioned terms. Furthermore, discussions in the first layer leads to the argument in the second layer—“Agricultural Foundation” ideology(農本主義) itself was a necessary and sufficient condition that prompted the emphasis on commerce in Song china. There may be other factors that resulted in such perspective, but they are redundant explanations.