BMCR 2009.04.66: Kim on Scheidel, Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires. Oxford Studies in Early Empires

Walter Scheidel (ed.), Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on
Ancient World Empires. Oxford Studies in Early Empires.  Oxford/New
York:  Oxford University Press, 2009.  Pp. xiii, 240.  ISBN
9780195336900.  $74.00.

Reviewed by Hyun Jin Kim, University of Sydney ([email protected])
Word count:  2063 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-66.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090466.html
-------------------------------

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

As G. E. R. Lloyd comments on the back-cover, this new publication
"marks the inauguration of an exhilarating new phase" in the
comparative study of Greco-Roman and Ancient Chinese civilizations. In
the introduction the book opens with the comment that, despite the vast
amount of readily available comparative material, direct, comparative
research on Rome and China has largely been overshadowed by a
preponderance of interest in "contact and Exchange" (5) exemplified by
the great popularity of Silk Road studies. In a marked departure from
past works this book finally gives much needed attention to comparative
history with a focus on the comparative study of institutions, rather
than intellectual history and text based analyses that have until now
formed the core of research on Greco-Roman and Ancient Chinese
civilizations. In seven chapters the contributors to the book cover a
broad range of topics that highlight the institutional similarities and
differences between the two world empires. Among the topics discussed
are state formation, military institutions, law, eunuchs and women,
tribute and trade, gift circulation and charity, and finally monetary
systems.

In the first chapter, W. Scheidel takes on the seemingly impossible
task of describing the state formation of two world empires that ruled
half of humanity in just thirteen pages! Despite the brevity of the
analysis the chapter provides a very interesting survey of what
Scheidel calls the "Great Convergence" in the State formation and
development of the two empires and the sharp "Divergence" that occurred
after the 6th century AD. Modifying the approach taken by C.
Gizewski,[[1]] he argues that Greek colonization and Zhou expansion in
earlier centuries set the tone for the more unified empires of the
Romans and the Qin-Han. Both Qin and Rome were situated on the "border
marches" of more advanced civilizations and both gradually became the
dominant power by exploiting advantages accrued from their favorable,
geographical location (13). Both underwent regime change due to
adjustment processes (Qin to Han and the Oligarchic Republic to
Julio-Claudian Principate). Both Empires, after a period of stability,
were then plagued by warlordism (14), which eventually exposed the
northern half of the Chinese Empire and the Western half of the Roman
state to barbarian conquest.

Minor differences in the period of convergence are pointed out. For
instance the Qin state was more bureaucratic than the Roman Republic.
Scheidel attributes this difference to the nature of the enemies faced
by the two states (16). The late Roman Empire of course did become more
like Qin-Han China in developing a more extensive bureaucracy and
administrative apparatus in government and Scheidel argues that the
actual divergence was not great (19). The great divergence of the 6th
century that led to Sui-Tang, imperial reunification in China and
fragmentation in the West, is then discussed and Scheidel wisely avoids
giving a quick explanation to a topic that requires a book length
comparative analysis.

In the second chapter, N. Rosenstein actually attempts to provide an
explanation for this divergence by analyzing the evolution of military
institutions in Rome and Ancient China. War is seen as being central to
the state formation of both empires. The hierarchical divisions of the
Qin Empire along military lines, is duly pointed out (27). Again the
fact that the Qin state was forced to create an administrative
apparatus in order to undertake radical social and economic reforms to
cater for its military needs, is stressed (26). This is then contrasted
with the Roman practice of seeking external alliances and the
enlargement of their citizen body to augment their power, rather than
through augmentation of the apparatus of government (30). The fact that
military commanders in both Rome (Republic and Principate (35, 39)) and
Han China (40-3) were chosen for political reasons, not military
expertise is emphasized.

Rosenstein then argues that the restoration of the unified empire in
China (6th century AD), in marked contrast to the perpetual
fragmentation of Western Europe, was due to the fact that the
barbarians who overwhelmed the Jin dynasty were nomads who came from an
ecologically different habitat and had a vested interest in the
maintenance of the Chinese imperial system which supplied them with
Chinese goods (49). The argument would benefit from a more extended
discussion and justification of its premises through more evidence. The
ecological model works well in the case of the nomadic Xiongnu, who
benefited from the Heqin system[[2]] of the earlier Western Han Empire,
but does not really apply to the later Xianbei ruling elite of Northern
Wei and Northern Zhou who were thoroughly sedentarised and one could
argue even sinified to the degree that ecological arguments have no
place in explaining their later inclinations towards unified empire.

In the third chapter K. Turner discusses law and punishment in the two
empires with a particular emphasis on penal code (53). She notes that
in China at local level official abuse was checked by laws, but not at
the court level (55). Court bureaucrats did use exempla drawn from
Western Zhou to limit imperial prerogatives and power, but a certain
degree of arbitrariness in the process of Centralization was favoured
over military chaos (56). In contrast, she notes that in Rome the shift
to monarchy was a far more significant shift from the past than Qin
unification for China (58). The fact that early Roman emperors were
seen as being more actively involved in drafting new laws is stressed.
In contrast in China law-making processes did occur, but was masked by
the reluctance to link a ruler directly to the new laws (62-3).
However, even in Rome there was progressively less involvement of
emperors in law-making. Eventually laws became codified. In China
emperors were distanced from the death penalty to avoid the odium
incurred thereof (69-70). The ambiguity of laws relating to treason in
both Rome (71) and in Han China (72) is highlighted. Torture,
mutilation and bodily harm in Chinese penal laws are then discussed (74
ff.). The chapter concludes with the observation that in China
epistemological assumptions about human nature remained narrower than
those of the Greco-Romans. Laws were not meant to protect rights and
property, but were a means of control to maintain order under an
established elite, "confucian or communist" (82).

In the fourth chapter M. H. Dettenhofer provides an interesting sketch
of the role of eunuchs and women in the two imperial systems. Eunuchs
were drawn from the lowest strata of society (86) and were often loyal
to the emperors who hired them. They therefore formed a useful
counter-weight against the aristocracy (96-8).
Of the two empires, obviously, it was in China that the institution was
more extensively used and a formal eunuch agency, the Zhongchangshi,
exercised immense influence on imperial politics under the Eastern Han
until a massacre of 2000 eunuchs by He Jin's supporters broke their
power (92). Dettenhofer provides brief summaries of the career of
famous Chinese eunuchs such as Zhao Gao (89) and Luan Ta (88). The
power of the eunuchs often earned them the hostility of the Confucian
bureaucratic elite and most court sources blacken the eunuchs as
scapegoats for the policies undertaken by the emperors. The eunuchs
also often formed political links with palace women. Livia, the empress
Lu and the younger Agrippina are mentioned. The chapter, however, adds
little to what is already known about eunuchs in both cultures.

In the fifth chapter P. F. Bang discusses the economic history of the
two empires. Political discourse was frequently hostile to merchants
and trade, but ironically markets and commercialism were widespread in
both empires. Moses Finley and Mark Elvin's works are described and the
old question of why Rome and China failed to develop capitalist
economies is revisited. It is shown that the explanations offered by
both critics need some revision (101). Bang argues quite convincingly
that economic integration in both empires is often over-estimated (102)
and defines both entities as tributary empires that controlled and
distributed wealth (103).

He also advances the theory that both empires were conspicuously
successful because they both managed to maintain their hegemony at
relatively low costs (108). Both empires, it is argued, had rather lean
bureaucracies and were more dependent on agriculture than is commonly
thought. Peasants under tributary systems were forced to increase
production to cater for the needs of the state and the elite. These
surpluses in turn facilitated markets that allowed the government to
sell or buy needed commodities and resources (112). This imperial
consumption sponsored a regionally distinct culture of agricultural and
artisan production, especially in the Roman Empire. The consumption
also generated an upsurge in long-distance trade that linked the two
empires. The chapter ends with the comment that they were comparable
worlds at least economically (119).

In chapter 6 M. Lewis discusses the phenomenon of imperial gift giving
and charity. He provides a list of eight types of imperial gifts and charity under
the Han emperors. They are categorized as the bestowing of ranks,
pardons, poor relief in the form of tax relief and distribution of
money to those affected by natural disasters, land distribution, gifts
to the aged, gifts to officials, gifts to non-Chinese, and state
sacrifices for the public weal (22-8). The list is then compared with
the better known practice of imperial beneficence in imperial Rome. A
major difference, that euergetism in Rome was inseparable from the city
defined by its urban frame, is stressed. Primary forms of public
benevolence in Rome were the construction of new buildings for public
use, the sponsorship of games and maintenance of roads and aqueducts.
In contrast, in China the bulk of imperial gift giving went to the
countryside (131). It is explained that political power in Rome rested
in the control of a multiplicity of urban centers, whereas in Han China
it derived from the registration, taxation and mobilization of rural
households. In Rome a public space was fashioned and maintained by the
elite to display their authority, distinct from the government. In Han
China there was no such public space (132).

In the final chapter, Scheidel provides a detailed analysis of the
monetary systems of the two empires. It is pointed out that the
monopolization of minting in both empires tied the success of these
currencies to the fortunes of the state. The rise of standardized
currency systems were the result of imperial unification. However,
crucial differences are noted. The Roman monetary economy was dominated
by silver and gold, the Chinese by a system of bronze coinages
supplemented by uncoined precious-metal bullion. A long survey of
Chinese monetary practices is provided and is then followed by a
shorter summary of Roman practices. It is argued that the relative
scarcity of precious metals in early China militated against the
creation of empire-wide gold and silver currencies (181-7). In both
monetary systems, the exchange value of coins was determined by a
combination of intrinsic metal value and the user's willingness to
accept them at their nominal value (188). It concludes that the
distinction between a western preference for full-bodied coin and the
fiduciary monetary tradition of China are at best exaggerated and at
worst seriously misleading (195-6) and that the Roman Empire was
considerably more monetized than the Han Empire (205). An appendix with
a useful glossary of weights and denominations is also provided
(206-7).

The book is an admirable demonstration of the great potential that lies
in comparative analysis of the Greco-Roman world and Ancient China. It
is hoped that this book will form the basis for more, exciting
comparative research, which will surely broaden the horizons of Ancient
history beyond its current compartmentalization and excessive
departmentalization.

Table of Contents:

Chapter 1: W. Scheidel, "From the "Great Convergence" to the "Great
Divergence": Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath", pp.
11-23.

Chapter 2: N. Rosenstein, "War, State Formation, and the Evolution of
Military Institutions in Ancient China and Rome", pp. 24-51.

Chapter 3: K. Turner, "Law and Punishment in the Formation of Empire",
pp. 52-82.

Chapter 4: M. H. Dettenhofer, "Eunuchs, Women, and Imperial Courts",
pp. 83-99.

Chapter 5: P. F. Bang, "Commanding and Consuming the World: Empire,
Tribute, and Trade in Roman and Chinese History", pp. 100-120.

Chapter 6: M. E. Lewis, "Gift Circulation and Charity in the Han and
Roman Empires", pp. 121- 136.

Chapter 7: W. Scheidel, "The Monetary Systems of the Han and Roman
Empires", pp. 137-207.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Gizewski, C. (1994), 'Roemische und alte chinesische Geschichte im
Vergleich; Zur Moeglichkeit eines gemeinsamen Altertumsbegriffs', Klio
76, 271-302.

2.   Barfield, T. J. (1989), The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and
China, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Oxford, 46-7.