Social Formations, Lecture 20: Features of Feudal Mode of

Production

So over the course of the last two lectures we had finished the idea of feudalism as a
synthesis between the Germanic as well as the western Roman agricultural and legal
traditions. It was a mode of production dominated by the land and natural economy, in which
neither the labor, nor the products of Labor were commodities. The immediate producer or
the present was united to the means of production the soil by your specific social
relationship. This class we’ll be going over the specific features of feudalism Western
Europe. The peasants who occupied and cultivated the land we’re not the actual owners of
the land property was privately controlled by a class of feudal Lords who extracted surplus
from the peasants by political as well as legal means and through relations of compassion.
Next track economic coercion took the form of Labor services, rent in kind, and customary
dues owed to the individual Lord by the present. This relationship of coercion was exercised
both on the manorial lands attached directly to the Lord himself as well as the strips of land
that were cultivated beyond the manor by the peasants. The peasant was subjected to the
jurisdiction of his Lord but at the same time the property rights of the Lord himself were
contingent upon the investment by a superior noble to whom he would own military service.
So overall the estates were held as fief—the liege Lord in his turn would often be the vassal
of a feudal superior. So there was essentially a chain of dependent tenures linked to military
service which would extend upwards up to the highest peak of the system a monarch to
whom all the land belong. This is referred to parcelised sovereignty—sovereignty descended
down from the monarch it was given to the superior Lords who would in turn give
investments of land to the inferior Lords and at the very end of the system would be the serf
who would receive land tenures from his Knights.

The consequence of such a system was that political for sovereignty was never focused on a
single centre, the functions of the state were disintegrated in a vertical allocation downwards,
at each level of which political and economic relationships were integrated.
3 structural specificities of western feudalism which word of fundamental importance to its
dynamic. #1 the survival of communal village lands and peasant allods from the pre feudal
modes of production—ALLOD was the land which belonged to independent peasants who
did not owe any feudal dues to any Lords. Rather than this as we have discussed previously
also there was the presence of communal village lands. These communal village lands were
also survival from the barbarian social and economic formations. As we have discussed
previously as the barbarian tribes settle down on land in Europe a number of features from
their social system survived into the feudal system as well—feudal division of sovereignties
into particularist zones with overlapping boundaries and because there was no universal
center of competence, there was always the presence of a ALLOD peasantry in the interstices
or in the gaps between the sovereignty of the different Lords. These lands as well as the
communal lands, the pastures, the meadows, and the forests always remained a significant
sector of peasant autonomy and resistance with important consequences for agrarian
productivity.

The massive feudal estates were divided into the Lords DEMESNE which were directly
organized by his stewards and they were cultivated by his VILLEINS. This is the origin of
the English word villain. The organization and control of production was in the hands of the
VILLEINS and the land directly controlled by the Lord himself. Beyond this there were the
lands of the peasants which were cultivated and from which he would receive up to 50% of
the total produce. This as we have discussed in the previous class also can be traced first to
the Roman COLONUS system where dependent peasantry would share 50% of their surplus
with the Lord, as well as the Germanic economic developments where a number of warriors
on the lands of the large Germanic aristocrats and they would share their produce with that
Lord.

The feudal parcellization of sovereignty also created the phenomenon of the medieval town
in western Europe. the feudal mode of production was the first to permit an autonomous
development within a natural economy of a city. so Unlike the previous case of cities at we
discussed under the slave mode of production where they were parasitically dependent upon
agriculture we see the development of autonomous commodity production within city– the
mediaeval towns of Europe which practice trade and manufacture were self governing
communion which enjoyed corporate, political military autonomy from the mobility as well
as from the church and like to case in the same mode of production where towns world
dependent upon the members of the aristotrophic does a dynamic opposition emerged
between the town and the country which time contract to the previous period. the towns were
controlled by merchants and traders who were organised in Guilds and corporations and
their development was completely distinct from the rural economy which was marked by
autarchy as well as The direct control of nobles and it was organised in manors, strips with
communal and individual present enclaves.
Number 3 there was an inherent ambiguity at the Summit of the whole pyramid of feudal
relations. she has pointed out that the top of the hierarchy was in many ways the weakest link
of the feudal system. in principle the highest superordinate level of the feudal hierarchy was
different from the subordinate levels of Lordship Beneath it. the monarch was the feudal
suzerain of his vassals and he was bound by reciprocal ties of fealty– he was not the
supreme set above his subjects Unlike the previous Roman system. his economic resources
were also tired exclusively in his personal domains as a lord is called his subordinate Lords
were essentially military in nature. he had no Direct Access politically to the population as
the whole, and Jurisdiction over the population was also mediated by innumerable layers of
subinfeudation– effectively the feudal king was only the master of his own estate and
otherwise he was only as ceremonial figurehead– The lack of any real integrated mechanism
at the top of the feudal system presented a permanent thread towards stability and survival–
Why monarchy survive for so long is because a complete fragmentation of sovereignty
would have presented a number of problems before the feudal Lords and because of the
potential energy implied by it. and so the monarchical system survived as a way to ensure
stability. but the issue with this as we have already pointed out was that the king did not
enough power to command loyalty throughout the kingdom not put him for his belt
throughout the kingdom because he power was mediated by a number of feudal Lords. so as
Anderson has pointed out there was an inbuilt contradiction within feudalism between its
tendency for a decomposition of sovereignty and the necessity of a final centre of authority
in which a practical reconstitution of political power would occur. the feudal mode of
production in the West that originally specified and ideological and juridical realm beyond
that of relationships of subordination and superiority whose Summit was marked by the
Duke. and the king also possessed certain right to which the Duke could not Aspire. and the
same time actual Royal power had to be asserted and extended against the centrifugal
tendenciesFeudal Lords. so there was a constant struggle to establish a public authority
outside the compact with of private jurisdictions. and so from the very beginning the feudal
mode of production had a dynamic tension and contradiction within the state. this will
become important to us when we start discussing the collapse of feudalism towards the end
of the unit.
Another important institution within the feudal system was of course the church. the
parcelization of sovereignty in early medieval Europe meant That the church which
had under the late Roman empire been integrated into the structure of the state and was
always subordinate to it now became an autonomous institution within the feudal polity. it
served as the sole source of religious authority with extensive commands over the beliefs and
moral values of the masses.This autonomy was the product of the Dispersion of coercive
power across different levels of the feudal hierarchy. this man that the church could defend
its own corporate interests from any political challenge. institution contract between Lay and
religious lordship Were endemic during the medieval period. Was the division of legitimacy
between Lay and religious institutions and this would also have important consequences for
feudalism.
This kind of a Political system naturally did not result in the creation of an extensive
bureaucracy.

We can go over the specific features of feudalism within France, because France presents us
with one of the most well developed examples of a feudal state in western Europe.
Frankish Gaul was divided into a very large number of Seigneuries–Seigneur–feudal
Lordships– which are usually described as Villae or a Manors– in traditional terms a Villa
means in States so organised that large part of the profits from the soil a true directly or
indirectly to a single master. it also can be used to mean a group of people who are subjected
to a single master.
the land of a Seigneurie is divided into two parts both of which are distance but I link to
each other two ties of interdependency. on the one hand we had a large home farm–the
Manor– which was cultivated under the immediate direction or his agents. this was known as
the Domaine/Demesne– on the other hand we have a number of small middle size holding
whose tenants owed a number of customary dues and tolls to their Lords. still more
importantly these tenants would also help to cultivate the domain of the lord. historians have
referred to these land Holdings as 10 years. From any economic point of view, this
combination of large and small scale farming within a single unit is an essential characteristic
of the feudal mode of production. the domain itself consisted of the large Manor of the
Lord, Gardens as well as a large forest other aspects of the domain would include fields
Meadows and vineyards– naturally the domain was a very large piece of land.
the massive size of these eStates meant that a large labour force was necessary to cultivate
them profitably. allowed had three categories of labour to draw upon and in practice he used
all of them. either he might higher wage labourers to work for him, or he might own slaves or
he might extract services from his tenants.

Wage labour was renumerated in 1 of 2 ways either by the payment of a fixed wage in
money or in kind or by maintaining a worker at his employer's expense in his own
household, which would include the provision of board, lodging and clothing as well. In the
second case monetary payment would be by the way of a bonus. Both types of paid labour
were known in the early middle ages and were practiced on the domains of the Lords. But
this kind of labour was usually practiced very temporary and it was practiced by people who
constituted surplus labour– overall they were only a very temporary and exceptional
expedient and wage labour did not occupy a significant position within the feudal system.
Slavery also survived during the period but it survive that much smaller scale. slaves were
employed as agriculture labour in one of two ways. they might be set to routine daily tasks
on the domain of the lord working under the direct orders of their master or their Deputy. or
they might be made responsible for cultivation of a specific area, dividing the profits with
their master in a pre-determined ratio. This system, the latter one we have already discussed
as part of the Western Roman empire and its collapse.
of course as we know already in the Roman world largest states were cultivated exclusively
by slave gangs and the use of slavery was far more significant in nature. As we have also
discussed slavery was gradually abandoned for many reasons– shortage of supply due to the
closing of the frontiers as well as the fact that slaves work very badly under the harsh
conditions that they were kept in and illness and death which mean that there was a total loss
of capital and need for replacement. So all of these factors we have already discussed led to
the replacement of slave labour entirely. But the tenant slave or a slave who had been given a
piece of land and told to cultivated and to share the profit that he generated out of this was a
different matter Altogether.-- He lived in a settled family circle, free from the constant that of
dispersal which meant that the replacement of labour force to care itself.-- but even as
slavery survive and their numbers were certainly substantial, but the numbers were 2 fuel for
them to tackle the field work of the demesne without any support or to even make any
significant impact on it. Everything points to the same conclusion which is that if the
demesne had to be cultivated profitably then the Lords had to rely upon the feudal tenants.
As we have already discussed the Serf received his land as tenure from the feudal Lords who
were directly above him. Essentially there was a long chain of command starting from the
Duke going all the way to the Knight in which landed states were divided into progressively
smaller and smaller parcel and at the very end you had the Serf who was employed directly
on the land– there was no written contract to set a fixed. Or to specify the obligations
attaching to the tenure which had been granted to the present. Relations between the lord and
his men were regulated by the custom of the Seigneurie and by that Alone. Another crucial
concept that lay at the heart of all medieval thinking about law and which also had a
significant impact upon the structure of ruler society which is that there lives of the ordinary
people were organised according to tradition. And so the only title to permanent overland
was conferred by long usage– customs dominoated the lives of the ordinary people. These
might sometimes be written down in charter legal decisions or inventories Drone up for legal
proceeding but the main customs continue to be purely verbal in nature. So as we have
discussed this was 1 of the survival of the Barbarian social system where social and legal
relationships were governed by traditions going all the way back across generations.
1 of the most important effects of this was that all tenures regardless of their status became
hereditary in nature– this served as an advantage to the Lords because to displace the
presents from the land would have meant destroying their main source of Manpower. But
beyond this also the conversion of all kinds of tenures into hereditary Holdings had the most
significant impact upon the nature of feudalism which is the idea that peasants were tied
down to the land– beyond the share cropping arrangement between the present and the lord
which involt a share of the harvest being given by the present to the lord at the end of every
harvesting season there was also the system of force labour which was referred to as Corvee–
this involved fixed days of the week where the peasants would go to their lord and they
would cultivate the fields. so the feudal tendencies were the most important source of labour
for the lord. Tying down the peasants to the lord was crucial because the countryside was
under populated and the land was abundantly available and so it helped to maintain a self
renewing labour force.
in economic terms the tenant owed his lord 2 types of obligations the payment of rents and
the performance of services. The complex of rent was quite in cricket in nature and it is
difficult to grass for us in the modern. Regarding the significance of the various different
kinds of friends. For example some payments represented a kind of a ground rent which was
based upon the Lords claim of ownership to the land. Other rents were assesed like poll
taxes which symbolised the tenants infinity to his Lord. Others were a mark of personal
service you and only affected certain categories of peasants. the majority of the rents were
fixed sometimes in money but sometimes in Kind. All and all they constituted
considerable burden upon the tenants. but the service word even more presive than the
rents. The tenant of the Carolingian period in France owed more to his lord by the way of
service then he did in rent. Service labour included minor activity such as carting the Lords
produce Tu and from the market or just in general caring whatever the lord required across
the. Other than that the peasant also had to perform agricultural labour for the lord. The head
of each small holding was made responsible for the cultivation of a certain structure of land
which was taken from his demesne. Usually he was given also the necessary seed that was
required for it And all the profit went directly to the Lord. in addiction the tenant also
owed his Lord certain number of work days where he would be required to perform a
number of different tasks for example cutting down trees for their wood, ploughing, or other
kinds of labour to be performed Around The estate. the burden my it very from person to
person and it might also very from estate to estate– as we have discussed most of the
interactions between the lord and the present were verbal in nature which meant that they
were no written contract and everything was based on custom. in effect however this simply
meant that the Lord got to control how much labour he extracted from his Individual
peasants– for several days in the week, 1 man from the household would go to work for the
lord taking 1 or 2 extra workers with him at very busy Times Of The Year. The rest of the
family would work there own fields in the small holding. This arrangement provided the
manager of the domain with quite a substantial labour force and also ensured peasant
holdings were cultivated.
but this was not all. Some presents also were required to furnished a fixed number of
manufactured articles every year to their Lord. This would include wooden objects cloth,
garments metal ware as well. this was done either at the home of the worker or it was done
at the special estate workshop. The obligation to work there was a part of the stigma of
servitude.
Other than this you must also know that the Lord also provided a number of Machines and
large pieces of technology to the tenants this would include the water mill, as well as large
ovens as well as presses for extracting olive oil as well as wine. All of this would have to be
Repaid by the tenant either through cash or through Kind.
But the relationship between the lord and his peasants was not simply about economic ties–
The lord it was not merely the director of an Undertaking– he was also a leader. He had the
power of command over his tenant his earned forces from the peasantry on occasion and
demanded and in return gave them his protection.
He was also the dispenser of Justice. From the Frankish period onwards, the Seigneurial
court was the recognised place for hearing of pleas affecting the Lord dependents.
Why serfdom: Later Roman Empire–What we can clearly recognise is that these petty
proprietors were under the continual threat of losing their Independence and this was due to
conditions chronic from the letter days of the Roman empire. The constant and rest, the
habitual Resort to force, the insecurity which had impelled everyone to seek a protector more
powerful than himself, the abuse of power first aid by the absence of Government and
subsequently sanctioned by the custom as well all combined to draw and ever increasing
number of tenants whether they like that or not in to the bonds of subjection–economic and
political factors which had depressed the conditions of the peasantry.
This was the condition of feudalism in western Europe all the way till roughly 1200 CE.
Around 1200 CE We enter into a significant phase for feudalism– what is known as mature
feudalism. There are some interesting changes that happened during this time. And there are
some developments which we will cover in the next class and after that we will cover downs
and cities during feudalism, the development of Technology under feudalism as well as the
role of the church in the feudal culture.
Lecture 19: Scientific Revolution part 5, Historiography

In this lecture we will more or less conclude our discussion of the scientific revolution by
discussing its historiography essentially how have different historians conceptualized the
idea of the scientific revolution.

The historiography of the scientific Revolution is a fairy extensive topic which goes back all
the way to the before the Second World War. The generations of Scholars we introduced the
history of science to universities of European North America focused primary on the great
advances of knowledge about natural phenomena and on theories of astronomy in particular.
So in the initial phases of the study of scientific Revolution then narrative primarily focus
upon developments in Astronomy starting from the publications of Nicholas Copernicus who
discussed Heliocentrism which we have talked about in quite a lot of detail this was
followed by Kepler which was intern followed by Galileo and with that there was a total
revolution in Astronomy. The culmination of this long process of development happens with
ice at Newton who in his principles of mathematics developed mechanical conception of the
universe based on the theory of Universal gravity and the universal law of motions which
could account for all motions weather on earth or in the heavens and does completely
displacing the ideas of Aristotle which have dominated medieval western philosophy. This
brief outline however previously did not apply to other fields of science for example
chemistry or Biology or medicine. Certainly there were a number of doctors for example
William Harvey or Andreas vessalius who made very significant contribution to the study of
medicine but Scholars have a cute that their contributions did not lead to the kind of drastic
transformation of medicine in the same way that Newton's contribution flat to address
transformation of Physics and astronomy. In general the various branches of Physics as well
asronomy were a much easier cell in terms of the scientific Revolution rather than the other
silencers for example chemistry or Biology. historians attempted to overcome this
disunity of different scientific disciplines by emphasizing on commonalities between all of
them for example most 16th century practice nurse were heavily inspired by the ideas of the
Renaissance and Humanism so they were essentially reviving the text of ancient
philosophers and thinkers and so that they were challenging the authority of Aristotle. And
so eventually this drive to revive the ideas of the Ancient philosophers became a drive to
overthrow and replace the ideas of Aristotle entirely.

Another approach to try to unify different fields of knowledge focused on metaphysical and
the peninsular scientific Revolution for example the mechanical philosophy. Once again we
have discussed this in great detail the idea of the universe as a machine which shaped house
different philosophers and Scholars were approaching their scientific reason. Mechanical
philosophy did not just make claims regarding the existence of different matter in the world
but also it made clayms regarding how that matter is to be studied. Similar approach with 6
to provide a coir and narrative to the scientific Revolution focuses on methodology my
emphasizing upon how practice nurse examine nature and made the clamps so we have also
discussed about the emergence of the scientific method for example Descartes’ deductive
reasoning as well as Francis bacon's experimental method. At the same time Galileo also was
developing his forms of experimentation for example dropping ball from a certain height and
measuring its speed and velocity and so on and so forth. as we discussed in the previous
class also 1 of the key features of the scientific Revolution with Scholars have highlighted is
the fact that and practically all fields of natural philosophy and Science experiment and
experience became more important than believing the words of the Ancient authorities. Other
historians have emphasised upon the mathematical aspects of the scientific Revolution the
idea that the universe can be understood through a number of rules of mathematics.
Beyond just trying to unifide different fields of Science and trying to understand the
common basis among all of them where I also been debates regarding the very nature of
science. So in the previous class event over the debate between the internalist tradition as
well as the externalist tradition. The internalist believed that science was shaped by a number
of great men or great personalities who was genius and who put forward the dimensions of
science through the force of their will power. the idea which governs the internalist view of
science is that science is essentially a logical discipline and so through system Attic Research
and systematic investigation it is possible to improve and to refine the conclusions which
were presented by the preceding generations and this process can take place quite
autonomously without any infringement from society or culture. as we discussed in the
previous class also there was an alternative approach to this internalist understanding of
Science with so the force driving Science as coming from outside science itself from the
broader society. Development of the scientific Revolution arose in response to the needs of
early capitalism. ine particular the needs of trade and navigation were very significant to the
development of the scientific Revolution. Rober Merton, His hypothesis we have discussed
in the previous class also, this idea of pureitonism and scientific revolution in which he
claimed that the protestant ethos played a crucial role in creating the environment in which
science could emerge effectively. This divide between internalism and externalism and this
debate between the different Scholars has been going on for some time. In the previous class
we are discuss that the answer like somewhere in between. certainly the great figures of the
scientific Revolution were interested in solving practical problems and many of them were
technically gifted but we cannot reduce the scientific Revolution to a quest for material and
Technology progress or oriented for narrow industrial application. The pursuit of truth and
utility were very significant to the scientist of this time as we have seen. At the same time
however we should not try to isolate scientific Investigation from the larger society.
around the 1970 is a new generation of masses historians of science adopted different
approaches and show the questions that they were asking regarding scientific development
from 15 to 17th century also changed over the course of time. particularly during the 1970's
we see the rise of social history which rejected the idea of great man and placed much greater
emphasis on context and social and cultural factors and understanding scientific research.
Once again all of this we have discussed in the previous class.
Paradigm shift–Thomas Kuhn– we have discussed that his ideas were very significant in the
1960 because once again the internalist historians of science argued that scientific research is
an intellectual activity and Science and goes progressive Reform and refinement
autonomously in nature. but he asserted that scientists are trained and they function within a
paradigm and the paradigm shapes their questions and their methods and most of what they
do is normal science which is shaped within the paradigm and it is only when the paradigm
starts to fracture and fragment that this paradigm is eventually overthrown. In essence
according to his ideas all knowledge even scientific knowledge was fundamental is social in
nature. Not only did members of scientific disciplines bring cultural commitments from other
areas to their work but the discipline themselves were in effect social structures which
socialized their members. So once again his ideas reject this understanding of Science as
some kind of a progressive movement towards refinement and development of idea but
rather that scientists are in fact influenced by the world. this was a major rejection of the
Whig interpretation of history. this interpretation of history as we have already discussed
sees history in a teleological manner which is the development of history from darkness
towards light and the development of history as a Unidirectional and an inevitable
development. emphasizes upon the contingent nature of science.
1 of the most important developments of this greater concerned with the social role and the
impact of politics and culture app on science is also to try to understand the social role and
the self conceptions of the practitioners of science. Similarly since Science is an inherently
social activity, it is only natural that greater attention should be devoted to the Institutions
with in which science was practiced. So in the previous class also we have discussed the
royal philosophical Society of London and the Paris Royal Academy of Sciences as well as
the number of other regional societies and Denmark as well as in Florence and many other
parts of Europe. Princely quotes also provided opportunities for mathematicians, natural
philosophers and doctors to present the research and receive patronage from the respective
aristocrats.
Historians now also count among the institutions that faster science, International
corporations such as the society of Jesus with its worldwide machines and colleges as well as
International trading companies like the Dutch East India company and the French East India
company which collected plant and animals specimens from around the world and brought
them back to their respective countries they is companies and corporations also finance to the
development of botanical gardens. Once again as the study of society and Science has
gathered steam greater Emphasis is also be enclad upon the role of printing in the scientific
Revolution. Ben 10 was playing crucial role in spreading the ideas we have discussed the
different publications of the Different scientists. Other than this we also discussed scholarly
journals for example the philosophical transactions of the Royal Society and the journal des
scavans which was published in Paris–both published in the mid 17 century.
now this Emphasis of social history of science has also shifted the attention towards the
ordinary rank and file contributors to the development of science. For example a number of
university professors of natural philosophy in this smaller your opinion institutions
gentleman who sent contributions to the scientific society and noble man and noble women
who consumed scientific literature and played the crucial role and popular rising and
disseminating their knowledge and even the navigators and the manners who tested and
improve methods of cartography and navigation all over the world.

Cultural and social approaches to early modern science have also devoted
considerable attention to the issues of gender also once again we have discussed in the
previous class how Margaret Cavendish as well as Emilie du Chatelet, and a number of
other women were also participating an activities of the science and we have also discussed
how there was a gender understanding of Science and language.

These developments in historiography have brought the very idea of the scientific Revolution
into question. There is a very crucial history graphical debate on going. A number of
historians have argue that the very concept of revolution in early modern science and the
implication of a radical break with the past is misplaced or mis conceived. So there is a
difference between the continuist theory of science who have pointed out that developments
in mediaeval philosophy and medieval natural science provided the foundations upon which
the scientific revolution was built– so they have tried to reject the idea of the middle ages as
the so called dark ages were scientific research at completely stopped and philosophers and
scientist what trapped in superstition and religious belief. They have tried to highlight some
of the achievements of medieval thinkers in the fields of astronomy and cosmology optics as
well as in the study of motion and mathematical Sciences. However recently consensus has
stated that the continuists have over emphasised on the continuities between medieval
scientific development and scientific Revolution. But despite this there major contribution
lies in the fact that they have highlighted the scientific achievements for the medieval. And
they have also emphasised upon the dangers of what is called the Whig Theory of history– so
there is a tendency in the history of science to look back with hands site about what is known
to be important and to judge the past in terms of the present so you would simply pic and
choose what was important and what was not important so for example we know that Galileo
and Kepler would play a very crucial role in how we were to understand the universe and so
retroactively Whig historians tend to over emphasise their role and exclude a number of
scientist might have also made valuable contributions.
this Scholars have also question the reuse of the word science. They have pointed out that
the word Science as we use in the present day was actually developed only in the 19th
Century and that from 15th to 17th century there was no such thing as science the way we
speak of it. And so we should try to refer to whatever intellectual developments were
happening during this time. You only on their own terms. The terms science was used to
referred to any kind of rigorous intellectual activity or any kind of systematic intellectual
examination. So the very terms science has been called into question and similarly there was
so called the term revolution into question because it went on for roughly 200 years so they
have argue that you cannot have a Revolution which last such a long period. Time because
by definition Revolution is supposed to be a sudden and dramatic shift. But despite all these
challenges which have been presented to the scientific Revolution most historians have
chosen to retain the term because they are you that it provides a very convenient short hand
to summarise the number of developments which took place during the time period– When
we talk about the contemporary state of the history graphy of scientific Revolution we not
that greater Emphasis has been placed on the social creation of knowledge transmission of
knowledge expanding narrative to include more disciplines examinations between science
craft art Technology. Over all as Marcus Hallyer has pointed out whether or not we actually
use that term science whether or not we actually use the term revolution we have to agree
with the fat that between 1500 to 1700 the way in which we study nature was fundamental
transformed not just in theory but in terms of its methods Institutions and everyday practices.

Enlightenment: from the scientific Revolution now we are moving on to the enlightenment.
So we will very briefly just go over an introduction to the enlightenment and we will begin
the topic properly in the next class. The 18th century was characterized by this intellectual
movement called the enlightenment. The enlightenment towards distinguished by its
dedication to toleration, and rationality. So it was conceptualised as a decisive break from
superstition and from intolerance and in fighting with head characterised to the medieval and
previous early modern period. 3 factors a critically important in this new intellectual ferment
this included Revolution against monarchical as well as clarical absoluteism, especially as
absoluteism was practiced by Louis 14th and France other than this there was the rise of new
Freedom and publishing and with their rise of new Freedom and publishing there was the
creation of a new public and a new culture. In particular this new public and a new secular
culture emerged and England and in Holland. Here the impact of the scientific Revolution
infotechular the excitement generated by Newton's works was very vital.
leaders of the central actual movement of the enlightenment wanted to impose an ordered
freedom on social and political institution meaning that they wanted to impose checks and
balances on political institutions and end doing so they wanted to introduce greater
laboratory to the civics society. They wanted to end the persecution for ideas which had
characterised your opinion society in particular during the 15th and the 16th centuries. using
the medium of print they attack the attitude and believes which stored in the way of
tolerance–rationality. Philosophes–term used to refer to the leaders of the
Enlightenment. Important leaders of the enlightenment include Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
Jefferson, Immanuel Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesqueiu.
in the late 18th century Kant gave a very precise definition of the term in lightenment.
According to him in lightenment brought light into the dark corners of the mind dispelled
ignorance, prejudice and superstition. He also highlighted 1 of the core aspects of the
enlightenment which is its instants that each individual should think independently without
records to the authority of schools churches for self education and Critical thought which
would result in questioning and calling attention to the floors of the authorities. These leaders
post for a gradual transformation of the human condition. Now it's worth noting that most
leaders of the enlightenment towards fairly conservative and middle class in their ideas. So
they distressed the poor and watched masses and they did not want a radical democracy.
However the ideas that they promoted for example once again questioning authority and
thinking in visually would play a crucial role as they would be taken over by radical thinkers
such as Thomas Jefferson and Mary Wollstonecraft and they would be applied to different
faces so for examples 1 of the core leaders of The American Revolution where as Meri was 1
of the first and most important feminist in Europe and who demanded greater equality
between men and women. This radical philosophers question the traditional authority of
monarchy of aristocracy of the church as well as of the patriarchy.
No what are the ideas which United the philosophes.
hy ideas which brought them together included their believe in new science which were of
course all the new scientific discoveries which were taking place around your in the
presiding decades. All of these people work critical of theology and their critical of all kinds
of rigid sets of belief. They believed in tolerance for the right of people to worship freely and
they also believe deeply in the freedom of press. Never also willing to accept new religious
ideas for example Pantheism which equated nature with God. They also had what was for
the time. A very radical believe that the Bible was just a series of stories on morality and
philosophy and it was not the literal word of God.

Philosophes thrived Major European cities for example in Paris, London, Moscow Budapest,
and many other important cities. By the 1770's many of these philosophers had organised
themselves into society and there was the creation of what was known as the Republic of
letters. The idea that a number of important intellectual from this time. Were in
communication with each other either through letters or through the circulation of pamphlets
and books and articles which carried fairy radical ideas throughout Europe during this period.
There was the emergence of what are known as salons or societies which were patronised
by either the upper middle classes or by members of the aristocracy. These salons were
comprise of journalist writers artists as well as important philosophers. This was the time. Of
growing literacy among urban men and women and the time. Of a new prosperity after the
end of the 17th century crisis which had made books of foldable and which had created and
audience which wanted to read and which wanted to engage with philosophical ideas and this
of course the philosophers were painterised by members of the Bourgeoisie fed up
with monarchy as well as the privileges of the aristocracy. So as you said the emergence of
electric class of merchants of craft persons and of traders and so on as well as women who
had the ledger to read the oppose the old scholastic learning of Universities and the denied
traditional Christian ideas. They also it's be expressed confidence in Science and reason
called for humanitarian treatment of poor people as well as criminal and articulated that
support in favour of freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion and freedom of press.
The enlightenment had very vital consequences for European history and particular it
prepared the grounds for the ideas of human rights and free speech that we take for granted
today.
Modern Japan Lecture 17: Japanese Empire in China part 1

In the previous class we had gone over the different theories relating to imperialism, and so
in this class we’ll start with the first topic regarding Japanese imperialism, which is the
Japanese empire in China. Now the history of East Asia especially in the late 19 th as well as
the 20th century has been dominated by the rivalry between Japan as well as China. Their
decisive victory of Japan over China saw or rather was seen as clear evidence of Japanese
success in modernization through the application of western technology. Japanese reforms
Electro exceller success over China end the war of 1895 and led to the Treaty of
Shimonoseki. This treaty is seen by many as to be among the first steps towards the creation
of japan’s empire in eastern Asia.

In both China as well as japan’s military modernization which had been the subject of
considerable amount of debate as well as argument, and it had been one of the most
important aspects of politics and economics during the 19th century, had to be carried out
under the shadow of the military and economic power of the Western countries. And this
produced a distinctive drive for change in both cases. In both of the cases including China as
well as Japan, the militarization and modernisation were fundamentally defensive in nature.
This is of course understandable as modernization came to East Asia at gunpoint. Military
defeat by the West which roused the Chinese in 1840s, and military threat from the West
which in 1850s proved put Japan on the path to modernization—an excellent example comes
to us regarding this in a letter issued by Admiral ito hirobumi to Admiral Ting of the Chinese
Navy. In that letter he wrote that among the various causes for the defeats of Chinesearmy
and Navy, was the Chinese refusal to overthrow the old order and to adopt A new order.
Hirobumi stated that if China did not adopt A new modern system of government and armed
forces comma it would fall sooner or later decisively into the hands of the Western powers
full stop.

This militarization and modernization which happened at gunpoint led to a fundamental

transformation of the social and cultural order in eastern Asia. Previously both Chinese and
Japanese societies were dominated by Confucian ideas as well as China had occupied the
centre of their external relations. China had served as the dominating power in East Asia and
both Japan Korea and other East Asian countries and Southeast Asian countries had
constructed themselves with reference to China—this China centered world order would be
significantly disrupted by the process of westernization, which involved the arrival of
western guns, engines, and many other pieces of technology and intellectual ideas—the idea
of China as the middle country had been significantly displaced. But this definition of China
as the center of the universal order would not collapse so easily because it had survived for
hundreds of years, completely unchallenged—and Chinese efforts to defend their
prerogatives in East Asia would result in first sino Japanese war of 1894 as we shall see.

As we discussed in the previous class also, Japanese idea of independence especially during
the 1870s was driven by the idea of defensive modernization. The idea was that in order to
achieve true independence from the western threat, Japan would have to stand aside from
Asia, not only culturally, in the search of western style sources of strength, but also
politically, in order to provide the leadership which Asia seemed unable to furnish for itself.
In a sense Japan must quit Asia the idea was that Japan could not wait for its neighbouring
countries to become civilized so that they may all combine to make Asia progress. The idea
was that Japan must break out of Asia entirely and must set itself apart so that they can reach
the same level as the civilized countries of the West. I didn’t this we also discussed the
acceptance of social Darwinist ideas in Japan, the idea that Japan had to survive through the
colonization of other countries. So there’s the thesis of defensive imperialism. Japan must
use its newfound strength to establish domination over their neighbours both for the sake of
winning security, reputation, economic advantage for themselves and to bring civilization to
other countries in East Asia under Japanese protection.

Anyway so now we can move on to the factors responsible for the first sino Japanese war of
1894 to 1895. The underlying cause for the war concerned the changing Asian balance of
power, the instability that this had created, and the underlying fear that Russia and other
Western powers might be able to create a foothold in eastern Asia as a result of the rapid and
sudden decline of China.

As I have said before already China had occupied the position of the dominant power in
eastern Asia for several 100 years, and many countries in Southeast Asia as well as East Asia
derive their legitimacy from the imperial court in China. However due to the sudden collapse
of China it undermined its ability to serve as the original guarantor of the Asian order and to
uphold its suzerain slash tributary relationship. In this situation the foreign policy give meiji
reformers an opportunity to legitimate their highly controversial westernization program by
vindicating foreign policy successes. The 4th factor associated with this was that despite
China was undergoing a very sudden decline the Chinese bureaucracy as well as the Chinese
emperor refused to accept the changing balance of power or to even accord the Japanese with
a modicum of respect which had led to deep resentment among the Japanese people. Despite
the fact that the Chinese entered Asian order was in a phase of very obvious decline, the
Chinese bureaucracy refused to acknowledge this reality and refused to reorient its
perspective in line with the new reality. So as a result of this widening gap between Chinese
and Japanese expectations as well as Japanese desire to establish its power in Korea and on
the other hand China was not able to uphold its suzerain tributary relationship with Korea
and so the war between the Chinese and Japanese began.

So we can now consider these elements in some amount of detail. Chinese decline as you all
know from the previous semester also had become obvious by the 1850s. Since the
beginning of the early 19th century a series of civil wars internal rebellions then of course the
entry of the western powers through the opium wars and so on and so forth had very nearly
brought down the chin dynasty. And so the time Chinese work in a very obvious state of
decline by the late 19th century. However the very achievements of Chinese civilization had
blinded national leaders. For centuries it had occupied the central position in the Asian order
as they have said it was a dominant civilization, it was a massive military power, it was a
principal economic center, it was also a source of technological innovation, and by and large
the Chinese refer to their country as the middle Kingdom meaning that it was the central
Kingdom for there in the rest of the world first and so the assumption among the Chinese
was that the world order that their ancestors had fashioned on the basis of these achievements
would continue to organise international relations for the rest of the future as well. The centre
of the Chinese world order was the tributary system, where China maintained bilateral
relations with its many neighbours.

For Japan, chinas decline created both her threat as well as an opportunity. The threat came
from the fact that now there was a possibility that the British or the Russians might move
into Korea and thus create an immediate threat for Japan in eastern Asia. The opportunity
came from the fact that the Japanese government officials hoped to use victory over China in
order to rally support for the new westernized governmental institutions which had not
yielded any tangible benefits to the general population. And so one of the underlying cause
for the sino Japanese war can also be linked to the problem of State Building and
governmental legitimacy. Major institutions were new and were unpopular among many
people, this is something that we have already discussed when we have talked about the
peasant rebellions, the samurai rebellions, as well as the popular rights movement and many
other forms of resistance that the initial major state to confront with the people. So we see the
decline of China, the rise of Japan, the domestic legitimacy problem all of which we’re
coming together to create a Nexus of causes for the war. But this had exacerbated a further
cause for the war which is that the Chinese refused to acknowledge the Japanese as their
equals. Once again the Chinese were committed to the old and so they repeatedly insisted
upon treating the Japanese as inferiors. During the several 100 years of China’s ascendancy
the Japanese had accepted such pretenses of superiority. However after the years of hard
work to bring the major reforms to fruition there was an expectation that at long last the
Chinese would treat them with the respect that they had earned. Westerners who had come
from less hierarchical societies had been more willing to treat the Japanese as equals and to
extend dignity as well as courtesy and recognition to the new new maji state. The Chinese
however did not do this and since their country had been the single great power in East Asia
prior to the arrival of western representatives they continued to act as if the East Asian
international system dependent upon them.
All of this indicates that the underlying cause of war according to scholars like SCM Paine
was the change in international relations in eastern Asia. The rise of Japan the decline of
China institutional legitimacy in Japan and the quest for international respect all of which
were linked to the issue of balance of power.

Immediate cause of conflict for the Chinese Japanese war was provided by the diplomatic
struggle over Korea. we have already discussed that in 1868 when the Restoration took place
the Japanese sent an Embassy to Korea asking them to recognise the new government. this
declaration used language which like and their own ruler to China's and relegated Korea to a
lower place. the Koreans took offense at this and rejected the document. after this as you
know There was a debate between different fractions of the government regarding invading
Korea.
Despite the aggressive support for declaring war by 1873, the anti war party within the
court head immersed as successful. but this anti war party was forced to push for some kind
of action against Korea so they carried out their own version of gunboat diplomacy–Number
1875 a class took place between Korean coastal artillery and Japanese ships following which
Japan sent several 1000 Troops and ships in order to attack Korea and to secure apologies
and concessions. the Japanese were very careful to prevent the incident from escalating
further to to make sure that the British and the Americans would not have an opportunity to
intervene in this conflict– Further more a senior Japanese diplomat was also sent to
Peking in order to remove any fears regarding what Japan intended. the result of this was the
Treaty of Kanghwa which was signed on 26 February 1876. this opened three Korean ports
to Japanese trade give permission for the continuation of coastal surveys on Korean
coastline; and describe Korea as an independent state enjoying the same sovereign rights as
Japan– this last point which established Korea as an independent state and not as it tributary
subsidiary to China meant that the Japanese were intending to extract Korea out of the
tributary relationship that it had with China.
this Treaty made it possible for Japan to establish its influence in Korea by encouraging the
growth of a pro Japanese faction in the Korean court by such measures ascending from
Korean to Japan to receive a modern education. naturally Korean conservative as well as the
Chinese reacted to this with considerable hostility. Admiral Li Hungchang who had the
responsibility for China's relationships with Korea from 1881 to 1894 Made attempt to dilute
Japanese influence by concluding treaties between Korea and the western powers. Through
his mediation commercial agreements were negotiated with the United States Britain, and
Germany in 1882. Later trees were also concluded with Italy Russia and France over the next
few years. Simultaneously efforts were also made to strengthen China's political links with
members of the Korean royal family and to build a bro Chinese action in the Korean Court
more powerful than the pro Japanese faction.
during this time there were also internal conflicts developing within Korea– desire to
modernise and to Reform internal administration, which was being resisted by the
conservative Pro Chinese fraction of the Korean Court. I won't bother with most of the
intricate internal details we don't need to go over them right now but the point is that the
Japanese and the Chinese were locked into conflict regarding influence over the Korean
court and the shape and direction of Korean policy–1884, the Pro-Japanese Faction in Korea
attempted a coup d’etat with the support of Japanese military advisors and troops–attempting
to modernise just as the Japanese had done–to prevent a full-scale war from breaking out, the
Japanese quickly denied any involvement and the Chinese sent their troops to suppress the
rebellion–led to the Treaty of Tientsin in April 1885, under which side both sides agreed to
withdraw their Troops and to reference from sending them back to Korea without advance
notice to the other. And they also agreed that no country would engage in training and
recognization of the Korean Army.
1 reason why the Japanese were also interested in Korea was a strategic and geographical
factor. Korea as you all know juts out from the Asian mainland towards the Japanese islands.
Many contemporary commentators from Japan even referred to Korea as a dagger pointed
towards the heart of Japan. This strategic factor had resulted in Korea become in the centre
of conflict between China and Japan over the last several 100 years and this also provided
impacts for Japanese efforts to bring Korea under their influence as soon as possible– in
particular there was the threat of Russian presence in Korea. The Chinese were clearly not
able to organise the military presence and the Russians were aggressively happening in the
Northern China and Eastern Asia region and so there was a threat that the Russians would
established their strong hold in the region–In March 1890, Yamagata Aritomo asserted that
influence over Korea was essential element to defend Japanese independence–Trans-Siberian
railroad was being built, which would make it possible to Russia to transport troops to the
very borders of East Asia–Manchuria and Korea would come under threat–so essential to
maintain Korean independence.

Between the years from 1885 to 1892 the character of Sino-Japanese rivalry under went a
major change in character. Japanese modernisation was beginning to show commercial
results. there was a crucial question of exports towards Korea. as in Japan's own textile
industry continued to grow they begin to export there on products towards courier so it is 7%
of Japanese exports were towards Korea by 1892. This fact made Japanese cotton textile
manufacturers also into a pressure group seeking government action to take the balance
against their Chinese comparators who were exporting Western made goods and to Korea
and who had a substantial market share. So there was also and economics factor responsible
for the Chinese Japanese war of 1894. So there was not only the fact that considerable
amount for Japanese Textiles were being exported towards but also there was the potential of
the market being created and growing quite aggressively.
the specific Origins of the crisis of Summer of 1894 lay in the Korean governments failure
to suppress the anti for an activity of armed insurgents called the Tonghaks. in the beginning
of June the Korean Government ask for Chinese military assistance to suppress these anti
foreign insurgency and the Chinese agreed to send their soldiers for this task. How ever the
Japanese of course of course this measure citing the Treaty of 1885– the Japanese foreign
minister drafted a set of proposals for joint Chinese and Japanese action to secure reform in
Korea which would call for the removal of old and deep rooted abuses which had in
endangered peace and order in Korea. However this proposal was rejected by China refused
to withdraw it troops from Korea. And so Japan sent its own armed forces and to Korea in
order to protect its own interest and that is how the Chinese Japanese war of 1894.
Despite the massive difference in terms of the number of soldiers as well as the duration of
the modernisation and the number of battleships between Japan and China the Japanese were
able to rapidly secure batteries across the Korean Peninsula and push the Chinese troops out
of the reason entirely. Following this Japanese post their way into the Chinese mainland and
captured a substantial amount of territory there as well. China was thoroughly defeated, its
modernisation program was exposed as being a failure and its reputation in Asia was greatly
damaged.
According to Scholars like w g Beasely, the rapidity And The Spectacular nature of the
Japanese success created a clamour within Japan for the creation of an Empire. This
provided the background for the first stage of Japanese interior expansion. It's component
were work out in the course of Fame the peace Treaty to be demanded from China in the
winter of 1894 to 1895. Some of the demands were territorial in nature focusing on sudden
manchuria and Taiwan. Other demands for economic, calling for privileges for Japan in the
Chinese ports. China was in no position to refuse them as the negotiations of 1895 made
clear.
but despite this great degree of enthusiasm among the Japanese people the Japanese policy
makers were worried about being too ambitious because that might provoke western powers
to intervene– This is why in the initial stages the Japanese word afraid of demanding territory
within Korea because they were worried that if they did so then Russia would also demand
territory in Korea. Other than this they also refuse to ask for territory and manchuria because
once again they were afraid that then Russia would also ask for the same.
The Japanese proposed peace to China in the Treaty of Shimonoseki– the initial drafts of the
Treaty called for Chinese recognition of Korean Independence, as well as cession of territory
at Liaotung Peninsula for the safeguarding of Korea, additionally they also called for
indemnity to Japan's war cost–200 Million Taels, which would be payable over 5 years.
Associated with the indemnity was the Cession of Taiwan, and the Pescadores islands
(between Taiwan and Mainland China). Other than this, China also had to grant the full
range of commercial privileges to Japan, which had been given to the Western Powers as a
result of the Unequal treaties.--four more treaty ports, including Chungking were to be
opened to all nations, including Japan, and finally, Japan was granted navigation rights on
the Yangtze river, and the right to develop manufacturing and to make infrasructural
investments on Chinese soil.
despite the Japanese maintaining moderation in the territorial demands the Russian policy
makers were seriously disturbed at the prospect of Japan being established in Korea and
Liaotung– the Russian policy makers in Alliance with the Germans and the French insisted
that Japanese occupation of the Peninsula would be a constant set to the capital of China and
wood render the independence of Korea an illusion– and so they staged what is now known
as the Triple Intervention– the 3 great powers Russia France and Germany, stage a protest
against the Treaty that Japan had propose and even stated that they would be willing to use
military force if needed to prevent the Treaty from being concluded. The triple intervention
left Japan with few options especially as they were no indications that British or Americans
would help if war broke out. And the Japanese certainly were not in the position to wage a
war against 3 great European powers.
Very quickly summarise the impact of the China Japan war 1894 to 95 first of all it closed
the Treaty port era of 19th century imperialism and began a new stage of territorial
imperialism especially in East Asia. Japan was no longer subject to imperialism it now
became a participant in the process. This development intensified discussion of Reform and
change within China and the same time as it triggered for the imperialist competition in
China and Korea. China was no longer a contender for mastery in Asia and the contest now
lay between Japan and Russia. Most of the Japanese gains during this time period were made
in the field of Commerce and manufacturing. under Article 6 of the Treaty Japanese subjects
were declared free to engage in manufacturing in all open ports and cities in China they
could import machinery into China at nominal duties and the goods manufactured by them
enjoyed the same Limited duties and taxation as the Japanese exports. the most favordination
clause immediately made the same privileges available to all other countries that benefited
from the unequal treaties. Very soon a network of port city based industries Virtually
untaxed emerged.