2015, Vol.72, No.3

Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.89

pISSN : 1598-3021 / eISSN : 2671-7921
https://journal.kci.go.kr/snu-ioh

This paper examines from an ideological perspective whether or not it is possible to call the ancient society of China an "empire", which has so far been commonly the case. Since it was ruled by an emperor, ancient China is an empire (帝國) in a literal sense, but the question posed by this paper is whether or not the translated Western term of "empire" is an equally appropriate name. Also, if ancient China was indeed such an empire, this paper seeks to address the problem of how many empire-like traits it had, and what type of empire it was. From the perspective of ideology, the thought of dayitong (大一統) won over in the end in the Qin and Han dynasties, so that ancient China in actuality appeared in the shape of a united nation. This ancient nation considered tienxia (天下) to be the ideologically appropriate and necessary domain of rule. Slogans such as tianxiayijia (天下一家) or jiatianxia (家天下) were ideological devices that tied the united nation into one culturally and ideologically homogeneous common empire. At the same time, Confucianism as an integrating philosophy did not stop at traditional family ethics, but developed into an ethics of society and nation. As a result, ancient China can be classified within the translated term of "empire" in terms of its expansion of territory and the fact that it extended itself on the basis of ethnicity, culture, and homongeneity.

In the fourth century BC, Isocrates advocated so-called panhellenism as the most effective way to overcome the crisis with which Greeks were faced at that time. His panhellenism mainly consists of two parts: (1) Greeks have to put an end to mutual rivalries and to achieve a unity among themselves, (2) Greeks have to go on a military expedition in order to wage a war against the barbarians (=Persians). This paper aims to clarify the relation between the two parts of Isocrates’ panhellenism. In general, panhellenism was born and developed as a result of the Persian invasions in the fifth century BC. The enmity against Persians made Greeks united as one. Furthermore, Greeks designed a panhellenic expedition for the purpose of conquering the Persian Empire. This political vision was succeeded by Isocrates and finally was accomplished by Alexander the Great, the Macedon King. Isocrates considered the Greeks not simply as a ethnic community but rather as an ideological community formed by an education that could make its members have a concord or ‘oneness of mind (homonoia)’. In this view, hellenistic spiritual and mental factors such as philosophy, language, religion, mythology, history, tradition, law and political constitute were considered more valuable than ethical identity for being a Greek. The thought that such Hellenistic factors are universal and essential for all mankind should result in the sense of duty to hellenize all the barbarians. Consequently the panhellenism would consist not only of the unification of Greeks, but also of the military expedition to the Persian Empire justifying it as a necessary enterprise for civilization and enlightenment of the barbarians. On the other hand, during the fifth and forth centuries there were also critical attitudes to the imperialistic panhellenism. For instance, Plato, the most important philosophical rival of Isocrates tried to design a ideal polis with a moderate size. That means a critique to Isocratic panhellenism. On the other hand, the tragic poet Aeschylus and historian Herodotus seriously altered the tragical ending of imperialistic expansion by showing the example of Persian War.

This research investigates the relationship between the Islamic empires of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, and Arabic literature in the Middle Ages. The purpose of the research is two-fold: to understand how the literature participated in the management of the empires, and how it reflected the social phenomena that happened in the empires. The role of the poets in the empires overstepped the tribal level and was extended to the national level, such as defending the legitimacy of the rulers, supporting the policies of the empire, and criticizing social affairs. The empires witnessed negative phenomena such as the pursuit of pleasure and moral decay resulting from the expansion of urban culture. These phenomena were reflected in poems with the theme of wine and physical love. Meanwhile, the poetry of Sufism (Islamic mysticism) and the poetry of platonic love appeared as a reaction against the pleasure prevailing state of the society. Despite the Islamic principle of equality of all Muslims, non-Arabic Muslims actually were discriminated against by the Arabs. This caused resistance on the part of the non-Arabs, which began to take shape in the anti-Arab Shuʿūbiyyah movement led by Persians. Thus, Arabic writers tried to criticize or satirize the movement. In general, the Arabic literature of the Middle Ages reflected and commented on social phenomena and problems witnessed in the Islamic empires.