Introduction to the Special Issue

Abstract

When Ted Farmer wrote his “News of the Field” piece for the first volume of Ming Studies in 1975, he described his vision for the journal as “an informal vehicle which will serve the needs of all who are interested in the Ming period”, adding that “In scope it will include such fields as history, the fine arts, philosophy and literature.” In Farmer’s recollection of that time, these were “the only four fields in which I could identify anyone writing in English.” Much has changed in the more than four decades that have passed since that first issue; this short introductory piece is not the place to present a comprehensive overview of the developments within the field of Ming Studies as a whole. It may be worthwhile, however, to reflect briefly on what “Ming Studies” has meant for much of that time, especially in terms of chronology, space and discipline. Of course, in a publishing environment where there are journals entitled T’ang Studies, Journal of Song Yuan Studies, and Late Imperial China, it might seem unproblematic that Ming Studies should cover the chronological period from 1368 to 1644. Looking through the titles of Ming Studies articles over the years, article authors do mostly that; there are relatively few articles that focus, for example, on the Yuan dynasty. There are reviews of books that deal with the Yuan, often written by Ming specialists such as John Dardess, as there are reviews of the books that John Dardess wrote about the Yuan dynasty, but no research articles that have “Yuan Dynasty” in their title. Chronologically speaking, then, for most of this journal’s past, the field of Ming Studies covered the study of the period between 1368 and 1644. The topics explored in the journal, whether these were of a literary, religious, philosophical or more broadly historical nature, were all drawn from within these chronological limits. In terms of space, too, the articles included in Ming Studies have remained within the clear boundaries of the Ming Empire: south of the Great Wall and the northern garrisons, east of Tibet and Assam, and on the land side of the maritime frontier. Of course, there are exceptions: familiar characters like Zheng He, seafarers and pirates make regular appearances in the pages of Ming Studies too. There are also articles on the world beyond Ming-controlled territory, such as studies of the SichuanTibetan frontier, or discussions of Ming foreign relations, such as those dealing with Ming–Mongol interactions. But on the whole, the articles in Ming Studies deal with the Han-Chinese world located within the borders such as they were established and maintained by the Ming Empire. The study of Ming China, the underlying assumption appears to be, had clear limits in terms of time and space for most of its publication history. In disciplinary terms, too, the articles in Ming Studies remained largely within certain precincts. Ted Farmer’s suggested fields: history, the fine arts, philosophy and literature, were for many years the central pillars of sinology, and they Ming Studies, 78, 2–6, October 2018