The West in Russia and China: Religious and Secular Thought in Modern Times. Volume I; Russia 1472-1917. Volume II: China 1582-1949

by technology on the amount of land a man could cultivate. He calculates that at the very most 29% of the land was held by large landowners and brings the whole issue into perspective by showing that according to the figures for 1021 China at that time enjoyed a ratio of population to arable land providing about five times more land per person than was available in the recent past as indicated by the census of 1954. Dr. Lewin further supports his views by arguing that it was to the self-interest of the state to foster the preservation of a large number of independent, tax-paying peasants, even though he concludes, in the end, that the main antagonistic classes in the Sung were the emperor and the bureaucracy on the one hand, and on the other hand the independent and tenant peasants. Be that as it may, the role of the state looms large in his view of the Sung economy and society. This is surely appropriate when China is regarded in comparative perspective. Yet this emphasis seems at times excessive as when, for instance, Dr. Lewin insists that the chu-hu were state.mortgagees. A focus on the central government is unavoidable in considering Sung economic policies, the government monopolies, etc. It is also fostered by the nature of our sources, but the author's stress on economic centralization does a disservice in distracting attention from the necessary study of Sung regionalism. This is somewhat surprising since Dr. Lewin himself originally planned to study one region, Szechwan. Consistent with his emphasis on the state and its role in preserving the status quo, Dr. Lewin presents a view of the Sung in which traditional elements prevail. For example, he argues against the prevalence of money in the early Sung and effectively challenges the view that in 1065 the greater part of taxes was paid in money. His position does have the merit of avoiding an exaggerated view of the modernity of the period, but on the whole it is not persuasive. Dr. Lewin who has used the work of Western scholars, including Balazs, apparently did not have access to a number of secondary studies which document a very different view of the Sung. As a result, much of the most significant recent work is simply not taken into account, including the findings of Hartwell on coal and iron, Ho Ping-ti on JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES