In fact, the modern universities in China did not grow spontaneously in the soil of local culture, ideas and systems, but were transplanted from abroad. At the beginning of the founding of domestic universities, most of the people who presided over the founding education came back from abroad (such as Cecilia Cheung and Wu Rulun). They not only have the knowledge of China traditional culture, but also have the background of studying abroad, which well combines the system of foreign universities with domestic cultural traditions. At that time, many universities were basically established and operated in accordance with the institutional framework designed by the University Order (promulgated at 19 12) and the principle of universal universities. In terms of the basic system of the school, although there is a limitation of "learning from China and using the West" (for example, the president needs to be appointed by the government), in terms of the micro-system and culture of the university, it basically maintains the characteristics of "academic community" which is more consistent with the common practice of universities all over the world, and the internal management of each school adopts the internationally accepted "professor-run school" system. Especially in universities such as Peking University, Tsinghua University and Mei Yiqi, which are presided over by Mr. Cai Yuanpei, the highest decision-making bodies of their universities are professors' conferences and councils, whose spiritual themes are democracy, science, freedom and rationality. It is particularly worth mentioning that in the universities at that time, people were fully alert to feudal thoughts, and some famous figures in academic circles were famous for opposing feudal thoughts, among which Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi were the most influential. In the early days, some universities became internationally renowned after 10 or 20 years of establishment, and their students could communicate with universities in many countries in Europe and America. Therefore, although modern higher education in China started late, the starting point was not low.
However, shortly after the founding of the People's Republic of China, the state not only took over and banned all religious schools and private schools in an all-round way, but also reorganized universities in terms of organization and ideology through the "adjustment of departments" and the "intellectual ideological reform movement". After such adjustment and transformation, the national higher education has not only changed from general education to specialized education, ending the liberal tradition that has dominated universities for a long time, but also transformed universities into all-inclusive public universities, making private universities and missionary schools that once had brilliant influence in the history of higher education in China disappear completely in China, and also making the diversified state of education disappear completely. Soon after, the Soviet Union's expert school-running system was abandoned, and this system has continued to this day.
What needs to be distinguished here is that the foreign university system transplanted to China before liberation is not a simple capitalist education system, but a universal education system. Regrettably, people at that time still lacked such knowledge, patience and mind to make a calm comparison between Chinese and foreign education systems and to determine the nature and direction of education by democratic and scientific methods. On the important issue of education, which is related to the construction of national cultural spirit, the relevant state institutions have not organized a big discussion, including educators and people from all walks of life, but almost decided the educational policy according to political needs. A comparable event is that in the early days of the founding of the United States, five members of Congress, including President Washington, put forward a proposal to establish a national university in the United States, but Congress did not pass it, because establishing a national university with a monopoly position would destroy the free competition environment of universities. This resolution can be said to protect the free competition culture and environment of American universities, so that they can always maintain their vitality and enjoy a world-famous reputation.
In fact, it is like laying a foundation for revolutionary leaders to decide the educational policy. If the foundation of the auditorium is laid, only the auditorium can be built, not the residential building. At the same time, it has entered a fixed logic: the educational policy is decided by revolutionary leaders, and its nature and purpose are bound to be politicized. Political education policy is difficult to achieve real education, and without real education, how can we produce innovative talents? Let's take a look at the universities in the "seventeen years" period. Have intellectuals who are university teachers ever felt calm? One after another, political movements "bathe" in various movements (learning from workers, peasants and soldiers, receiving re-education and carrying out ideological reform), fearing, worrying, being on guard, fooling people and being fooled, exposing and being exposed; In order to escape the blow and disaster, many people have been cautious for a long time, with their tails between their legs. In such an atmosphere and environment, how can people have the heart to learn, let alone think about higher-level innovation?
Looking back on the form of university education in the first 30 years, first, there is basically no concept and consciousness of respecting knowledge and talents. At that time, intellectuals were often labeled as "bourgeois" and academic authority was labeled as "reactionary", and they could be accused of being criticized, criticized, decentralized or even reformed through labor at any time. At that time, many intellectuals' personality, dignity, rights and jobs were not guaranteed, so they were often in panic and anxiety. Second, revolutionary cadres and workers and peasants who came over during the war years were the most valued (sought after) by society at that time. Some of them occupied leadership positions in schools at all levels during the takeover of universities, and caused some problems in the anti-rightist movement, such as separation of Party and government, laymen leading professionals, and imbalance of rights between teachers in party member and non-party member. After the "baptism" of various movements, it can be said that no one dares to raise any objection or question about the right or wrong of educational theory. Some people even lost their basic ability to judge right and wrong, thinking that intellectuals really bore the original sin and lost their spiritual foundation. Thirdly, the education system established under the guidance of the idea that education serves politics (not necessarily limited to the time put forward by 1957, but its thought appeared in the early stage of intellectual ideological transformation) is a top-down administrative system with administrative orders as the basic way. This system of "running a school by order" not only manages education, but also teachers and students, so that they have no conditions to pursue the freedom of teaching and learning, nor do they have the necessary questioning and critical spirit in university education.
The restoration of the college entrance examination system and the policy of reform and opening up have made universities full of vitality and hope again. In the early 1980s, people were encouraged by the suggestion of "respecting knowledge and talents". At that time, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China's Decision on Educational System Reform (1985) and some substantial educational system reform measures were issued, which revived the original nature of underground or marginal education and made a golden age in the history of higher education in China. However, due to the lack of thorough reflection on the Cultural Revolution and its causes, some reforms carried out at that time came to an abrupt end without making a substantive breakthrough, and the educational thought returned to its previous state.
The trend of market economy in the early 1990s legalized the pursuit of economic interests in colleges and universities, and it became a temporary trend for teachers to "go to the sea" and schools to "generate income". However, the "dual track system" of college enrollment and fees makes the educational activities of colleges and universities directly linked to economic interests, and colleges and universities begin to gradually market. The subsequent enrollment expansion and tuition increase in colleges and universities have made the amount of disposable funds in colleges and universities huge, and correspondingly accelerated and deepened the speed and degree of corruption in colleges and universities, making it obviously market-oriented, utilitarian and vulgar. The deeper development of this phenomenon is that power corruption and academic corruption emerge one after another in universities. With the deepening of corruption, people's negative evaluation of universities is also escalating, from marketization, utilitarianism and vulgarization in the past to bureaucracy, bureaucracy and power, so that some students publish articles on the Internet that "my alma mater, I despise you". Education has changed from serving politics to serving both politics and economy. In the high-profile slogan of "strengthening the cultivation of innovative talents", corruption and character degeneration in colleges and universities have occurred, which is thought-provoking; Some university presidents are trying their best to defend the administrative system while shouting about cultivating innovative talents. Don't they really understand that it is impossible to produce truly innovative talents under an administrative and utilitarian system?
In the history of modern universities in China, there were two substantial changes: one was "abolishing the imperial examination to promote the university" in the late Qing Dynasty, and the other was the establishment of the socialist education system after liberation. The first reform completed the transformation from feudal education to modern education, which lasted more than 60 years and realized the modernization transformation of education in China. The second revolution also took about 60 years, but its conclusion is still difficult to determine. Because during this period, although the form and conditions of education have changed significantly, the substantive progress of education is not obvious. For example, the concepts of "promoting to a higher position and making a fortune" and "aspiring to success", as feudal ideas, have not withdrawn from the field of education, but have become increasingly fierce, almost becoming the spiritual background of general education and higher education. However, in the actual education system, there are still many things that Deng Xiaoping called feudalism, such as paternalism, centralized management, bureaucracy, excessive concentration of power and so on. These phenomena and the ideas and logic behind them are hardly advanced compared with some modern international ideas and methods such as fully embodying civil rights, power restriction and supervision, and handling affairs according to law. It is these thoughts and systems that affect the realization and exertion of educational value and significance.
The question we are facing now is: Have the feudal ideas that affect the development of education been eliminated, or are we aware of this problem? What efforts should society make for this? And who can answer "Qian Xuesen's question" in action?
The debate about feudalism and the universality of feudal society has been going on in international history, and it has also been reflected in China in recent years. This paper intends to discuss the similarities and differences between Chinese and Western scholars' theories on feudal society from the aspects of why China and Western Europe have feudal societies, how to compare them reasonably and how to understand their development.
one
Feudalism is no stranger in China. Refers to the Zhou Dynasty (1066-77 1 years ago) enfeoffment of princes with the same surname and princes with different surnames. In the twenty-four years of Zuo Zhuan, it was recorded that "the Duke of Zhou hung his uncle's salt, so the feudal relatives used it as a fan screen." This system of enfeoffment is to distribute the land and its residents to the blocked people, which is called granting land to the people. Governors can also enfeoffment land and people to the next level of Qing Dafu, so land is the hub, forming a multi-level hierarchical chain between rulers. They have mutual rights and obligations, mainly that the land recipient should pay tribute (including military service) to the land giver [1]. No matter what explanation is given to the feudal system of the Western Zhou Dynasty, there is no doubt that it is the inherent political system of China itself. This system gradually changed during the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period (722-22 1 year) and was difficult to maintain. After Qin Shihuang unified China, he abandoned feudalism and set up a county. It is generally believed that the political and feudal system in China's history is over.
After the abolition of feudalism in Qin Dynasty, feudal princes in China's history were still enfeoffed. However, this feudalism, as Wang Tong later said, "Emperor Jingdi ordered feudal princes not to cure the people but to supplement officials, while Han established literature and history to govern their land, so the feudal land was called a county" [2]. However, the debate about which feudal county is better and which feudal county is worse can make the rule more stable and longer has been going on in the history of China. All parties in the debate regard feudalism as a political system, which does not involve the social and economic content under the feudal system. Liu Zongyuan's famous "On Feudalism" only pointed out that the emergence of ancient feudal system was related to the existence of clan and tribal forces, and it was not necessarily the result of man-made.
In modern China, intellectuals began to accept western culture and realized that social development had stages. Yan Fu (1853— 192 1) translated Adam? Smith's The Wealth of Nations translated feudalism into transliteration Vogt system. Later he translated Edward? Jencks's History of Political System translated feudalism into feudal system. Yan Fu studied here because he was talking about the stages of social development. He thinks that there are more than two thousand years between Tang Yu and Zhou, all of which are feudal times. Obviously, Yan Fu thinks that China's inherent feudal system is very similar to the western feudal system and can be compared, so he translated feudalism into feudalism [3].
Since Yan Fu, many intellectuals in China have no longer simply understood feudalism as a political system, but its socio-economic content. In the late 1920s, Tao Xisheng wrote The History of Feudal Society in China, and thought that China in the Zhou Dynasty was a feudal society. During the Spring and Autumn Period, the feudal system began to decompose, but the feudal natural economy extended to 1500 [4]. Tao Xisheng analyzed the land system, manor system, farmers' situation and feudal system in China. Soon, Qu Tongzu wrote China Feudal Society. Qu's analysis of China's feudal society is based on western feudal social theory. He believes that the key point of feudal social integration is the existence of land ownership and the relationship between owners and farmers. "Feudal society is only a class society with land organization as the center to determine the relationship between rights and obligations" [5]. At this time, there was a big debate about the social nature of China. Although people have different views on the social nature of China, many people have admitted that feudalism is a society and it is no longer a simple political system. After the founding of New China, China historians established the understanding of the existence of feudal society in the stage of social development in China, and made a detailed study and elaboration on the content of feudal society according to the principle of historical materialism [6].
If feudalism is inherent in China, it is a latecomer in Western Europe. Western Europeans in the Middle Ages did not know the feudal system we are talking about today, let alone the feudal government and society. Now the content of feudalism mentioned by western historians only exists sporadically in medieval western Europe, and it varies from place to place, and the customary law that records it also varies from time to time [7]. /kloc-in the 6th century, French jurists began to study feudalism, which was mainly based on a fief law, namely Lombardy (northern Italy) customary law compiled in the 2nd century, which recorded that vassals had fief and related rights and obligations on the condition of military service [8]. /kloc-spelman, a British jurist in the 7th century, also studied the British feudal system according to Lombardy's method, so spelman and others discovered the formulation of feudalism [9]. At that time, these scholars thought that feudalism was only a legal system, because the property rights in feudal law were very different from those in Roman law, so there was a debate that feudalism originated in Rome and Germanic.
/kloc-Western scholars in the 0/8th century still regard feudalism as a legal system. For example, in his book On the Spirit of Law, Montesquieu analyzed the feudal system in Western Europe with the title of "feudal law", involving the relationship between feudal lords and ministers, the fief system and serfdom [10]. Adam. Smith, on the other hand, believed that feudal law was the sovereign power and judicial power of the lords. In fact, the original purpose of the application was to strengthen the kingship, but as a result, the kingship was not strengthened, and the power of the lords was still too large, forming a feudal hierarchy [1 1]. At this time, it was the era when the enlightenment thought in western Europe was carried forward and the old system was criticized. Feudalism is gradually equivalent to aristocratic rule, which is the root of exploitation and oppression, manifested in various lords' privileges, remnants of serfdom, division and chaos, and so on. So 1789 The French Revolution decided to abolish the feudal system.
In the19th century, the academic development in the west made a lot of generalizations on various aspects of the feudal system, such as the relationship between monarch and minister, the fief system, manor serfs, the Marco Commune, feudal cities and so on, and achieved a lot of results. At this time, the word feudalism appeared, referring to the feudal system. However, historians still understand and discuss feudalism and feudal system from political and legal aspects. By the middle of19th century, Marx and Engels had established the historical materialism, and put forward the concepts of mode of production, economic base and superstructure, which were used to divide the stages of social and historical development, resulting in feudal mode of production and feudal ownership. These theories have also been recognized and developed by academic circles. In the late 1930s, Mark? Bloch wrote the book Feudal Society, which analyzed all aspects of medieval society in Western Europe. Although he still mainly analyzed feudalism in western Europe from the aspects of political system, the relationship between monarch and minister, his vision was broad, and he also analyzed social economy, manor serfs and other contents, which was undoubtedly influenced by historical materialism. Brock can be said to be a master of western European feudal theory, and his works laid the foundation for future generations to understand western European feudal society. Later, according to the theory of historical materialism, Soviet historians conducted in-depth research on all aspects of feudalism in western Europe, and did a lot of useful work for establishing the theory of feudal social formation.
To sum up, regardless of China or Western Europe, their understanding of feudalism has a development process that firstly regards it as a legal and political system, and then regards it as a socio-economic form. However, the understanding of this issue has not yet been unified. Most western historians still regard the feudal system as a special political and legal system in medieval Western Europe, emphasizing that it includes three aspects: (1) the feudal system formed a unique relationship between monarch and minister; (2) a fief system adapted to the relationship between monarch and minister was formed; (3) With the decline of state power, each monarch gained independent administrative power and judicial power within its territory. It is precisely because of this particularity that the universality of feudalism has become a problem for some people. They believe that feudalism is a unique product of western Europe, and there is no feudal system in other countries in the world, thus denying the universality of feudalism.
Although China's feudalism is inherent, the in-depth study of it was undoubtedly carried out under the influence of the advanced western historical thought at that time, so most China scholars think that China has a feudal system and feudal era similar to that of western Europe. Mr. Qi Sihe wrote "Examination of the Rites of the Zhou Dynasty" and "Feudal System and Confucianism", and made a comparative study on the political, economic and social aspects of feudalism between China and the West, pointing out that they are not far apart. "Although the development speed and quality of human culture are different, they follow roughly the same way", and he also quoted Zhuangzi's words, "There is a saying by Zhuang Sheng,' Look from others, you will be more courageous, and everything will be the same', and we will only look from others" [12]. After liberation, historians in New China always advocated an independent feudal social form and a feudal era in historical development. This is common in the history of China and other countries in the world, but the existence time of feudal society in different countries is different. Du Fu, a scholar in Taiwan Province, believes that the essence of Zhou feudalism is armed colonization after the attack and conquest, so the feudalism of historical materialism has nothing to do with traditional feudalism [13].
Western scholars have different understandings of feudalism in China. One school thinks that there is no feudalism in China, which is the view of oriental absolutism, but it is not very popular now. The other school advocates feudalism in the history of China. Although their understanding of feudalism is mostly political and legal feudalism, they still find a lot in common between China and the West. Budd, an American sinologist, believes that feudalism mainly adapts to pre-modern China economically, but there is also feudalism in China politically, that is, the Zhou Dynasty (defined by the author as BC1kloc-0/22-256b, including the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period), while the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties (defined by the author as 2 1-589) are considered as quasi-feudalism. Herrlee Glessner Creel also thinks that there are many similarities between ancient China and medieval Europe, which are worthy of comparative study. Brock's definition of feudalism can be applied to China's Zhou Dynasty almost unchanged [15].
Some scholars also oppose the universality of feudal system. Anderson is one of them. In his view, the feudal characteristics can not be summarized as the combination of large real estate and small farmers, but its superstructure, such as sovereignty division, feudal system and vassal system, can not be ignored. Because the pre-capitalist forms all run these politics through super-economic coercion, the legal superstructure has become the essential structure of the mode of production in the pre-capitalist society, and they have been directly combined in the chain of exploiting surplus value, so it is impossible to determine the nature of this mode of production without its political and legal superstructure [16]. Anderson overemphasized the importance of super-economic coercion in feudal society and thought that feudal exploitation and production could only be carried out through political violence. In fact, he denied that feudal society was an economic form and violated the principle of historical materialism. In fact, the existence of super-economic coercion in feudal society is because small producers are underdeveloped and the economy is not independent. With the strengthening of the independence of small producers, the super-economic compulsion of feudal society gradually weakened, which was not an element of feudal production and could not be paid due attention to [17].
In short, if feudalism is regarded as a social form, a combination of large land ownership and small production, and a society in which farmers and landlords are opposed, then its universality is beyond doubt. China and western Europe had feudal society and feudal times. Even western scholars who know feudalism from politics and legal system think that there is another feudal era and a feudal society in China's history, but most of them regard this period as a period from the Zhou Dynasty to the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, which is short-lived. Only a few people emphasize the uniqueness of feudal system in western Europe and think that there is no feudal system in other parts of the world.
two
Many historians at home and abroad have made a comparative study of feudal society in China and the West. Only some methods of western scholars are discussed here.
Western scholars can be roughly divided into two factions. One school, I think, compares the modern western society, at least the modern western society, with their views on China in the past, thus pointing out how backward and eccentric China society is. Oriental absolutism is its typical representative, but not many people believe in it now. Weber's comparison also belongs to this category. He said that China only pursues profitable capitalism, and there is no reasonable capitalism as an example. Here we can also quote several other arguments of Weber.
Starting from the concept of a modern western society ruled by law, Weber thinks that China's laws are arbitrary by individuals, lacking rational management and justice, and paternalistic. There is only criminal law in law, and there is little personal freedom in private law [18]. However, some contemporary American jurists have different views from Weber. They know more about China's laws and western-style rule of law than Weber, so they point out that "the fully developed system and mechanism of rule of law is the product of modern times" [19], and they do not fully emphasize the rule of law in the conflict between rule of man and rule of law. "The judgment of law is ultimately the judgment of people, and the judgment is more influenced by the judge's personal prejudice than the formal law" [20], so they appreciate the method of relying more on mediation than litigation to solve disputes in China's history, and think that this tradition should be maintained. China was not without civil law in ancient times, and the contractual relationship in Han Dynasty was very developed, and its scope of application was very wide [2 1]. I think it should also be pointed out that individual rights and freedoms are also the products of modern Europe, not only in ancient China, but also in ancient and medieval western countries.
Weber admitted that China developed a developed bureaucracy in ancient times, but he compared the modern western bureaucracy with the ancient bureaucracy in China, and thought that "the spirit of China bureaucracy is related to the system of public burden, while the western bureaucracy developed with the change of monetary economy" [22]. In fact, the modern western bureaucracy is gradually developed on the basis of studying the ancient bureaucracy in China. Some people think that until the18th century, China's bureaucracy was still more advanced than the west [23]. In this respect, Weber is not as comprehensive as Aizenstat. Aizenstat historically listed autocratic countries in Western Europe and ancient countries in China as bureaucratic empires, and this bureaucratic empire is characterized by the coexistence of traditional and modern political organizations and activities [24].
Strangely, when Weber compared western and eastern cities, he quoted western medieval cities. He pointed out that western cities are privileged groups with autonomy and urban laws, and urban residents also have their own special organizations, namely guilds, while eastern cities do not have these [25]. However, Weber also knows that the autonomy of western cities is only a short-term phenomenon. In the era of absolute monarchy, the power of western countries is getting stronger and stronger, and the autonomy of cities is declining [26]. We don't intend to demonstrate the similarities and differences between eastern and western cities here, but we just want to point out that western medieval cities didn't have so many privileges and freedoms. They are still controlled by feudal countries, monarchs and aristocratic bishops. It is not the air in the city that makes people free, but perhaps the air in the countryside makes people free. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie do not come from cities, but perhaps from the countryside. Western medieval cities or feudal cities.
Another school of western scholars compared western feudalism with China's, taking western feudalism as a typical example, to see if China has the same situation. Ke Ben's book mentioned earlier is an obvious example. They first summarized the feudal system in western Europe, and then compared it with the feudal systems in other countries. Budd believed that China's Zhou Dynasty conformed to western static feudalism, and Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties conformed to dynamic feudalism [27]. Herrlee Glessner Creel also took western feudalism as the standard, saying that the Western Zhou Dynasty was similar to the early feudalism in the West, while the Spring and Autumn Period was the late feudalism [28]. Eberhard believed that China was a feudal era from the Zhou Dynasty until 250 BC, saying that it was an agricultural society at that time, and the ruling class was divided into several levels, with mutual rights and obligations, which was also the western standard [29]. He advocated that after the reunification of China, it should enter a gentleman society, not a feudal society.
However, it should be noted that when western scholars generalize the feudal system as a political and legal system, they mainly rely on the materials of the narrow area between the Royal River and the Rhine River from the 9th century to13rd century. With these limited materials, summed up a simple ideal model of feudalism [30]. This era is the era when the primitive Germans began to build the country, so it is called the dark age by enlightenment scholars because of its backward production, poor culture and primitive politics. Later, feudalism was gradually endowed with the meaning of a society and an economic form, so the decline of dependent rule, manor system, serfdom, natural economy and central power was not even regarded as the characteristics of feudal society in Western Europe. In fact, I think it is only a transitional stage, that is, the immature stage of Germanic economic and political organizations, and it should not be regarded as a typical stage of a society.
In my opinion, feudal society should not be too short because of low productivity and slow development, but should be longer. The feudal society in western Europe should not end in15th century, nor in17th century, but in18th century. Nowadays, people often think that elder brother (reprinted from China Education Digest, please keep this mark. ) As soon as Lunbu set sail, the East and the West merged, and capitalism rose in Ran Ran in the west. Textbooks also talk about the germination of capitalism, the Renaissance, the religious reform and so on. In fact, the progress in western Europe is far from so fast. Until the industrial revolution, Western Europe was still a backward agricultural society. Capitalism has only sprouted in the northwest corner, but it is declining in Spain and Italy. /kloc-in the 0/7th century, economic crisis occurred in western Europe, population decreased, epidemic diseases prevailed, agriculture stagnated or even regressed, and industrial and commercial crises occurred in some places [3 1]. Politically, feudal rule was everywhere. Tocqueville wrote "The Old System and the Great Revolution" in the middle of the19th century, and thought that all parts of Europe in the18th century were full of feudal privileges, and the various land, personal, judicial and administrative powers of the church nobles caused heavy exploitation and oppression to the people, "and it was much heavier than France in most parts of Europe" [32]. Although Britain is revolutionary, Engels said that after the 1688 coup, the British bourgeoisie became a recognized part of the ruling class and was still under the rule of aristocratic landlords [33]. As for Eastern Europe, there is no doubt that16-18th century was the era of feudal rule.
This is not a new idea. Le Gough, a French historian and authority on medieval history, once wrote an article entitled "Advocating the Enlarged Middle Ages", arguing that the Middle Ages in Western Europe should be extended. His reason is roughly (1) that the Renaissance cannot be used as the dividing line between the Middle Ages and the Modern Age, and there are many Renaissance from ancient times to the Modern Age. Such as the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th and 9th centuries and the Renaissance in12nd century; The great Renaissance was12-14th century in Italy and15th and16th century in other parts of Europe. Later, there were 18 and 19 century Renaissance. (2) The basic social structure of Europe remained unchanged from the 4th century to the 9th century. Taking Marx's feudal mode of production as an example, it was also from the demise of Rome to the industrial revolution; (3) Other cultural contents include, for example, the ideological rule of Christianity continued until19th century; It was not until the18th century that the kings of Britain and France had the magical function of treating lymphoid tuberculosis. The three-level theory of dividing society into priests, nobles and the third class also continued until the French Revolution. Therefore, Legoff advocated dividing the Middle Ages into the early Middle Ages, and the 4th-9th century was the period of the decline of the ancient world and the formation of the feudal system. In the Middle Ages,10-14th century was a period of great development; Late Middle Ages,14-16th century, a period of crisis; The decline of feudalism, that is, the old system period, from the British revolution to the French revolution [34].