Introduction: Decadence (Or Not) in the Ming Dynasty

This volume arose as a selfish exercise: I wanted to know, really and truly, what my colleagues in History thought about the late Ming period. Did they understand it to be a period of decadence? And if so, why? These questions were prompted by my increasing discomfort with established art histories in light of new investigations into late Ming discourses in the arts. What my research was revealing was that artists, critics, theorists, and collectors were championing the new age and its opportunities to be new and different; they seemed to act happily released from the burdens of the past. Close examination of their texts and images showed that none of these authors was remarking on decadence in their era. What, then, was it about the late Ming that made my distinguished art historian predecessors stake this claim in their studies? Since we in Art History rely on the research of our colleagues in History, I thought to turn to them to provide some answers. An inquiry was sent to the Society for Ming Studies 2010 leaders, Yonglin Jiang, Lucille Chia, Ken Hammond, and Katy Carlitz: Would the Society for Ming Studies consider having a panel or roundtable at the next AAS meeting which would discuss the issue of “Ming decadence” (or not), and examine philosophical, literary, art historical, and so on, shifts and differences between sixteenthand seventeenth-century thought and production? I explained that it seemed to me that the centuries are often blended together, when in fact they represent distinct periods with significantly different worldviews. I hoped that an organized roundtable discussion during the Society for Ming Studies annual meeting would be helpful because it would encourage conversation and varied perspectives from the myriad talents in the room. This query was met with enthusiasm: both a panel and a roundtable should be formed. Further consultations suggested a number of fine minds who might be induced to participate in these exercises. From this larger pool, a smaller group of scholars agreed to participate. Proposals were drafted and then accepted by the AAS review committee in 2011. We were in business. The panel, So How Bad Was It? Comparative Decadence of the Jiajing and Wanli Eras, was sponsored by the Society for Ming Studies, and presented at the AAS Annual Conference in Toronto in 2012, with this writer as Chair, and Ken Hammond and this writer as Co-Organizers. In our proposal, we asked what was so damnable aboutMing society?Wanli had not yet completely turned his attentions away from the court. Li Zhi had not yet been strongly endorsed by the leading intellectuals. Still, as the Jiajing and theWanli periods were viewed as corrupt, we wanted Ming Studies, 71, 3–4, May 2015