In the historical research before and after the Northern Expedition, there was a mysterious phenomenon in which two tendencies coexisted, "extensive expansion of historical materials" and "not looking at the twenty-four histories", and this article focuses on this phenomenon that has long been ignored by the academic community, explores the differences between the old and new historical views at that time, and pays special attention to examining the relationship between this phenomenon and the tendency to doubt the ancients and the "double evidence method". At that time, the scholars of the new school deliberately abandoned orthodoxy and paid attention to heresy, forming a tendency to rewrite history from the edges; in order to enter the world's academic forest (that is, "pre-flow") and compete with the West, they paid more attention to the research fields and materials that Western sinologists attached importance to; these factors directly or indirectly affected the scholars' view of historical materials, which greatly expanded the historical materials and led to the contempt for the orientation of common documents, which had a considerable and far-reaching impact.
Zhang Taiyan pointed out in 1924 that there were five drawbacks in the historiography of that time: one was that the literature was still written and ignored the facts, the second was suspected of falsification because of the negligence, the third was detailed in ancient times and slightly modern, the fourth was to judge the border plugs and leave the internal rule, and the fifth was to emphasize literature and light political affairs (detailed later). By 1933, Tai Yanfu was giving a lecture on "The Importance of History" at the Jiangsu Provincial Normal School, emphasizing that at that time, it was the disadvantage of learning and the two ends of those who could not blindly follow, that is, to talk about Western science that did not follow a certain track, but was absurd and novel, and the result was a "philosophy of empty talk" and "historiography of doubtful antiquity". In particular, "historians like archaeological history, have twenty-four histories without looking at them, and concentrate on nitpicking in detail."
Zhang Taiyan (1869-1936)
About 20 years later, in 1945, Gu Jiegang summed up the achievements of the historiography of the Republic of China in six aspects: "First, the study of archaeology and prehistory, second, the study of Chinese and foreign transportation history and Mongolian history, third, the study of Dunhuang Studies, fourth, the study of novels, operas, and folk literature, fifth, the study of ancient history, and sixth, the study of social history." He then included archaeology and Dunhuang studies in the major section of The Discovery and Research of New Historical Materials, and divided it into five chapters to describe the remaining achievements, but pointed out that "of these six items, the research results of social history are relatively small", so it is not a separate discussion. The chapter on ancient history is titled "The Study of Ancient History and the Identification of Ancient History", which especially praises the impact and contribution of his "doubtful antiquity" tendency to historiography. A slight comparison of the views of Zhang and Gu shows that after basically removing the "study of social history", the "achievements" seen by Gu shi are almost equivalent to the "drawbacks" that Zhang Shi saw.
That is to say, the phenomenon that Zhang Taiyan referred to as "drawbacks" in 1924 has been developing, so gu Jiegang has a roughly the same but different summary 20 years later. If they ignore their praise and criticism for the time being, what they see should be the development trend of china's new historiography at that time. In fact, this historical development trend continued later. Even in the decades after 1949, when Marxist historiography was based on orthodoxy, the development of Chinese mainland historiography has roughly not departed from this trend. Regardless of the evolution of the historical view, in addition to the controversial "five golden flowers" (such as the problem of the periodization of ancient history and the problem of peasant wars) and the surge in writing in the field of modern history, the more lasting "achievements" of Chinese mainland historiography in the second half of the 20th century at the level of research practice are generally not in the field discussed by Gu Jiegang (this is only in terms of its largest). Today's mainland historians summarize the progressive side of the development of historiography over the past century, which is very similar to what Gu Jiegang saw.
On weekend academic divisions, Xi Liu said: "Historical deeds are balanced by human psychology. Sighing for the Taoist division, there is a view of degeneration; if it is a hundred schools of thought, there is an image of evolution. The story is not different, and the argument can be very different." The difference between the two statements cited here and Gu is also roughly based on the observation of the same facts, which reveals the difference between the old and new historical views at that time. In the 20th century, when the new school basically grasped the "right to speak", Zhang Taiyan belonged to the side of "aphasia", so his observations were not paid attention to by the new school at that time, and the old school hung on to the mouth from time to time. It is worth thinking that this observation also seems to have received little attention from the academic historians of later rule. This article only explores the mysterious phenomenon of the coexistence of "extensive expansion of historical materials" and "not looking at the Twenty-Four Histories" in the historical research orientation before and after the Northern Expedition.
The book "Ancient History Discernment" is a collection of the research results of the "Ancient History Discernment School"
The phenomenon of "not looking at the Twenty-Four Histories" is directly related to the skeptical tendency that once became the mainstream of early Folk historiography. Xu Bingchang (Xu Sheng) observed that from the New Culture Movement to 1949, the "Skeptical Ancient School, based on the Ancient History Discernment School, almost shrouded the historical circles of all of China." Although at the beginning of the school of doubt, "some scholars disapproved of some of them and refused to echo it", because "the power in the universities at that time was almost entirely controlled by the doubter school", the opponents did not generate much power. Xu Shi himself is not in the mainstream of doubt, and his influence on the materialist historical view school after the Northern Expedition may be somewhat underestimated, but this observation is generally not bad. Chen Yinke, who advocated "sympathy for understanding," argued in 1931: "Although the country survives today, the history of the country has lost its orthodoxy." However, the skeptics had formed a controlling force of the so-called "discourse power", so that those who had not "pre-flowed" had to restrain themselves; Chen Later lamented that he "discussed the study and governance of the system, which was very different from the current flow, and was forced by the situation to be silenced".
Zhang Taiyan believes that the suspicious ancient school is actually "suspected of forgery because of its negligence", so it is "a small mistake at one end, and it is suspected that it is false." However, who is credible if the eyes and ears do not receive it? People who are more than a hundred years old, and things three miles away, I am suspicious of being false." In 1933, he further rebuked the new school represented by Hu Shi, saying: "Today there are disadvantages in learning, and we must not blindly follow the two ends, and we must not ignore them." When we talk about Western science, we still have a certain track, and we must not make it absurd. Those who are enough to mess up China are talking about philosophy and historiography, and they are arbitrarily talking about novelty." He particularly noted that "historians who are now talking about archaeology, who like the history of archaeology, have twenty-four histories without looking at them, and concentrate on nitpicking in detail. It is better not to lecture and fall into the devil's way than not to talk about it. In the past, the five elements of yin and yang were talked about, and now there is a philosophy of empty talk, and the historiography of doubting the ancients, all of which are demonic paths. This demonic path must be swept away, and then it can be learned with speech."
In Taiyan's view, these drawbacks also have a previous origin. He noticed: "Literates, ancient primary schools, although the university may not be known in the late days; this was already in the Song Dynasty." Zhang Shiben advocated that "learning should not be extensive, but should be able to read common books." The Song people were still able to read common books, and if the Ming and Qing dynasties were Confucians, they no longer read Yang Xiong's "Fa Yan" (interestingly, some people thought that Yang Xiong specialized in strange characters but did not read common characters). To Hui Dong and Dai Zhen down, "Recite the first essence." If there is no remembrance, it must be examined, and then the examinees shall not remember the transgression of the recitation." However, there are still rough people outside the Park scholar, and Zhang Xuecheng did not read the "Hanshu Yiwenzhi" carefully, and even more because of his mistakes, he "made lyrical speeches", which is also an example of not reading common books. In the late Qing Dynasty, Weng Tong, who was in charge, "liked to talk about rams and forgot other scriptures", Pan Zuyin "was good at bronze and style and arranged the "Sayings"; fu because Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao "said that the Qunjing were all newly recklessly changed, calling the histories of the twenty-four genealogies. Since the school was rebuilt, the history of the scriptures was a waste of books." After the Republic of China, "there is a skillful master, who argues about the sons in vain, hoping to defeat his puppets by surprise." Scholars are poignant, giving up difficulties and making it easy, holding strange tricks to shallow literature. So although books are available, they are regarded as waste paper."
In fact, historiography is still a relatively successful developer in Chinese learning, as Liang Qichao said in 1902, "Among the disciplines common in Taixi today, the only one is inherent in China, but historiography." Therefore, the historiography of the early Qing Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty once occupied the central position of Chinese scholarship, and other Western disciplines seemed to be linked to historiography in the early days, such as the original "philosophical outline" in the minds of the Chinese people, that is, the history of philosophy. According to Feng Youlan's recollection, when Hu Shichu went to Peking University to give a lecture on the history of Chinese philosophy, the lecture notes he issued were titled "Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy." Chen Hanzhang, who teaches the history of Chinese philosophy in the third grade, held Hu's lecture notes in class and "laughed uncontrollably" and said, "I said that Hu Shi didn't understand, and sure enough, he didn't." Just by looking at the name of his handout, you know he doesn't understand it. The history of philosophy is the outline of philosophy, and now that there is an outline of the history of philosophy, will it not become the outline of the outline? It doesn't make sense." Being able to "laugh irrepressibly" with evidence in class is definitely something that really doesn't make sense. Therefore, in Peking University before Hu Shi, the three words "history of philosophy" should be a whole concept, that is, "outline of philosophy", rather than "history of philosophy".
Because historiography is inherent in China and is easier to learn and engage in, as a result, new academic disciplines inadvertently still enter the path of historiography. Philosophy has become the history of philosophy, which is actually a new type of "history of the six classics". Originally, from Zhang Xuecheng's "History of the Six Classics" to Zhang Taiyan's new "History of the Six Classics", the concept is constantly evolving, and the Six Classics can be used as historical materials in large quantities, and many people are doing so. Xiong Shili said in 1948: "Before and after the May Fourth Movement, Mr. Shizhi advocated the scientific method, which is very important." The young people after Gai Qi's envoy "all know that paying attention to logic, looking at the late Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the people, the habits of the article, obviously have changed greatly." But the effectiveness of the promotion seems to extend only to the business of assessment." As a result, "for more than thirty years, the six sons and four sons threw several toilets, or they were used as archaeological materials." The phenomenon that Xiong saw is similar to the outline of the early years, that is, Shi Zhengfu, which shows from another aspect that the new scholarship has indeed failed to break out of the old frame to a large extent.
Zhang Xuecheng's "Literature and History Tongyi" "Six Classics are All History" book shadow
After entering the Republic of China, the concept of "six classics are all history" further developed to regard all the written records of the past as historical materials. Zhang Xuecheng has already mentioned the view that "all works involved in the forest are historiography", and Hu Shi has "modern interpretation" of it, thinking that "in fact, Mr. Zhang's original intention is only to say that all works are historical materials". Of course, the difference between "history" and "historical data" is very large, but people at the time emphasized this point in particular. Later (almost at the same time), Liang Qichao also said that the various written records left over from ancient China that can be classified into the Ministry of History are "from the perspective of historians, every word contains extremely valuable historical materials." And not only the history books, all the ancient books, many people see him as useless, take him as history to read, all immediately become useful. Zhang Shizhai said, "The Six Classics are all histories," and I did not dare to approve of this sentence; but from the standpoint of historians, if we say, "The Six Classics are all historical materials," that makes sense." By analogy, all written records are also histories, "it can also be said that all sons are histories, poetry collections are histories, novels are histories", and all are "of the same value as historical books".
The "Six Classics are All History" said that because of the "historical vision" and changed to "the Six Classics are all historical materials", it changed from incomprehensible to general and useless to useful, which is most enough to explain the decline of classics in the Republic of China; Qianjia Shizhang Xuecheng said that "the six classics are all history" in order to increase the value of historiography, and to the Republic of China, the Six Classics, which have been "regarded by many as useless", have increased their value and become useful because of historiography. In the past, "history" or "historiography" contained various social roles, political functions, and ideological meanings, but once they became "historical materials", these attached meanings basically ceased to exist. Fu Sinian said: "The study of national reasons is an academic matter, not a literary matter; the national cause is a material, not an ism." He is aiming at the "great power doctrine" of "everything based on ancient righteousness", which actually implies that when the ancient book "rises" as a material and is "useful", the "ancient righteousness" goes with it. Since "all ancient books" have become the object of study, there is no longer a distinction between superior and inferior.
The history of scriptures and "all ancient books" are indeed somewhat," as Chen Duxiu puts them, "family dependents," and there are multiple connections between them that are difficult to separate. After the history of the Six Classics has been extended to all written records, there has been a trend of fewer and fewer readers among historians of the Republic of China, even if they have carefully studied the "Six Classics" as historical materials, and the marginalization of scripture is undoubtedly one of the reasons for not reading the Scriptures, and the influence of other factors cannot be ignored. The tendency of no one to read the Six Classics later developed to the extent of "having twenty-four histories and not looking at them", looking exclusively for materials outside the classics of history. Although this trend of extensive historical materials has existed since the Song Dynasty, especially the Qing Dynasty, Qianjia, it was more fully developed by the Republic of China. But abandoning the history without reading it is a brand-new phenomenon. If you don't read common books such as Zhang Taiyan, as far away as Song Ming said, you can probably trace it back to Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, while Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang, Wang Guowei (who themselves are still readers of the Six Classics) and Chen Yuan have also played a direct and indirect role in fueling this tendency from different aspects to varying degrees, which is worth considering.
Historians of the early Ming Dynasty paid special attention to historical materials, but what is useful historical materials, new and old scholars have gradually had greater differences. Gu Jiegang said in 1922 that the study of history "always has to understand the general trend of each era, and it should be much more important to seek knowledge of the "social psychology" of each era than to memorize the "stories" of each era." Therefore, we should see that proverbs are more important than the scriptures of the sages, that songs are more important than the poems of famous masters, and that the notes of wild history are more important than the official books of the main history. Why? Because the rumors and the history of the wild come from the people, they are willing to tell the truth of the people's society; they are not worse than the words of the correct history, the official books, and the wise men and gentlemen, and the Lord is perfunctory." Therefore, to explain the thinking of the Han Dynasty, "we can ignore the "On Balance" with unique [only] eyes, but the absurd Weishu cannot but take it."
Such a concept of historiography implies a great expansion of the historical materials that can actually be used, and its view of the "social psychology" of each era is more important than the "story" of the contemporaries, especially the insight of the new characters to govern history. It is particularly noteworthy here that Gu Jiegang believes that the official history of zhengshi is only a "perfunctory façade", and that the materials that can really tell the truth and reflect the "social psychology" of various eras can only be "from the people". With this view, it is natural to value material that was marginal or even heretical in the past. From this proposition, we can see the inheritance relationship with the concept of "folk history" or "group history" that the Chinese people shouted very loudly in the early years of the 20th century, and at the same time fully reflect a tendency to rewrite history from the edge, which not only reflects the founding side of the new historiography at that time, but also inevitably loses a little deviation from today's hindsight.
Hu Shi continued to argue later in the Manifesto for the Quarterly Publication of Sinology: "The literature of the temple can be studied, but the literature of Kusano should also be studied. From the perspective of history, the songs and ballads sung by today's folk children have the same position as the three hundred poems; the novels circulated by the people have the same position as the Gao Wen classics; Wu Jingzi, Cao he and Guan Hanqing, Ma Dongli and Du Fu and Han Yue have the same position." Although "some people have paid attention to opera and novels recently, their attention still cannot be separated from the habits of antiques." They can only look up to the novels of the Song people, and do not know that in the eyes of history, a lithographed small character "Biography of Ping Demon" and a fragment of "Five Dynasties of Shi Ping" have the same value." In short, "all kinds of things in the past, from the greatness of ideological scholarship to the details of a word and a mountain song, are all histories and belong to the scope of sinology research." Hu Shi's text is a statement representing the group, so the emphasis on the equality of orthodoxy and heresy is more stable and moderate than Gu Jiegang's clear concept of emphasizing the fringe over the center.
Gu Shi himself, in his "1926 Inaugural Speech" for Peking University's Guoxuemen Weekly, also emphasized the "concept of history" and "the concept of academic equality", proposing that "all true learning is not subject to the ancient and modern times of the times, the dignity and inferiority of class, the nobility of prices, the good or bad application" but "all are equal". Therefore, "in our eyes, we see only that all antiquities, historical materials, customs objects, and songs are all one thing, and these things all have their origins, their experiences, and their survival lifespan; these sources, experiences, and survival lifespans are all things that we can begin to study." This time Gu Jiegang was particularly aimed at the attitude of the people of the time to "despise" folklore and song materials, so he mainly emphasized "academic equality", unlike his 1922 formulation, which was obviously more focused on materials that were previously regarded as heretical or marginalised for the sake of correction, but the view of historical materials that was not overcorrected for the sake of correction was still increasingly positively advocated.
After the Northern Expedition, Hu Shi systematically stated his view of literary history: The history of Chinese literature represents the literature of an era, "we should not look for it in the 'history of ancient literature and tradition', but should look for it in the 'unshao' literature that slopes out of the side." Because it is not like the ancients, it can represent the current world!" Since the "side line obliquely out" has become the representative of the times, all the literary scholars who are on the margins of each specific era have become "authentic". Zheng Zhenduo later further echoed this concept in the History of Chinese Folk Literature: "There are three or five works, which are often more sufficient than thousands of poetry collections and anthologies to see the spirit of the times and the life of society, and they are more alive than the countless poetry collections and anthologies." When we read an unrelated collection of poems or anthologies, we often have no impressions, nothing, nothing there, just black letters printed on white paper. But many works of popular literature can always give us something. They arise from the masses, write for the masses, express the pain and appeal of the greatest majority of the people of China in the past, the joys and boredoms, the enjoyment of love and the lamentation of separation, the repercussions of the oppression of life, and the struggle against political darkness; they represent another society, another life, and on the other hand, China, and the difference between what orthodox literature, aristocratic literature, and many literati who have been raised by the emperor have written. Only here can we see the real Chinese development, life and emotions of the people."
Hu Shi's epitaph
It can be seen that the method of Hu Shi and others in governing the history of literature is actually a method of putting film films upside down and then re-editing them; that is, first delineating out the so-called "history of ancient literature traditions", and then stringing together the marginal literature of the past as orthodox, and then negating the orthodoxy that the literati of all generations recognized themselves. The main point is to talk to oneself, basically not to recognize the mainstream of the past generations, and there is no need to dialogue with it. The advantage of this research orientation is that it can notice that the material that the past has turned a blind eye to is actually an expansion of historical materials, but it has a clear tendency: although Zheng pointed out that there are actually two "aspects" of China in literary works, its logical development should be the "equality" between orthodoxy and heresy advocated by the new scholars themselves; but the thousands of poetry collections that "are only printed on white paper with black characters" are inferior to the "three or five works" of popular literature, and the collapse of orthodoxy is more obvious. The propensity of the researchers' consciousness level has also been revealed. If it is moved from the history of literature to the historiography of the whole, there are twenty-four histories that are natural developments without looking at them.
The orientation of "extensive expansion of historical materials" has been very clearly reflected in the academic efforts of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Peking University in the early Minchu Dynasty, but although the Guoxuemen played a role in opening up the atmosphere, the achievements of actual research were limited. As Fu Si Nian later said: Although Peking University, a research institution, has "the longest history in China", it is "the same as Peking University and other things, that is, every time it is a victim of politics, it is a whirlwind"; if it is "on its achievements, the historical data is the first". However, although the specific achievements of the Guoxue Gate are not very large, "its tradition is still there", leaving a specific "tradition" of governance. The later Tsinghua Guo College, because of its strong faculty, was more significant in terms of specific academic influence and later academic history research. The Institute of History and Linguistics of the Academia Sinica, established after the Northern Expedition, largely inherited the academic style of these two institutions, and at the same time highlighted its characteristics because of the famous sentence of the founder Fu Sinian that "historiography is historiography".
In the past, academic history research paid special attention to the "double evidence method" proposed by Wang Guowei, but in fact, Li Ji, who was only a lecturer at Tsinghua Guo college at that time, probably had a greater impact on actual research, especially in the transformation of underground evidence from text to physical objects, Li's epoch-making influence is unparalleled. From the changes in the governance of Xu Zhongshu and others, it can be seen that the development of the road from Wang Guowei to Li Ji was basically implemented in the Institute of Historical Languages (including some scholars who later left the Institute of Historical Languages). Historians at other universities, including Peking University, which founded the Archaeological Society for a long time, have rarely used this method seriously and effectively.
Wang Guowei himself defined the "double evidence method" he advocated, saying that the ancient historical material should be "fully handled", that is, according to the "new material underground" to "correct the material on the paper, it must also be proved that a certain part of the ancient book is completely recorded." Even if a hundred indecent words are not without facts that express one side." He explained his method of "dealing" with ancient historical materials: "Although those who have not been proved by ancient books cannot be denied, those who have already proved them cannot fail to affirm them." The question is, after all, the ancient books have been proved by the minority, and for those who have not been proven, do they believe or not? Wang Guowei's own answer was that "although there are those who have not obtained double proof of the ancient things recorded in the scriptures today, they cannot be completely erased." These words are aimed at the tendency of extreme skepticism about the ancients, and the second chapter of the "New Evidence of Ancient Literature" after the first chapter, "General Commentary", is "Yu", which is devoted to the existence of Yu, which can quite explain his attitude.
However, although Wang Guowei's attitude is opposed to extreme skepticism, his extremely measured and rigorous expression of the "handling" of historical materials is inconsistent with the radical context of the early Min. Since Liang Qichao's proposition that "the theory should be expressed in a way that is "two levels" than the original meaning, and then the desired result can be obtained", the generation of the New Culture Movement has followed suit, and the result is that the gentle and stable and appropriate formulation is usually not very influential (this can be compared with Fu Sinian's statement that "historiography is historiography", Fu actually deliberately overstated it, and although the results are positive and negative, the impact is very large). The additional definition of wang Guowei's later sentence, which is not "completely obliterated", is far less noticed than the previous sentence "new material underground" with the phrase "correcting the material on paper". The fact that the correction of the material on paper depends on the underground "new" material actually implies the inadequacy of the material on the paper itself, and as a result, the king who originally opposed the antiquity at least indirectly supported the skeptical school. What matters is whether to use or not to use "ancient books" that have not been proven by underground materials in practical research? If such materials are not available, how many ancient books are available? If you can't believe it, how can you use it? Merely "not denying" and not "completely erasing" clearly leaves a considerable number of fundamental problems that are difficult to solve.
Moreover, Wang Guowei's research orientation has been interpreted by Chen Yinke later, and it has actually shifted. Chen summed up Wang Guowei's "academic content and methods of governance" and thought that "those who can cite three eyes can be summarized." A physical object taken from the ground and the remains on paper are interpreted by each other... The second is to take the old books of foreign nationalities and the old books of our country to supplement each other... The three are taken from foreign ideas and inherent materials to cross-reference." This summary is quite "idealistic", and I am afraid that to a considerable extent it is more like Chen Yinke's own longing for the orientation of history, which can be predicted from his prediction that "our country is Japanese."
The study of historical evidence is wide-ranging, and the avenues are numerous, and I am afraid that it is impossible to go beyond the three categories."
It is worth noting that Chen Yinke regards the oracle bone material as a "physical object underground" rather than as a text. Chen's writing is exquisite, and it is by no means arbitrary, especially the preface and other types of writing will not and cannot be taken lightly. In fact, Wang Guowei basically did not use underground objects other than words, so it was said that it was a secret for the king, but it also implied that the king was restricted in the use of underground materials. Chen's meaning may have two layers, that is, "physical objects" are not limited to writing, but can also have far and wider uses; and the written material excavated underground is scattered and small, which is not enough to be universally relied upon (and thus has limited influence on the interpretation of ancient Chinese history as a whole).
Chen Yinke has a good understanding of modern Western archaeology, and his discussion on "sympathy for understanding" said: "The materials that we can rely on today are only the smallest surviving parts of that time, and if we want to use this fragment to peek into its entire structure, we must prepare artists to appreciate the vision and spirit of ancient painting and sculpture, and then the intention and object of the ancient people's words can be truly understood." Such a method of understanding "the intention and object of the ancient people's arguments" with "the vision and spirit of the artist appreciating the sculpture of ancient paintings" and "the remnants of fragments to peek into its entire structure" is very similar to the "materialculture" research orientation of the Westerners from anthropology and archaeology, which is particularly prevalent today.
On the other hand, Chen Yinke also said to his students: The ancient written records are insufficient and difficult to verify. "There are not many underground archaeological excavations, and it is difficult to make a decision based on it." Painting people and painting ghosts, seeing people and seeing wisdom, Knowing Zhu Yuemo, and speaking differently. There is insufficient evidence, so who can determine it?" This statement suggests that Chen Yinke's "double evidence method" does not seem to have no reservations about Wang Guowei, and that Chen's attitude toward oracle bones or excavated materials is even slightly closer to That of Zhang Taiyan. One of the "learning shortcomings" pointed out by Tai Yan is "detailed ancient and slightly modern", and he accuses those scholars who choose to study the ancient era as "good for many heterogeneous and less for their less heterosis, so-called good at painting ghosts and evil figures in dogs and horses". The vocabulary used by the two is also very similar.
Later, in 1942, Chen Yinke prefaced the Book of Yang Shuda, further stating that "a scholar who grew up in the golden stone since the past must be a person who has studied the history of the scriptures in depth." There is no way to interpret the golden text without the tongjing, and there is no stone carving without the history of the rule. The histories of the Qunjing are the collection of the majority of the ancient historical materials, and the gold inscriptions are a few fragments of their detachment, and there are no people who do not understand the majority of the collected data, but can interpret the fragments of the few detachments. Mr. Li is familiar with the books of the three generations and two Han Dynasties, and he understands them thoroughly and blends them together, so he explains the obscure and difficult words and sentences of the ancient Tuo Qu Fangs, and all of them are obedient to the words, and the plough is worthy of the hearts of the people." Although this is not as good as the Oracle, he not only regards the scattered underground materials unearthed as "fragments of detachment", but also affirms the existing documentary materials that have been continuously sorted out by many generations.
Archaeology gave much hope to the new historiography of the 20th century, but different scholars had different expectations about what kind of material might appear underground. In 1925, Ma Heng of the Peking University Archaeological Society hoped that a planned and large-scale excavation would "open up a more accurate and complex 'twenty-four histories underground'". Fu Sinian, who had formally proposed "finding things with his hands and feet" instead of being a "reader", had a very different understanding of underground excavations than Ma Heng, arguing that "digging the ground can naturally dig out some prehistoric things and Shang Zhou things, but this is only the early cultural history of China." If there is a discovery of the literature, I am afraid that there can not be many (Yin Xu is a trading company, so there is such an example as the discovery of Xu Wenwen, and such examples can always be hoped for)". What is expressed here is not only that the expectations of underground materials are more realistic, but more importantly, Fu Si Nian does not despise excavations because the possibility of large-scale "literature" is small, and he simply hopes for "things" in "early cultural history".
Fu Sinian (left), Bo Xihe (center) and Liang Siyong (center right) inspect the excavations at the Northwest Gang site of Yin Ruins
In terms of dealing with the views of existing documentary materials and newly excavated historical materials, Fu Sinian and Chen Yinke are quite close. He fully acknowledges the function of excavated materials such as oracle bones to "point out the living" of documentary materials, arguing that "every old material is dead, and a few points of credible material directly obtained by OnePlus become alive when it is boarded". The direct material is, of course, "much more correct than the indirect material", whose errors are corrected by him, who make up for the deficiencies, who are incorruptible by him; "the indirect historical materials are gray and dull by the hand of the intermediary, and they are changed by him to a lively atmosphere". However, although "the direct material is more credible, and the indirect material is easy to be changed or subtracted due to the change of hands; sometimes a direct material may be isolated and exceptional, and sometimes the indirect material is obtained by the predecessors who accurately summarized the direct material". Because "direct material is always fragmented, always small, and does not rely on the more common, slightly systematic indirect material to explain first, how can we understand this direct material?" Therefore, those who hold a meager of gold texts, but are not familiar with the scriptures, can only be craftsmen who engrave seals."
Fu Si Nian emphasized: "If we do not first make a detailed effort on indirect materials, the meaning and location of these direct materials are unknown; if we do not know, we cannot use them." Therefore, "there must be work in the old historical materials, and then the new historical materials can be used; the new historical materials must be understood, and then the old historical materials can be corrected." The discovery and application of new historical materials is indeed the most important condition for the progress of historiography; however, it is always in vain to hold new materials and not to connect with hereditists." Citing Wang Guowei's use of the oracle bone testimony as an example, he argued that if "those who are familiar with the scriptures do not use these materials, the meaning and right and wrong of all the statements in the scriptures concerning this matter cannot be determined." But "if the king is not familiar with the scriptures, these materials cannot be used." Fu advocated "surpassing the predecessors" by "obtaining historical materials that were not available to the predecessors", and at the same time "being able to use the newly obtained material on the genetic material, and then being able to surpass the same person who saw the material". In short, "Those who do not know how to expand historical materials are irredeemable"; it is inevitable that they will rely on new historical materials to be built on the ground, and it is inevitable that they will be "futile".
When Li Zongtong (Xuan Bo) questioned Gu Jiegang's tendency to doubt ancient history, believing that "if you use records to prove ancient history, you can only get a rough idea", and proposed that "the only way to solve ancient history is archaeology", so we should "try to go to the excavation side", Fu Sinian supported Gu Jiegang and said: "If the existing documents are not innocent, how can they be used in later work"? Gu's achievement lies in putting forward "a true clue to the history of ancient Chinese fangshu thought", so his "ancient history theory does not wait for later excavation, but later excavation of the ground is waiting for your ancient history theory". Gu Jiegang himself agreed that "trying to go to the excavation side" was a "very legitimate way", but accused Li Zongtong of "having a tendency to despise the memory of having a posthumous work". In fact, the literature "is enough to connect with the scattered works and make up for their monotonous shortcomings." As long as we use it solemnly, its value is by no means far below the legacy." Today's people have "learned to read ancient books with the eyes of historical evolution, and know how to use the relics of the ancients to verify ancient books, and have just opened a vast garden gate, full of new realms, and there are countless tasks to be done in the record." In my opinion, we should now study a more credible ancient situation from the records, in order to prepare for the future reference when compiling ancient history from the posthumous works."
Li Zongdong (Xuan Bo) "New Research on Ancient Chinese Society" book shadow
Gu Jiegang particularly emphasized in the article that when "the requirements for new materials are added", "the careful collation of old materials is equally important and should be carried out at the same time." It is not appropriate to determine what is light or heavy, and what is the order." Advocating the equal emphasis on old and new materials was a proposition he repeatedly asserted at that time, but the meaning of what is new material and what is old material is in flux. In the following year (1926), Gu Jiegang said in response to the tendency proposition of "as long as new materials are studied, do not study old materials" at that time: "Although there is a difference in application between new and old materials, there should be absolutely no difference in research", so it is necessary to collect and study equally from the old stone knives and stone axes of the Stone Age to the new ornaments of fashionable women's clothes and ornaments today. Comparing the two theories before and after, it can be seen that Gu's 1926 is talking about the new and old of the material itself, and what is mentioned above seems to be the new and old of the material presented in front of the scholar's eyes, in fact, I am afraid that it is more based on the scholar's concept to distinguish the new and old of the material, the two performance is similar but its essence is quite different. At that time, it was precisely to "prioritize and prioritize" the new and old materials, and the tendency of scholars with "new visions" to consciously or unconsciously prefer to study or use "new materials" had been formed and developed at that time (and to varying degrees, many scholars generally considered to be old schools) were also affected.
Since then, the development of Chinese historiography has shown that Li Zongdong's orientation in mainstream historiography has been more and more respected, while the status of "recorded" materials has been further reduced, which is directly related to Gu Jiegang's own suspicious ancient behavior. Gu Ben believed that Cui Shu's method of "directly sorting out ancient historical relics from ancient books" was inappropriate. "Since there are very few ancient documents that can be claimed, we can judge by comparing the books to the pseudohistory if we deny it; but there is no practical proof to admit the history of faith." Therefore, he stressed that "we must distinguish between ancient history, and the collation of historical relics is light, but the experience of looking at legends is heavy." In other words, traditional mainstream records are only useful when falsified.
The relationship between the record and the posthumous works is actually quite delicate, and Xu Bingchang noticed that an important difference between Wang Guowei and Hu Shi and Gu Jiegang was what was relied upon to "enlighten or explain" the unearthed objects. He believes that "Wang Guowei was able to begin to interpret the writing on the oracle bones because he believed in the surviving literature of the Yin Dynasty." If the Yin Dynasty literature is suspected and despised, and scattered, then although there is the spirit of Wang's profound study, there is no way to find a place to start." Intentionally or unconsciously, the intention or preconceived notion that underground materials are mainly used to "falsify" or "prove the truth" is indeed very important. While advocating the emphasis on "recorded" materials, Gu Jiegang dug himself into the wall because he took the suspicion of antiquity as the starting point (of course, his final goal was to obtain an "accurate and scientific" ancient history system), which was full of sophistry.
Gu Jiegang 1893-1980
Similarly, although Gu Jiegang himself placed special emphasis on "legends", the skeptical tendencies he vigorously promoted made scholars afraid to use legendary materials. Xu Bingchang, who later advocated the study of ancient legends with a "xingu" orientation, observed that after 1949, the materialist method had been accepted as the "highest standard" of skeptical antiquity in the field of historiography, and still "hid in the depths of [scholars's] thought to conceal it." When people who manage ancient history talk about legendary materials, they always leave their heads and do not dare to let go of their work; even if some people boldly use these materials, it is rare for the historians to agree", the main reason for this is "fundamental doubts about the availability of these materials".
The general tendency of the new historiography of the Republic of China is to aspire to "science", and one of the basic presuppositions is to place high hopes on underground materials, as exemplified by ma Heng's expectation of a more accurate "twenty-four histories underground". Before the underground data, especially the oracle bones, were widely used in the study of ancient history, Hu Shi had already put forward his "ancient history view" in 1921, that is, "now shorten the ancient history by two or three thousand years, starting from the "Three Hundred Poems"." In the future, after the development of epigraphy and archaeology has reached the scientific track, then the historical materials excavated under the ground will slowly lengthen the ancient history before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty." This concept not only reflects the expectation and confidence in underground materials, but also sentences China to "no history" before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Wu Qiyuan later summed up the "Ancient History Discernment" movement as follows: "Before underground excavations failed to build china's ancient history, China could only be said to have no history since the Eastern Zhou Dynasty."
One of Wang Guowei's practical contributions was that he used oracle bones to stretch the "history" of China forward by a large margin, and later Guo Moruo, in his Study of Ancient Chinese Society, was able to assert that "the Shang Dynasty was the real beginning of Chinese history." But "elongation" is only a change in quantity, and (today's) "China" has not fundamentally changed for a period of time before the "no history". Xu Bingchang pointed out that the concept of Gu Jiegang's school is also a proof of the ancient history of the legendary era" for "leaving aside for the time being, waiting for the proof of future underground materials". The result was that "because the materials found underground could not be remedied, the history before the middle of the Shang Dynasty became a white ground"! From Hu Shi to Guo Moruo, those who govern history with a "scientific" method, although their "science" is quite different, have a general consensus on this point.
Historians who are confident in "scientific archaeology" may be patient enough to wait for underground excavations to slowly "lengthen" ancient history, but China's "reliable facts in history have not been guided before, and have become something that suddenly jumps out of isolation" is an unavoidable problem for those who govern ancient history or those who govern general history. As Fosnian said, "To think of not knowing is to talk about the great evil of historians." Whether before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty or before the middle of the Shang Dynasty, the writer of history always had to have an account of that period of history. Fu himself particularly advocated that "in addition to those who give historical materials, there is not much to say at all, and within those who give historical materials, there is a little bit to say." He believes that "the remaining materials should be replenished, and where there are some material gaps, he should be left behind". For "there are a number of problems in history that cannot be solved, and to point out that they cannot be solved is to be solved." This is indeed the most desirable attitude towards specific historical topics. However, in a broad sense, this still does not solve the problem of whether the "ancient books" left by Wang Guowei that have not been proved by underground materials are historical materials and how to apply them, and at the same time, it is also unable to deal with the dilemma of the more reliable ancient history "suddenly jumping out".
However, after all, the underground materials have strengthened the scholars' trust in ancient history, affirmed the reliability of some of the correct historical materials, and corrected the tendency to doubt the ancient, so That Fu Sinian turned from doubting the ancient to reconstructing the ancient history. Therefore, although the practical impact of the "double evidence method" in historical research is not as great as generally recognized (Chen Yinke's reinterpretation of Wang's academic method has prompted this), the confidence of scholars in a broader sense cannot be underestimated. With this confidence, many people can calmly use ancient books and materials, and use them to analyze and reconstruct ancient historical facts. Research by Meng Wentong, Xu Bingchang and others shows that after a shift in attitudes and perspectives, the existing literature itself can provide far richer historical evidence than we imagine and perceive.
Xu Bingchang 1888-1976
Although the trust in ancient texts has been strengthened by the support of underground materials, the overall tendency to doubt the antiquity still exists. Archaeology did strongly support the edifice of 20th-century historiography, but due to the high expectations, it also brought a period of disappointment, partly because the more accurate "Twenty-Four Underground Histories" had not appeared for a long time, so that Xu Bingchang, who specialized in archaeology, clearly stated in 1940 that the road of doubting the ancients had "come to an end" and should now "change the path of Xingu" in order to "seek the slightly closer truth of ancient times" in the "legends". However, this orientation has never risen to the mainstream in the field of historiography, and Xu himself later abandoned the slogan of "Xingu".
As Fu Si Nian said, the Yin Dynasty was "introduced into history through archaeology from 'mythology'". Because the reliability of ancient documents is confirmed by archaeology that is not an existing document, even those who try to "prove the ancient" often look for evidence outside the documents. It can be said that the "double evidence method" itself suggests a way to find historical materials outside the existing "history books", which is certainly not a completely new concept, but it is emphasized to such an extent and has a specific demonstration, which has not been done in the past, so it has the nature of a model. Although there are not many successful imitators, the idea of finding historical materials outside the orthodox "history books" has been continuously expanded by various scholars due to various factors, such as Chen Yuan's use of "extra-religious" materials to govern religious history, Gu Jiegang's use of folk materials, Chen Yinke's use of "special" materials and poems, and Li Ji's beginning to use archaeological materials that are not limited to writing.
In this way, some people began to deviate from the tendency of "detailing the ancient and slightly modern" that Zhang Taiyan saw, and the ancient precept of "existing but not leaving it alone" and the new theory of "cutting off the flow of the crowd" proposed by Hu Shi became the orientation that many people actually followed. Many historians of Fosnian's generation did have a self-censorship of replacing "less talk" with "less" for the sake of being more "scientific." Xu Bingchang found that when the historians of the Republic of China "examined" the ancient stories compiled by the ancients with reason, they were gradually "horrified by the conflict between these materials and reason", so "cautious scholars admitted their powerlessness and never talked about" ancient matters. A considerable number of people, such as Chen Yinke and Chen Yuan, deliberately avoid ancient history (the two Chens actually have the academic ability to govern ancient history, and Chen Yinke has especially worked on the study of scriptures). In the selection of the first academician of the Academia Sinica from 1946 to 1947, in the column of "Basis of Qualifications", Chen Yinke (who filled in or should have his consent on his behalf) was "studying the history of the Sui and Tang Dynasties of the Six Dynasties, and governing both the history of religion and literature"; while Chen Yuan was "specializing in the history of Chinese religion, and also governing the study of collation, almanac, and avoidance", which was the same as his academic recognition in the eyes of himself or others.
Chen Yinke's failure to rule the ancient history is indeed because he feels that the written records of the three generations and two Han dynasties are insufficient, and the immediate statement is always not so down-to-earth. And "there are not many underground archaeological excavations" is also difficult to determine. If modern and modern times, "there are too many historical materials to be caught off guard." As for medieval history, it is "full of literature, physical testimony on the ground and underground, and sufficient resources to examine; easy to write, it is not difficult to invent and move forward." Therefore, he said that when he first returned to China, he "concentrated on the history of the Yuan Dynasty and worked hard the most." This choice is still related to the "underground material", according to Luo Xianglin recalled, Chen told him: "It is easier for us to prove that it is 'existing' if we want to prove that it is 'existing'; because as long as one or two other records can be found as circumstantial evidence, it can be proved that it is 'existing'." If you want to prove that it is "none", it is not easy to be committed, and you must be careful to do it. Because if you only look up one or two relevant texts and don't see them "existing", it is still uncertain; because the information is difficult to complete, and although the existing documents have been checked, there are still unexplored or will be discovered in the underground that can still prove that they are not "none"?" "Although all the existing documents have been checked" is still inconclusive, it is obvious how strong the potential normative effect of the information that may appear underground on rigorous scholars is.
Chen Yuan was a scholar who is often considered more "traditional" and relatively more "earthy", and Xu Guansan said that he was "the local law is the study of the original foreign law". In fact, Chen's self-positioning is the opposite, and he replied in a letter from his son Chen Yuezhi that he had greatly benefited from medicine in his own treatment, "In the past twenty years, all of them have used medical methods." Some people say that I understand the scientific method, but in fact, I know the scientific method, but I only use the medical method to refer to the Qianjia Zhu confucian examination method." According to Chen's own new medical school, and author of "Chinese Anatomical Historical Materials", the "medicine" he refers to here, of course, refers to Western medicine, so it is greatly influenced by Western learning, and it should be re-recognized. When Fu Sinian discussed with Chen Yinke that "at this time, it is impossible for international students to study history", he specifically pointed out that "Chen Yuan'an is also a student of international students", which is very different from "purely old Confucianism, but really incompetent".
Chen Yuan 1880-1971
Chen Yuan also likes to explore materials and open up new fields outside of the main history, in order to "move the international and hang on for a long time". Chen did not despise zhengshi, and he still advocated that "those who study the history of the Tang and Song dynasties" should first read the correct history, but in addition, they must also "familiarize themselves with the poetry collections of the first and second great poets of each dynasty.". Gai "look at how he cites the book, that is, how the poetic notes in addition to knowing the history of the correct history are helpful to the examination of history" Chen Yuan particularly emphasized that not only the study of modern history "cannot become the history of China without miscellaneous collection of historical materials from various countries on the Far East", but also "the history of the Song and Yuan dynasties and others." Song to Liaojin, Yuan to Persia, Turkey, Arabia, etc.". Yan Gengwang believes that in terms of actual academic contributions, it seems that aiding the nunnery is better than Yin Ke, in part because Chen Yinke later returned to the traditional way of curing the "correct history" with common materials, which involved a wide range of aspects and was difficult to cover all aspects, so "it is often inevitable that there is an overemphasis of the disease of other solutions". Chen Yuan, on the other hand, "attaches the greatest importance to the collection of historical materials", so he "can often obtain rare and unused historical materials in the world". Erchen's high and low can not be ignored, and Yan's inner emphasis on historical materials, especially "rare historical materials", should probably be a basic premise of his argument.
Erchen jun chose the period from the Tang Dynasty to the Ming and Qing dynasties as a specialty, or also had the consideration of the times. They all have the mentality of serving the country by ruling history and serving the times, and the situation of external invasion faced by modern China is not much to be learned in the history of the three generations to the Qin and Han Dynasties. Huang observed that in the past, scholars read books, "not the Six Classics of Zhou Qin, that is, the two histories of Ma Ban." Most of the people in his mind are the deeds of the Middle Ages, but the people he touches are modern things. The day is drowning in the near, and the heart is in the ancient times, and after the Tang Dynasty, the rise and fall of politics and society has passed the traces of the society, and the reason for the abolition of everything is obscurity. Therefore, once insulted and angry, if they want to stab our country's inherent skills and extravagantly confront Western Europe, they will all be in the tomb of Jian Ce."
According to Huang's really seen. The reader's eyes are separated from the books they read, and there is no obstacle in the ordinary time, but when things happen, their ideological resources are limited. From this point of view, qing dynasty classics, especially ancient literature and scriptures centered on evidence, are indeed difficult to pass through, and the trend of the classics of the later modern literature and classics is still to return to Zhou Qin. The avoidance of modern (referring to the modern history of the Qing dynasty) caused by the Qing Dynasty's literary prison, especially the marginal position of the entire historiography, made the history of the Tang and Song Dynasties unfamiliar to most readers, especially the historical experience of the Tang Dynasty in handling the Yixia relationship, which was more in line with Yidi, did not receive attention. The Qing people also hoped to return to history to find ideological resources, such as the History of the Yuan Dynasty, which was quite valued. Although the attention paid to the history of the Yuan Dynasty has a similar side to Yi Di's entry into the lordship, I am afraid that there are also potential factors that sometimes people are not familiar with the history of the Tang Dynasty (of course, the image of the history of the Tang Dynasty in the historical memory of the Chinese people is also biased: the relationship between the Tang Dynasty and Yi Di has been kept secret by historians in the past, and it was not until Chen Yinke that it was fully concerned, which may also be an important reason for not looking for resources in the history of the Tang Dynasty).
In addition, the major chosen by Erchen may be related to their desire to compete with outsiders academically. Chen Yinke lamented in 1930 that among the international Dunhuang scholars in the forest, there were only three Chinese scholars. Chen Yuan's students had heard similar exclamations, and even more so they wanted to take the Sinology Center back to Beijing. This in itself is a question of the "pre-flow" of the old and new historiography. Zhao Yuanren recalled: "Yin Ke always said that if you don't figure out the basic materials, you are anxious to discuss the small points of truth, and the conclusions you have reached are still unreliable." After the basic materials are clarified, it is still necessary to draw conclusions in the form of small words and big meanings, which is precisely the novelty of the new historiography of the Republic of China and its ultimate goal. It should be noted that what is "basic material" is different for different people. Chen Ben believes that "the scholarship of an era must have its new materials and new problems. The use of this material in order to study [this] problem is a new trend in the scholarship of this era. Those who govern the school, those who have foretold this trend, are called pre-flows. Those who have not been predetermined are said to have not entered the stream. This ancient and modern scholarship is synonymous."
To pre-flow, the materials to be focused on are different. If the "pre-flow" is combined with the competition with outsiders, the materials paid attention to are even more different. For example, chen Yinke's "Dunhuang studies" have specific historical sources and scopes. Zhang Taiyan has noticed this, and he accuses the doctrine of "judging the border and leaving the internal governance behind", saying: "The history of China is self-made for China, not for the earth. The nations outside the territory who have peace and war with me shall be recorded in detail; if they are even tributary, they shall be omitted; and the others shall not be remembered. Those who speak of the history of the Han Dynasty like to say that the article is resting in peace, and those who speak of the history of the Yuan dynasty like to know about Oros India. This is what was known in the past, but not today. Moreover, judging by its political style, it was isolated in the past. If one examines his whereabouts in vain, and does not find out why his internal affairs and military plots have caused this, the people of other countries read the history of China, and they do not read the history of China Chinese themselves." Not to mention that foreign laws have their own strengths, the key lies in the fact that only by pre-empting the "flow" of foreign countries can we compete with outsiders. To varying degrees, Erchen read Chinese history in the way of foreigners, and he was also good and good.
Faxi studies is a distinctive feature of the new historiography of modern China and has a long history. The Guozhi school itself does not reject foreign studies, such as the "national essence" defined by Huang Jie. Zhang Taiyan had a similar view at that time, believing that "today's history does not rely exclusively on the classics in the region." Where the emperor's ancient anecdotes and the actual traces of the seed boundary are found in the flood stone layer, it is enough to make up for those who have not been caught in the old history, and outsiders have said that they have been praised by one or two times. Although the old history is undocumented." After reading Spencer's sociological works, Tai Yan had a lot of experience with his "often probing into different words and finding their roots; making the smallest and the proverbial being the greatest", so he "rediscovered" the written exhortations of Hui Dong and Dai Zhen, which also had a similar function, and could discover the "traces of the evolution of civilization" in China. Gaigu is unknown, "but the written language leaves its traces, which and the dead rocks in the earth are two invisible histories." It shows that he also advocated and practiced the absorption of Western learning.
Wang Guowei also thought the same way in the Qing Dynasty, he believed that the teachers of liberal arts universities at that time "who desired to learn scriptures, national history, and chinese literature were left to their old age; their survivors were either old or sick, so it was not easy to cause them; they enabled them, or although they were knowledgeable but not consistent, or they were pedantic and self-righteous, they disdained to be under the command of the latecomers, but as Shang Yi Zhou Ding was, he just looked at it." Therefore, in the future liberal arts universities, Gou Classics, Chinese Literature, etc., without qualified professors, will prefer to give their lectures to the study of the disciples themselves, but to teach the general purpose of foreign philosophy and literature exclusively. If they are well versed in foreign philosophical literature, their scholarship in their own country will surely be better than the old age of the day." The approach proposed here is quite a bit of a master's own way, and Wang's own path of governance is precisely to return to "studying the scholarship of his own country" after "having learned about foreign philosophical literature".
After entering the Republic of China, under the impact of the cosmopolitan trend of thought in the new cultural movement, the "vision of the world" was the consensus of the new scholars in the early Minchu, from Fu Sinian's "The Book of Purpose of the New Wave" to Mao Zishui's "The National History and the Spirit of Science", they emphasized the relationship between Chinese scholarship and "world scholarship" the most. Fu Si Nian believes that the first responsibility of "New Wave" is to "gradually guide this 'block and solitary' China to bathe in the flow of world culture", and at the same time explore "how to adopt The track of China in [modern] thought", which fully embodies the mentality of wanting to "pre-flow". In terms of historiography, the new historians have consciously placed Chinese history in the context of world history for investigation, such as Gu Jiegang stressed to students in 1924: "To sort out the history of the country is to sort out the cultural history of the country, that is, to do part of the research in world history." In a later letter to Ding Wenjiang, he stated that he was planning to "understand the ancient history of China in the ancient history of the world." Interestingly, the old school scholars at that time had roughly the same tendency, and Zhang Xuan, the author of "The National History", and Mao Zishui accused each other of not having a "world vision".
Fu Sinian, who "wants the orthodoxy of scientific Orientalism in China," said: "Most of our Chinese will not solve the problem of the four races in the historical records... Whatever Chinese ignored, such as the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turkic, Uighurs, Khitans, Jurchens, Mongols, Manchurians, etc., paid special attention to them in Europe. To put it a joke, if Chinese studies are sinology, and for this reason scholars are sinologists, then the problems that the Westerners have been ruling these Xiongnu since then are not yuxue, and are they not yu scholars? However, perhaps some places where sinology has developed are relying on the study of sinology!" Fu Shi here is talking about the purpose of the work of the Shi Yu Institute, since the purpose is to compete with the Westerners, it is natural to pay attention to the "extra attention" of the Westerners, which is exactly what Chen Yinke said about the pre-flow.
Fu Sinian, who had criticized Zhang Taiyan by name, was actually quite similar to Zhang Taiyan's concept in this regard, he knew that "the Westerners ruled the history of China, paying the most attention to the Sino-foreign relations in the Han dynasty, and after several classic travel records, their inventors were mostly on these 'half-Han' things." But he stressed: "We recognize the great importance of these works, and we are convinced that after these achievements, the vision of Chinese history will change." However, at the same time, we also feel that the important issues of Chinese history are more "all Han", and these problems are even bigger and more important, and they are also the skeleton of Chinese historical knowledge." A practical example of this orientation is Fu Sinian's proposal in 1929 that Chen Yinke lead the organization of a team of people to divide labor and cooperate to write a "New History of the Song Dynasty". He believes that Chinese scholars at that time were most suitable to study the history of the Song Dynasty, because "at this time, it is really a matter of half the effort, and every foreign thing in the history of the Tang Dynasty is covered, and at this time, it is necessary to drag mud and water with foreigners; and the historical materials of the Ming and Qing Dynasties are as vast as smoke." The History of the Song Dynasty is a relatively pure Chinese learning, and the material has been eliminated very much."
This "New History of the Song Dynasty" project was approved by Chen Yinke, but somehow failed to implement it. However, Fu Sinian's tendency not to "drag mud and water with foreigners" but to engage in "more pure Chinese learning" is obvious. Gu Jiegang later recalled the situation when Shi Yu was founded, saying that Fu Sinian wanted to follow in the footsteps of French sinology and win with it, and indeed saw the essence of his desire to use Western academic methods to compete with Western scholarship (of course, basically implemented on the so-called "sinology"). This proposition of Fu Sinian was quite representative at that time, and this big issue that the new historian of the Republic of China could not avoid was very broadly involved and should be discussed in another article. At least from the level of performance, the tendency to yearn for "pre-flow" is more dominant, and its actual impact on specific research is to pay more attention to the historical materials that Western sinologists pay attention to, because this belongs to the scope of the "new material" mentioned by Gu Jiegang.
In the autumn of 1929, the members of the Institute of History and Language took a group photo at the site of the Jingxin Zhai in Beihai. Front row: Chen Yinke (second from left), Wu Yanong (second from right), Chen Du (standing); center row: Li Ji (first from left), Zhu Xizu (second from left), Fu Sinian (third from left), Zhao Yuanren (third from right), Luo Changpei (li), Ding Shan (li); back row: Rong Geng (second from left), Xu Zhongshu (third from left)
Combining the above factors, it can be seen that what is synchronized with the process of expanding the historical materials as much as possible by scholars is an increasingly obvious tendency to re-material and lighten old materials that Gu Jiegang opposes. Because of the special search for materials in remote places, there was the phenomenon that Zhang Taiyan said, "In the past, people ruled history and searched for their roots; now people rule history and pick up their branches and leaves." Wang Guowei was dissatisfied with this tendency, arguing: "The doctrines and customs that are regarded as untrue today must have a reason for their validity, and not for a temporary reason." Its cause exists in the ancient world, and its effect is in Fang Lai." Therefore, any material is "sufficient reference" and should not be abandoned. Originally, no matter how common or rare the historical data is, it is interesting in it, and the reader will gain something if he or she reverses his intentions. However, the historians of the new school, who most advocate "equality" in learning and attach special importance to historical materials, have not actually treated historical materials equally in their actual handling, and indeed cannot escape the old school's suspicion that they have overcorrected.
Zhang Ertian also said before Zhang Taiyan that the evidence of history is in the "long compilation", and it is not appropriate for people to move today to say that the wild chronicle is not a correct history, and it is not easy to rely on isolated evidence to easily write the old text. Similar insights have since been repeated. Xiao Xiqun believes that the content of ancient Chinese history is influenced by the historical view of the era in which it lived, and when historians "concurrently perform heavenly affairs", they "attach importance to divine will"; historiography should "train and govern", and there are elements of the five virtues and the final beginning and the respect of the king. However, historical books are eventually "sent by historical events, not only in detail, but also in detail." Later generations should make amends, and if "it is necessary to cling to the truth and falsification and break the incomplete things in order to overthrow all records", it will not only destroy scholarship, but also "harm the culture of the country". He believed that this was due to the fact that "today's scholars are full of Western learning, and those who govern history must be called the scientific method." As a result, "written writings are regarded as an apostille; all the time they are diligent, they are collected in the collection of direct historical materials." Therefore, the excavated cultural relics, tiles and stones, one or two words, citing the ancient. The argument is chiseled through, and it is inevitable that it will be biased." Zhou Yintang also quoted Huang Zongxi as saying that Yang Xiong's precedent of "but knowledge of strange characters, not knowledge of common characters, and not knowing that ordinary characters are self-derived by strange characters" attacked the new school of scholars who "searched for orphan secret books and did not read common books".
The "Preface Of the Book" of Swen (Office of the Faculty of Letters of Jinling University), which was founded in 1941, criticized the new school as a whole: "Scholars who govern the humanities in this world seem to have two masks, one is to examine, and the other is to be novel. Since the May Fourth Movement, the study style has tended to be critical. In recent years, he has been studying, so he has re-examined the evidence. The study is tireless, the arguments are not sparing; the words should be detailed, and the judgment should be refined. I think that this is the method of science, the spirit of simple learning, and the method of governance." Its strengths are "critical and rigorous, discreet in argumentation, and french in its manners." However, when the abuses are committed, or the search for strange things is obtained, the wild language is thought to be novel. Even those who wear chiseled appendages and trivialities; the appointment of one person and the examination of one word are often tens of thousands of words, and the geometry does not follow the common Confucian rules of the two Han Classics." Moreover, because of "the curiosity of the new bird", "if you do not see it, it is novel; if you feel new, you are the truth". These people "either pretend to be vulgar or help celebrities to respect themselves." The phenomenon of coexistence of newness and evidence in the Republic of China observed in the journal is very noteworthy, and the evidence can be "shocking", especially the focus of the world style at that time.
As a result, "evidence" became a major target for these non-mainstream scholars, and the most important reason they noticed that evidence was still mainstream was the role of "science", which was the supreme "science" at that time. Cheng Qianfan said from the investigation of the academic history of the Qing Dynasty that the atmosphere of the Republic of China that emphasizes the examination of evidence is "one of the modern study styles in the examination of evidence." The Manchu Qing scholarship, first, due to the reactionary influence of Mingxue, and second, due to the clamping of Jianyi, the examination was successful. Since Xian Tong, the government has not been outlined, and people's hearts have moved; the so-called sinology, yijiu wang will be disgusted, in order to have the words of the present Wen family. The Ram School, and the reactionary also of the evidence. However, this school of thought, which was dependent on politics and prospered, was also eliminated by the change of the political situation without hesitation. and the import of Western scholarship, the rise of the new cultural movement... The study of evidence is the continuation of its life under the term so-called scientific method. In the past twenty years, it has still inherited the victory over the dynasty and is popular for a lifetime."
Xiong Shili also said that sinology "depends on the scientific method and archaeology of outsiders, etc., and relies on Western learning to write from oneself"; the other is that "the flame of sinology has flourished (entrusted to the scientific method and archaeology), and the poison is also very bad, and the liberal arts students of universities across the country are mostly emphasizing this way.". In his later years, Qian Mu was still criticizing the abuse of worshiping new materials because "he was bent on finding cracks in the materials, looking for flaws, looking for gaps, and if all the books were not trustworthy, they were trustworthy, that is, they were not worth learning, that is, there was no place to work." In particular, he was opposed to the "search for a book that has not been seen in the world, this so-called undiscovered new material; for it must be used, and there must be new learning.". The latter phrase seems to be specifically directed at a passage quoting Chen Yinke about "pre-flow".
Wang Fansen noticed that at that time, there were also some traditional historians who deliberately did not use or use new historical materials, and deliberately said that they could write histories without new historical materials. Deng Zhicheng's "Two Thousand Years of Chinese History" is an example, he criticized the new school of "a secret book that is still a lonely book, and the copper of the mountain is not precious?" If he is insensitive, he vainly wants to sleep and ask for it in the Twenty-Four Histories." Although the language is humble, it is actually deliberately confrontational. Regarding the importance attached to physical materials by the new historians, Tang Shi also criticized: "The people of today are happy with the physical objects of their predecessors, and the treasure is an important historical material... All of this is only a testimony to history. Shi Ruo can be abolished, and the examination is Xi Shi? And the physical discovery is more or less remarkable than that recorded in the history books." If "there is no history outside the golden stone, and he thinks that it is a little too late"; and his own attitude is: "If you seek verification from the golden stone oracle bone, the gain is small, and it is better to pay it than to pay it." But this is, after all, the resistance of the unprepared mainstream, and the impact of historians not reading common history books is much longer-term.
In the early 1950s, Yao Congwu criticized Yan Gengwang for "just looking at the correct history", and then "said with forgiveness, 'It is better to be able to read the correct history'". Yan's understanding of its "meaning is not very impressive", which shows the influence of this tendency. By 1956, Jin Yudi was still saying: "The problem of historians (including me) now is that they are desperately looking for rare materials, but they turn a blind eye to most of the newspapers and periodicals in front of them, thinking that these are ordinary materials and are not worth paying attention to." Kim's discussion of modern history is the rule of modern times, and if the "majority of the press" is replaced by the "Twenty-Four Histories", it is the same as the previous quotation of Zhang Taiyan. In fact, he goes on to point out that "the very valuable material is not elsewhere, that is, buried in these ordinary newspapers [according to the twenty-fourth history]." The blame lies in our refusal to face it squarely, so we don't get the materials we deserve; once we get the attention of many people, important materials can emerge." He thus recalled that Vance had read the Records of Zhishi first, "And now I also know that the history of governance should begin with reading the Twenty-Four Histories."
Chen Yinke in his later years
Then in 1957, Chen Yinke wrote to a friend when writing the examination of Qian Liu's marriage: "My brother is still engaged in writing recently, but he has abandoned his old skills and used new methods and new materials to experiment with a game (Ming and Qing poetry and Fang Zhi notes, etc.). It is different from the old rules of Qianjia's examination evidence, and it is not the new theory of Tai Shi Gong and Chong Fei Zhenren." Jiang Boqin of Sun Yat-sen University recalled: "Around 1956, Mr. Chen Yinke said something to the effect of the following in his elective course 'Yuanbai Poetry And Evidence History' in the History Department of Sun Yat-sen University: 'I want to study history by driving a tractor.'" Mr. Jiang believes that this was the time of China's agricultural modernization, "the tractor was once a symbol of modernization, a symbol of new things." Mr. Chen's message is that he wants to study history in a new way and strive to reap large-scale gains." Whether this is Chen's original intention or not is not to be discussed, but his mentality of wanting to open up a new situation for historiography again can be roughly seen.
Chen Yinke's proposed new situation this time not only includes "new methods", but also broadens "new materials" again, focusing specifically on "poems and Notes of Fang Zhi". In his later years, he deeply felt that "even if there are famous mountain history manuscripts, how can it be difficult to pass on to others", and one of his sustenances is probably also hoping to use this book to pass on its methods. It is known that the method he wants to pass on still includes emphasizing the importance of expanding the historical data as much as possible. However, Chen Yinke's earlier Sui and Tang dynasties, which mainly relied on common historical materials, have fully demonstrated his academic skills in using common history book materials.
Chen's Sui and Tang theories suggest that while the historical materials were expanding as much as possible, there seemed to be a gradual return to the common historical materials (which can also be regarded as an "expansion" to some extent, because many new figures have not looked at these common historical materials in the first place). This is not the case with Chen Yinke, meng Wentong has basically adopted common books in his previous research on ancient history, and Deng Zhicheng is more explicit about his dedicated twenty-four histories. At the same time, the tendency to doubt the ancient has gradually become the actual target of many scholars: Fu Sinian advocates "reconstruction", Chen Yinke advocates "sympathy for understanding", Qian Mu tends to "understand the mind", Meng Wentong is interested in "understanding and achieving change", Guo Moruo is inspired by the historical stage of Marxism, and Tao Xisheng finds evidence from social and economic development; the focus is inherently different, and all want to be different from the suspicious ancient tendencies. The combination of the two leads to a relative rather than absolute, pluralistic rather than unified conception of historiography; less skepticism, more understanding, and a major turning point in the historical atmosphere can only be explored in another context.
The original journal was Historical Research, No. 4, 2000
About the Author
Luo Zhitian, Ph.D. of Princeton University, is currently a professor at Sichuan University and Peking University, with research interests in modern Chinese cultural history and the history of Sino-foreign relations.