Before reading this article, we sincerely invite you to click the "Follow" button, so that you can continue to push such articles for you in the future, and it is also convenient for you to discuss and share, your support is the driving force for us to insist on creating~
The study of Jingshi (which Han and Hirokaul aptly translates as "ordering the world") encompasses more than just practical studies, and scholars of ancient Chinese history in both Western and East Asia have always been very curious about Jingshi thought.
One of the main reasons is that it provides new clues to the daunting and complex question of how the Qing elites of the 19th century responded to Western expansion.
But even to those most concerned with the subject, the Jingshi proved to be a very difficult concept to define, because it was both part of the basic tenets endorsed by all Neo-Confucianists, a concrete and controversial style of public action, and a particular political project;
It not only has a value system that transcends time limits, but also reflects the special problems, confusions and trends of thought in different historical periods.
Yu Yingshi has a brilliant analysis of the thought of the late Chinese Empire, and he gives Jingshi a broad definition of Jingshi as an active participation in real life and problems consistent with the "Pingtianxia" approach of the University.
It also includes traditional assumptions about cosmology and personal ethics. It was a necessary way of life for Confucian gentlemen. But scholars such as Ehrman argue:
A more analytically useful definition must include a special emphasis on technical competence in the areas of hydraulics, mapping and astronomical calendars.
Sensing the indifference and opposition of other literati, some conscious executors of thought defended these technical abilities. Other scholars have come up with a more different interpretation, and they have proposed a more focused political agenda.
Pu Depei, for example, saw the Qing dynasty as characterized by a dedication to comprehensively improving regional conditions through the creative means of government agencies.
However, Fu Foguo agreed with Naito, a Japanese sinologist and enthusiast of Jingsei thought in the early 20th century, who believed that a high degree of local autonomy and freedom from bureaucratic interference were the essence of "Jingsei".
Zhang Hao is perhaps the scholar who has been thinking about this issue the longest and hardest. He believes that there are two peculiarities of the Qing dynasty's classical learning.
The first is to boldly and explicitly use practicality as a yardstick for evaluating political behavior.
Zhang Hao acknowledges that all members of the neo-Confucian cultural system recognize the authority of ontology and the code of conduct set forth in the University and other relevant literature, but proponents prefer to distinguish between practical and neo-Confucian authoritative norms of behavior, and only endorse the latter when the time is right.
Second, Zhang Hao found that the thought of the late imperial era had openly defended the pursuit of wealth and power, and regarded the study of economic and military knowledge as worthy of pursuit.
But Zhang Hao is careful to point out that this interpretation applies only to a particular type of Jingshi studies, which he alternately refers to as "practical Jingshi" or "bureaucratic Jingshi."
At the same time, he pointed out that the Jing Shi and the "study of the inner saint" are eclectic, and this "inner sacred science" pays little attention to practical issues of political economy and adheres to the authoritative orthodox interpretation of the Confucian classics made by neo-Confucianism.
Liu Guangjing basically accepted Zhang Hao's analysis. He further argues that it was not until the early 19th century that Jingshi was interpreted as "practical science", and this new interpretation constituted the basic and unique modern academic trend of thought in the late Qing Dynasty.
The Jingshi movement of the 19th century and beyond attracted the attention of many scholars and greatly influenced our understanding of the early Jingshi.
During these years, a group of scholars in the government and opposition moved from classical studies to realpolitik issues and the technical knowledge needed for related institutional reforms.
These scholars included Bao Shichen (1775-1855), Gong Zizhen (1792-1841), He Changling (1785-1848), Wei Yuan (1794-1856), Tao Shu (1779-1839), and Lin Zexu (1785-1850).
The sense of crisis generated by political corruption at the time drove them to make this shift. In previous years, the Hekan corruption scandal and Hong Liangji's famous protests, the catastrophic and costly White Lotus Uprising, and the growing defense problems of the Northwest Frontier.
The gradual silting of the Grand Canal, a major transportation artery, problems with opium inflows and silver outflows, all of which led to the worrisome economic decline in the early days of Daoguang's rule.
In particular, as Feng Tianyu demonstrates, these literati and their followers are engaged in an increasingly conscious movement. This movement included not only an academic attack on the study of evidence, but also a self-improvement of coordinating bureaucratic factions.
In the years that followed, some of the empire's most powerful politicians, including Zeng Guofan and Zuo Zongtang, emerged among their students.
The work that best represents the trend of thought of the Jing Shi Dynasty, "Imperial Dynasty Jingshi Wen Compilation", was initiated by He Changling in 1826 and edited and published by Wei Yuan. It was an epoch-making work, and later scholars compiled many sequels, which became the bureaucratic guide for late Qing scholars.
The Imperial Dynasty Jingshiwen Compilation covers a wide range of topics, but as Liu Guangjing points out, unlike similar works by Chen Zilong in the Ming Dynasty, it organizes the articles not chronologically but on different topics, and this novel arrangement clearly shows that the editor's interest is not purely academic but practical issues.
The book's main focus is clearly on technical expertise and what Zhang calls "incremental innovation" of the system. In the arrangement of the content of the book, a great deal of attention is paid to policies that may promote economic development, and as Liu Guangjing believes, the book itself takes a very sympathetic attitude towards businessmen and business activities.
But the Scriptures are by no means merely pragmatic and utilitarian. Etiquette ethics and practical knowledge are given equal importance. In order to maintain the balance between "body" and "use", this collection includes a large number of works of Qing dynasty scholars on moral self-cultivation.
It even includes some research in the field of literature. Surprisingly, the anthology does not include works on metaphysics and the study of precepts.
As Weifeld pointed out long ago: the style is a form of historicism, not Golden Age classicism, reflecting historical changes and the need to be "fit for the times."
However, the term "Jingshi" is not a new term that appeared in the 19th century, and it has long been used in the pre-Qin philosophical masterpiece Zhuangzi, but it only refers to "experiencing different eras", and the meaning is completely different from that of later generations.
It is only in the Book of the Later Han that the Book of the Han uses this term in a later sense of socio-political management. By the Song Dynasty, neo-Confucian advocates had widely used the term "jingshi" to oppose the Buddhist philosophy of birth.
Since then, it has spread widely among intellectual circles in the late Chinese Empire. Scholars of the Neo-Confucian and other schools loved the term "jingshi": from the radical reformer Wang Anshi to the mathematician Shao Yong (1011-1077), the pioneer of psychology Lu Xiangshan (1139-1193), the eastern Zhejiang pragmatists Chen Liang (1143-1194) and Ye Shi (1150-1223) (whose utilitarian philosophy was called "Lixue" by Zhu Xi).
From Chen Liang and Ye Shi, we also see a pattern of thought that will be reproduced in later generations: a passionate interest in institutional research or the world originated from a need to save the world from a socio-political and economic crisis.
The Eastern Zhejiang School stemmed from efforts to reclaim the northern territories of the Song Dynasty from the barbaric Jin Kingdom. In the middle of the 15th century, in response to the "civil engineering change" of 1449, intellectuals developed a new enthusiasm for the world, and the masterpiece "University Supplement" published in 1488 was a new peak in the study of the world.
The "Jingshi movement" of the 19th century is most directly related to the revival of Jingshi scholarship that began in the late 16th century. According to Yamai Yong, the most important researcher of Jingshi thought, Jingshi thought was the mainstream of academia before the 17th century, when Wang Yangming's psychology lost its dominant position, and before the early 18th century, when Kaojiao dominated the academic community.
Yamai believes that the shift from the pursuit of inner sainthood to political economy in the late Ming Dynasty was a response to the increasingly serious social, political, and economic crisis, and also reflected the major impact of the development of the commodity economy represented by the reform of the "One Whip Law" on the lives of intellectuals.
These shocks forced the intellectuals of the time to turn to more practical, secular issues and emphasize their sense of social responsibility. Yamai saw this revival in the activities of the Donglin School, but he also noted the influence of Christianity and other Western factors.
Yu Yingshi pointed out that "Jingshi" was a claim unanimously promoted by scholars of Neo-Confucianism and other schools in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, and it may be a mistake to regard it as a completely independent "movement".
I believe that at least three schools of thought that are quite different from each other attach great importance to Jingshi thought, and they all had an important influence on the re-emergence of Jingshi thought in the late Qing Dynasty.
One was Lü Kun, Guan Xue, and other advocates of the neo-Confucian legacy in the north, who often used the term "jingshi" but is rarely considered by historians to be part of the jingshi tradition of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties.
As we will discuss below, its influence on shaping later thought was far from insignificant. The other two academic lines linked to 17th-century Jingshi thought both originated in the Jiangnan region and are very significantly associated with the names of Chen Zilong and Gu Yanwu.
Chen Zilong (1608-1647) of Songjiang was the editor-in-chief of the 1638 Emperor Ming Jing Shiwen Edition. The Emperor Ming Jingshiwen Compilation probably did more than any previous work to record the word "Jingshi" in the immortal political vocabulary of the empire.
Chen Zilong is a young leader of the political group Fushe, which has some views from the Donglin Party, which advocated the revival of Cheng-Zhu scholarship, but perhaps even more from the academic advocacy of Xu Guangqi, a Shanghai agronomist, Christian convert, and politician. Chen Zilong also reprinted Xu Guangqi's work.
Gu Yanwu was the most famous scholar of the 17th century, a geographer, political theorist, and founder of the study of evidence. Chen Zilong and Gu Yanwu have a lot in common:
Disgusted with metaphysics and the style of writing and moaning without disease, he opposed Wang Yangming's school and gave too much consideration to personal self-cultivation, valued the socio-political function of ritual religion, paid attention to changes in social customs, and was loyal to the cause of the dying Ming Dynasty (this loyalty prompted them to passionately seek socio-political solutions).
But there are differences in the characteristics of their search for solutions. As Mo Zike said: Chen Zilong represents a "moderate" or "realistic" approach to reform, emphasizing gradual change and "flexible management";
Gu Yanwu (and the likes of Huang Zongxi) preferred a "fundamental change" or "radical" approach, preaching a fundamental change in the political structure of the empire.
We will discuss Gu Yanwu's political thought right away, but we must point out that Gu Yanwu's belief in the original appearance of the classics can be restored, which is Gu Yanwu's view that had the greatest influence on the Qing Dynasty study movement.
The famous minister Chen Hongmou appreciated these aspects of Gu Yanwu: his consistent emphasis on the unity of thought and action, his extensive knowledge, his empirical academic style (he especially praised Gu Yanwu's academic characteristics of focusing on field research), his historicism and extensive historical knowledge.
Chen Hongmou's summary of the Records shows that he agrees with Gu Yanwu's views on the socio-political function of rituals and the importance of reforming local customs and habits.
On the other hand, as Bai Mutang has confirmed, by the time of Chen Hongmou, the scholarly admiration for Gu Yanwu had shifted from his classical works to his pioneering contribution to the study of evidence, which was a kind of scholarship that Chen Hongmou was not interested in.
Moreover, Chen Hongmou almost certainly found that Gu Yanwu's neglect of the study of inner saints was precisely the top priority of Song Mingli, but Gu Yanwu deliberately despised it.
In Chen Hongmou's view, like Wang Anshi, whom Gu Yanwu himself despised, Gu Yanwu seemed to only have "use" and no "body" at all. How did Chen Hongmou react to Gu Yanwu's rather startling political views?
This question is crucial to people's understanding of what the world really is.
As Kong Feili and Min Dooji pointed out in their famous articles on their respective milestones, there was a trend of thought in the Qing dynasty that was contrary to orthodox ideology, also known as "feudalism," which insisted on criticism of centralized bureaucratic rule, advocated some form of local autonomy, and emphasized the participation of local elites.
Gu Yanwu became its most important spokesperson in the early Qing Dynasty because of his systematic discussion of this issue. In a famous essay entitled "On Counties and Counties," written circa 1660, Gu Yanwu suggested changing local administrative officials to a hereditary system, elected by local clans, who had the power to remove incompetent or corrupt high-ranking officials (such as governors).
According to Kong Feili and Min Dooji, this view disappeared for a time in the 18th century, when centralized politics was at its height (although the poet Yuan Zhen still insisted on this), but this tradition was restored in the 19th century with the advent of Wei Yuan and Feng Guifen, and culminated when Kang Youwei and other reformers proposed a local representative system.
Because Gu Yanwu, Wei Yuan, and others within this tradition also explicitly invoke the term "Jingshi" to describe what they were after, historians often merge this "feudal" thinking with the larger Jingshi tradition of the late Chinese Empire.
And because Wei Yuan and Feng Guifen were very interested in the actions of the 18th-century model Chen Hongmou, and they implicitly called Chen Hongmou a member of their camp, it is reasonable to think that Chen Hongmou belonged to the "feudal" camp, that is, within the camp of anti-centralized politics and advocating local autonomy.
But how did Chen fit well into this timeless intellectual tradition? When we discuss Chen Hongmou's views on the economy, kinship, society and the state, we can clearly see that this integration is very unnatural.
Noting the characteristics of the market itself, Chen agreed to give local governments more power to deal with economic problems, and tried to expand ways to share power with local and even local business elites.
But he also often retreats from these views. In practice, no one has worked harder than Chen Hongmou to increase the power of local bureaucrats and their control over society.
His enthusiasm for expanding the inspectorate's supervision and control over administrative reform and local resource allocation is extraordinary, contrary to Gu Yanwu, who called for the abolition of the inspector's position.
Although every article Chen Hongmou draws from Gu Yanwu's writings inevitably has some deep-rooted anti-centralization consciousness, none of the Gu Yanwu's works collected by Chen Hongmou directly mentions Gu's plans to carry out fundamental reforms of imperial politics.
I do suspect that when Chen Hongmou vaguely says that Gu Yanwu's views are unrealistic, he is actually referring to the reform proposals.
This may be that Gu Yanwu actually belongs to a "radical" school of thought in the world, while Chen Hongmou belongs to a realist or flexible management school.
Gu Yanwu may prefer the feudal side where local autonomy and centralism balance each other, while Chen Hongmou may be a bit inclined to the county system.
But both men (whose creativity is unrivaled) strive to develop a middle ground between state control and private interests, the arenas of public responsibility, activism, and public opinion, which are intermittently called "public."
Both Gu Yanwu and Chen Hongmou occupied an important place in the grand Jingsei tradition that Wei Yuan later established retroactively.