Wenhui scholar | Zhang Xuecheng's encounters and failures

In modern times, there are a small number of representative figures, which were excavated by later generations, and Zhang Xuecheng (1738-1801) is one of the most striking. Hu Shi (1891-1962), who participated in the excavations, said bluntly: the first praise of the Zhang clan was the Eastern Sinologist Naito Torajiro (1866-1934), after which "the people of the country first knew Mr. Zhang".

Originally, Hu Shiyuan saw the "Annals of Mr. Zhang Shizai" written by the Naito clan in 1920, which was expanded and supplemented in 1922. Since then, the historical memory of Zhang Shi has been awakened in the academic circles, and Zhang Shi has become a figure of attention. According to the Zhang clan, he was born in the sky, his ambition was high, but he did not meet at the right time before he died, quite faintly, just as the old saying goes: "A gentleman is sick and has no name." To give an example, to summarize the rest: his surname, to the contemporary Zhang Guan Li Dai, mistook "Zhang" for "Zhang", as can be seen. A hundred years later, Fang jing was rediscovered by Chinese and foreign academic circles, and once again appeared on the stage of history, returning to the stage of history and shining brightly.

Since Yu Shi published "On Dai Zhen and Zhang Xuecheng" in 1976, invoking isaah Berlin's metaphors of "hedgehog" and "fox" to highlight the characteristics of Zhang Xuecheng and Dai Zhen's learning, the garden of Chinese intellectual history suddenly became a zoo, and a large group of "hedgehogs" and "foxes" wandered around on various academic issues. It can be seen that the influence of the book is both wide and deep. Since the book has basically set off the situation of Zhang's "unmet", the humble text only needs to choose the main points, and the focus of the small text is shifted to the "encounter" of the Zhang clan in the early years of the Republic of China.

Dai Zhen (1724-1777), the leading figure in the study of examination in the Qing Dynasty, was known for his rigorous examinations, knowledgeable and knowledgeable, and was highly respected by the people of the times. However, in his life, he promised a very high degree of righteousness, "On Nature" and "Original Goodness", and even his teachers and friends who had always appreciated him, Zhu Yun (1729-1781), Qian Daxin (1728-1804) and other scholars, all advised him to "empty reasoning and righteousness, you can do nothing", let alone anything else. In particular, the texts of "Original Dao", "Original Learning", and "Zhu Lu", which have a strong smell of Zhang's science, are even more difficult to hear.

However, Zhang Shi was in the field of high research and study, and he was quite self-aware of his own knowledge that he had not been recognized by the people of the times, and he did not deny it:

The servant learns, from one or two confidants, for a while, there is no tooth servant in the number of people, the servant is not low and self-satisfied, convinced of the precious knowledge of Xiye. (The Book of Answers to Shao Eryun)

He didn't even easily reveal his words to outsiders. On the one hand, he longed for the writing of the literary and historical school to gain the favor of Qian Daxin, an important scholarly town at that time; on the other hand, he begged Qian to say:

Between the arguments, people like and dislike quite well, so they don't want to be known more. The broom on the broom, beggar for outsiders also. (See Zhang's Testament)

This ambivalent complex of desire to meet and refuse jumps out of the paper. On the other hand, he is proud of his greatness and disdains to merge with the world, but is eager to be unique.

Zhang Xuecheng is like

In the early 20th century, under the influence of Western historiography, Liang Qichao (1873-1929) advocated a "new historiography" and gave a series of fierce criticisms of traditional Chinese historiography. This provides an excellent favorable condition for reassessing Zhang's historiography. Therefore, Zhang Shi finally got the concepts of "general history" and "historical materials", which are seen in the flow of time and cover the reasons for the reason.

In other words, since Hu Shi interpreted the "history" in Zhang's "Wenshi Tongyi" as "historical materials" in the theory of "six classics and history", this has almost become the correct interpretation of Zhang's famous sayings, and there are many people who echo it. Liang Qichao, Jin Yudi (1887-1962) and others are all homologous. In this way, Zhang's scholarship is in line with the newly imported Western historiography. Since then, the core concept of "historical materials" in the new historiography has replaced the sacred and normative status of scriptures and canonical history in the inherent historiography. However, this is tantamount to reducing the "six classics and all histories" to the descriptive objective material of modern historiography.

Secondly, Zhang Xuecheng disparaged the "history of the Broken Dynasty" (Ruo Bangu's "Book of the Later Han Dynasty") and promoted the "general history" (Ruo Sima Qian's "History of History" and Zheng Qiao's "General History"),but did not intend to take over the "general history" of western historiography in the new era and Western history. The famous historian He Bingsong (1890-1946) in the early years of the Republic of China praised that "the general history advocated by Zhang Shi is exactly the same as what we now call the general history." And compared to Sima Qian and Zheng Qiao Shangqing, it is blue. In other words, Zhang's "general history" is only aimed at breaking the barriers of traditional "history of broken dynasties"; there is inevitably a gap between it and the "general history" of modern historiography! Although this is just a seemingly miraculous, it does not prevent it from gaining a violent name!

In other words, in the early years of the Republic of China, after the "creative transformation" of Hu Shi, Liang Qichao and others in their concept of historiography, Zhang Xuecheng had to catch the hitchhiker of Western historiography at the right time and reach the terminal station of fame and fame. In other words, with the refocusing of different viewpoints in new historiography, Zhang Xuecheng will become a forerunner of modern historiography by chance. No wonder the Japanese Naito clan will say that even chinese scholars who worship Zhang have a hard time discovering the true meaning of their theories. Only recently have some "people who govern Western learning" in China begun to understand the true value of Zhang Xuecheng's historiography. (History of Chinese Historiography)

In the early years of the Republic of China, due to the influence of Japanese academic circles, a wind of praise for Zhang's historiography was blown. Until the second half of the 20th century, western sinologists such as Paul Demiéville of France (1894-1979) and David S. Nivison (1923-2014) of the United States have spared no effort in advocating Zhang's historiography, and Xian believes that Zhang is the pioneer of the times and the turning point of traditional Chinese historiography. They tended to elaborate on Zhang's "six classics are histories" from the european point of view of "historicism", and even compared them with Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), a contemporary of Italy. For example, He Bingsong, who had returned from the United States earlier, advocated the alliance between historiography and social science and spared no effort, warning us that we should not over-promote Zhang's historiography, so that Zhang and we all fell into a path of corruption, and misled everyone to ignore the many important contributions of Western historiography to historiography recently. He believed that "whether history can progress and be useful depends entirely on whether history can unite with other kinds of science, and not to hate them." For this reason, he advocated that "we should do more work to introduce Western historiography after that!" Such views were not only accepted by scholars with a foreign background, but also felt the same way by Lu Simian (1884-1957), who had never set foot abroad. Lü Shi compared Zhang Xuecheng with the differences between today's historians, and he commented:

His opinion, and that of modern historians, is only one step away. If we go any further, we would be the same as historians today. But this step, in Zhang Xuecheng, can not be further advanced. Why? That's because modern historians have other kinds of science to help him, while Zhang Xuecheng didn't have it in the era of Zhang Xuecheng. (Historical Research Act)

Lü's so-called "other disciplines" simply refer to the "social sciences" of Western superiority. This was the characteristic of the new historiography at that time. For this reason, zhang's historiography must certainly regain its style, but it cannot be guaranteed that it will always rise with the development of new historiography.

In short, Zhang Shi's "historical meaning" of stressing the chest and judgment is not tolerated in the era of examination that emphasizes seeking truth from facts, but he is also praised for pushing forward the "general history" and expounding the "six classics are history", but he does not intend to look like the Western style of study at the time of the century. Ironically, in the context of traditional scholarship in the Qing Dynasty, Zhang's learning was suppressed, but in the context of the new historiography of the Republic of China, applause rang out, which Zhang shi did not expect. Its encounter or not, the study style of the Gai era has so much?

Author: HUANG Jin-Hing (Distinguished Researcher, Institute of History and Language, Academia Sinica, Taiwan)

Editor: Chen Shaoxu