【Summary】At the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the People's Republic of China, the "good modern scholars" of Bashu advocated the "theory" of the modern text to unify the "facts" of the ancient text, and questioned the genealogy of modern literature centered on Kang Youwei Ramology. Meng Wentong immediately determined that the late Qing Dynasty ramology was almost pseudo-modern literature, and that the etiquette-based and ruled "Yu Liang" according to the family law regulations was the mature modern literature. Meng Wentong reconstructs the genealogy of modern and modern literature, which not only enriches the understanding of the academic flow of Daoxian, but also presents the diversified paths of the modern transformation of traditional scholarship. The skeptical trend of modern and modern literature has changed the study of classics into ancient historiography in order to sort out the national history and the ancient history discernment movement, and to provide ideological resources with the history of the classics; Ran Meng wentong to promote Liao Ping's "Spring and Autumn" study, from Liao Ping to talk about the two Han Dynasties in the modern and ancient times, and then to discuss the pre-Qin with "Spring and Autumn", aiming at seeking liberation in retrospect, laying the groundwork for its historical evidence and historical history.
【Key Words】Meng Wentong/Modern Literature/榖梁
As far as Qing studies are concerned, the issue of classical and ancient texts is only a sub-topic of the Han and Song dynasties, or it is only a matter of a few people. There are very few People who can really be called modern scholars in the Qing Dynasty, and if there is no Kang Youweiyan Ram reform, jingjin literature should not have entered the main line of late Qing ideological circles. (1) After the Penghu Restoration, the revival of modern literature and the series of academic and cultural trends of thought that involved many aspects of politics, society, ideology, and scholarship in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, so modern literature has always been the focus of academic circles. Related research is also mostly centered on Kang Youwei's ram reform, focusing on exploring its historical connotations, and the genealogy of modern and modern literature is also centered on Kang Youwei. ②
In fact, at the beginning of the Qing Dynasty, the revival of "Shu Studies" became the group demand of scholars in Sichuan Province, and Liao Ping wrote "Examination of Ancient Studies", and proposed to compile the "Eighteen Commentaries on the Eighteen Classics", "To become Shu Studies", which was different from Jiangsu and Zhejiang scholarship, that is, it was intended to abandon Qianjia to lower the sinology tradition, and to go further on the road of seeking liberation in retro times. Since then, the "good modern scholar speakers" of Bashu have advocated that late scholarship should replace "north and south" with "east and west", and unify the "facts" of ancient literature with the "theory" of modern literature, and questioned the genealogy of modern and modern literature centered on Kang Youwei Ramology. In 1923, Meng Wentong studied Wu Yue, and had in-depth debates with the jiangsu and Zhejiang settlers, and after returning to Sichuan, he "discussed Shu studies" and rebuilt the genealogy of modern and modern literature. Examining the ins and outs of Meng Wentong's trip to Jiangnan this time, combing the integration of "Shu studies" and Jiangsu and Zhejiang scholarship in the early Minchu, it is possible to reveal the pluralistic context of the academic origins and changes in China in the early Minchu.
First, retro for liberation
The idea of "retro for liberation" is a certain general knowledge of the academic circles of the Early Ming Dynasty in the Qing Dynasty, and the internal rationale for the academic development of the Qing Dynasty originally had a tendency to study the ancient objects. Wei Yuan once said: "The key to today's retro is to enter the Tokyo canon system from the sound of exhortation to the Tokyo canon system, and this Qi yi changes to Lu; from the canon system to enter the Western Han Dynasty's micro-speech and righteousness, through the classics and political affairs articles in one, this Lu Yi changed to Daoye." (3) Liao Pingzhi's study is based on retro, "by the Western Han Dynasty to pursue the pre-Qin, and even more by the pre-Qin to chase Zou Lu." What is new is not righteous or new, and what is old is unrighteous and not old. (4) Ye Dehui predicted from the perspective of academic controversy: "Learning has changed, and there is no end to contention, from the real to the virtual, from the virtual to the real difficulty, there is the Sinology of the Song Dynasty, there will be the Western Han Dynasty of the Eastern Han Dynasty." I am afraid that one day there will be more people who will learn from the sons of the Warring States to win over the Western Han Dynasty. (5) As Chen Zhu said: "Our country's scholarship is flourishing on weekends." Since the Qin Dynasty, it has declined suddenly. Gai Weekend is the creation period, although the books he wrote, although called the ancient kings, but in fact they all have their own intentions, the only nation of our country, Yashang experience, so the ancient saying is the emphasis, not the true retro. "Focusing on ancient learning" is only a way to express "one's own intentions", not the real retro, "there is the scholarship of the Qing Dynasty, the ancient science of speech can be described as the great achievement of the general previous generation, and the discussion of thought can be described as a precedent in the future." (6) However, the people who continued this "precedent" in the early years had a very different interest in ancient learning.
In the early 1920s, when summarizing the two hundred years of Qing studies, Liang Qichao pointed out: "There is a Qing generation of scholarship, which has become a trend, with the color of the movement of the times, in the first half of the period for the study of evidence, the second half of the period for the modern literature. Further, he believes that Qing Dynasty scholarship was "a great reaction to one of the theories of the Song Ming Dynasty" and "in a word, 'taking the retro as liberation'". (7) "Retro for Liberation" has become a model for the recognition of "Qing Dynasty scholarship", and this mode of interpretation can naturally transition to the Qing Dynasty ideology that Liang Qichao has always preached, "its motivation and its content are absolutely similar to the European Renaissance". The shiren compared Qing Dynasty scholarship to the Renaissance, which naturally provided a historical basis and academic basis for the introduction of "science". As an important link in the "new culture" movement, the "sorting out the country's history" and the "ancient history identification" movement advocated by Hu Shi and Gu Jiegang tried to participate in and support the anti-Confucius "new trend of thought" with a serious academic movement under the influence of modern literature, and its starting point was to return to the original classics and go to a higher level on the basis of inheriting Qianjia Sinology. Although the revival of modern literature is a key step in the process of "taking the retro as liberation", in the eyes of the new cultural school, the goal of "liberation" is no longer the great righteousness of restoring the ancient classics, but the "Mr. De" and "Mr. Sai" from the west.
Almost at the same time, in a remote southwest corner, When Discussing Sinology for twenty years, Meng Wentong, who graduated from Sichuan National College, sketched out a genealogy similar to "taking retro as liberation" for the past three hundred years of scholarship: "The scholarship of the past three hundred years can be said to be all retro movements, and the more refined the talk, the more ancient, just like the appearance of picking up grades and ascending." The progress and results of these three hundred years are truly astonishing. (8) In the past twenty years, the mainstream has naturally been the two schools of modern and ancient Literature, and the leaders of the two factions are Kang Youwei and Zhang Taiyan, but these two are only the revisionists of Liao Ping's "Examination of Ancient Studies" and have never left the category of Liao Ping's theory, while Meng Wentong wants to be independent of the "Examination of Ancient And Modern Studies". Different from the goal of "liberation" of Liang Qichao, Hu Shi, and others, The so-called liberation of Meng Wentong is that "now when preaching the scriptures, it is no longer possible to keep the two Han and modern ancient texts to speak, but to go after the pre-Qin dynasty", and strives to "bo jiqun books and analyze the millimang" in the study of scriptures, and the "mencius way" of MingTaizhou Wang Xuexue has "expounded to the fullest". With this ambition in mind, Meng Wentong, who was founded at the end of 1923, left Sichuan to study at Wu Yue, the base camp of Qing Dynasty classics.
Meng Wentong studied Wu Yuezhi in "the flow of classical learning since the period of view of the same light", but in Jiangnan, which was originally the base camp of classical studies, the orthodoxy of classical studies had declined, and Buddhism and other foreign armies were emerging, and in 1923, it was thrown into the torrent of sorting out the national past. Jiangsu and Zhejiang scholars absorb the new trend on the one hand, and on the other hand, they sort out the study of traditional Chinese culture and carry forward traditional culture. Although scholars of various schools have different views on "sorting out the history of the country", they all firmly believe that "the voice of sorting out the study of the country is overflowing in the ears, and the study of the country will eventually have a revival, but the method of sorting out is quite laborious." As far as scholars who aspire to "import theories" are concerned, the learning of Zhang Taiyan, Kang Youwei, Chen Yan and other elders can only represent the past, not enough to create the future, and therefore have nothing to do with the current scholarship: "The essence of his works can be read by my people, and the methods of governing his studies cannot be in the style of our people." Although mr. Zhu still exists today, there is no such thing as the study of the Country in the twelfth year of the Republic of China. ”⑨
It is not surprising that Jiangsu and Zhejiang sorted out the atmosphere of the country and the original intention of Meng Wentong's study and inquiry, and It is not surprising that Meng Wentong issued a sigh of "the old man lurking away" and "stressing xi you", "So from Master Yihuang Ouyang asked to become a wise and righteous return." However, Meng Wentong still paid close attention to the movements of Jiangsu and Zhejiang scholars in sorting out the country's past, and took the initiative to argue with them.
Second, the modern literary alchemist discernment
Gu Jiegang pointed out in 1919: "The influence of modern literature is 'deeply exploring Confucius's whispers' academically, 'advocating reform' in politics, and 'establishing Confucianism' in religion. (10) Beginners often criticize modern literature as alchemists. Song Kongxian said: "The mixture of Confucianism and Alchemist has obviously two periods: from the Qin to the Han Dynasty as the first period, the Northern Song Dynasty as the second period, and the Alchemist of the first period cannot be separated from Confucianism. (11) When Lü Simian and Liang Qichao debated the theory of the five elements of yin and yang, they pointed out that "pre-Qin scholarship is afraid of being incompetent to leave the five elements of yin and yang", "the modern writers say that those who can get rid of it are not two or three", the so-called "ancient philosophy originated from ancient religion", and "it cannot be talked about without confusion, of course." ”(12)
In October 1922, Southeast University officially established the "Sinology Research Society", and Chen Zhongfan and Gu Shi were the backbone of the Sinology Research Society, and edited the "Sinology Series". Chen Zhongfan learned from Liu Shipei, the heavy etiquette system to keep ancient literature, Gu Shi studied in Japan in his early years, and was greatly influenced by Zhang Taiyan and others, and the remarks of the two were often in direct opposition to modern literature. On November 24, 1922, when Chen Zhongfan gave a lecture on "Confucianism and Confucianism between Qin and Han" at the Sinology Research Association, he said: "To the Sui Dynasty, this wind is breathing, and the recent Wen family, Yu Fusheng advocates Confucianism, and it is also known that it is not so honorable, but actually falsely accused Kong." (13) In the inaugural issue of the "Guoxue Series", Chen Zhongfan directly rebuked "the fangshi of the Qin and Han dynasties", in his view, the decline of Chinese scholarship lies in the fact that Confucianism changed to Confucianism at the time of the Qin and Han Dynasties, "at the time of the Qin and Han Dynasties, confucians are like alchemists, and their learning is absolutely similar to religion", "The saying of the alchemists, advocated by the Qi people, adopted by the Qin Emperor, and the Qin scribes also understand it." "Han Dynasty and modern literature out of the Qi people, Fusheng, Yuangu and both are Dr. Qin, to the Han Wu Emperor Daxing Fangshu Yin and Yang Studies, then "Han Confucians do not mix their words with the Five Classics", resulting in "chaos in the scriptures, to the obscurity of ancient righteousness, very strange theory, touching the eye." (14)
As soon as Chen's theory came out, Sun Deqian wrote a letter proposing a discussion: "Before the beginning of the Han Dynasty, the study of the scriptures only had oral sayings, if the five elements of yin and yang were to be passed down by Han Confucianism, not to exhaust the words of the Fangshu scholars", "The Han Confucian interpretations all speak of the five elements of yin and yang, and it can be seen that the ancient Confucians, who are familiar with heaven and man, are not only drowning in sound teachings, but their disadvantages are fragmented." Sun Deqian intended to reconcile the Han and Song dynasties and extinguish the dispute between the present and the ancient, "Today's rule of the scriptures does not have to be for the Song study, nor for the sinology, the disciples are fighting for the view of this portal, and the most important ones who invent the Bible are the study of the scriptures. (15) Chen Zhongfan disagreed with Sun Deqian's attitude of "the Bible is passed down from generation to generation": "It is said that it is a different transmission of scripture, and I do not know that the ancient texts are simple and simple, and that its true transmission is resting in It? (16) After that, Sun and Chen exchanged several letters, each holding their own opinions, and Sun Deqian insisted, "The alchemist and the Yin and Yang family cannot be discussed together", "It is impossible to adopt the Yin and Yang family's words, that is, it is impossible to have a dialectic", "it is impossible to ask for compromise in academics" ;(17) Chen Zhongfan's position is even stronger: "Until the clear evidence is in front, do not dare to obey, only the ancients are respected, the religious masters are the same for the sects they worship, and the scholars do not dare to do the same to the ancients." The doctrine of introduction has its own propositions, it is not allowed to strengthen the world to conform to the same, archaeology has left evidence, and it is impossible to wear down and fabricate. ”(18)
Chen's theory originated from Liu Shipei, as early as 1905 in the article "On the Wisdom of Wei", Liu Shipei pointed out: "The flow of alchemists, who want to sell their skills, is to aid the words of the testament, do not establish the name of Wei Wei, confuse the modern text, and call it Qi Xue." About Qi Xue believed in Wei Wei, and Lu did not believe in Wei Wei. (19) For Liu Shipei, the Wei wei is a document originating from the hands of the Alchemist, and it is not a material originally belonging to the Confucian academic system. According to this, he criticized Qi Xue as a heretic of Confucianism, "the confusion of sutra learning, and thus begins." Although Meng Wentong praised Chen Zhongfan's "Examination of the Year and Month of the Tai Oath" and other texts intended to "search for the ancient literature of Xijing and the way of Ju zuo'an", he also believed that "in modern times, modern and modern scholars speak the scriptures, and it is good to take the meaning of Wei, and the fangshi and the present text are not together for a long time." Zuo An's treatise (Confucius Does Not Change the Examination of the System) is also the same" is repeated. The so-called "learning cannot be agreed upon, and the same is not clear", Meng Wentong was "suspicious of the dispute between Chen and Sun", and took this as an opportunity to form a more systematic view of the "internal learning" problem that "failed to discuss smoothly" in the "Introduction to Classics", in Meng Wentong's view: "Between the Qin and Han Dynasties, there is the tradition of the scribe; there is the tradition of the alchemist; there is the tradition of the Yin and Yang family; there is also the practice of the Yin and Yang family; and the Jingsheng and the Alchemist must not be confused in the end." (20) The two Han classics emphasize the teachings of the master and the teaching of the family law, and Meng Wentong believes that the study of the scriptures is taught to all disciples, but the reason why the Yin and Yang catastrophe theory has become an internal study is precisely because it is only passed on to some disciples. The teaching of the five elements is different, the five classics do not have to be passed on the five elements, the way of scripture is not mixed with the study of the alchemist; many of the two schools of ancient texts are both through the study of scriptures and internal studies, and cannot be called ancient texts because of jia hui and Zheng Xuantong's yin-yang ephemeris; moreover, there are also many modern scholars who oppose the theory of yin and yang disasters, so "there is no need to learn internally that is the present text, and the present text is the internal study." This theory does not detach itself from the shadow of Liao Ping's four changes in learning, Liao Ping learned the four changes, and the comprehensive outline established four doors, the first of which is the micro-speech gate: "Micro-speech secretly conveys the heart, it is not enough for outsiders, this school has never been loud since the Western Han Dynasty", although there are many very frightening theories, but "the words must first be micro-words". (21)
In addition, ancient literature criticizes the modern Wen family for "attaching scholars within the association", and the spearhead refers to the "ram family", Chen Zhongfan said that "Dong Zhongshuzhi "Ram Spring and Autumn" began to promote yin and yang as the Confucian Sect", "He Xiu and others want to revive the Ram, and fu will say that he will move the Lord of the Times". (22) However, in The view of Meng Wentong, the Qi scholar of the Ram, the extravagant saying of the world, did not investigate the cause of the catastrophe at all, "exploring the origin of the five victories, especially not knowing the similarities and differences between the various families during the period" (23). In fact, the fundamental reason for internal learning is not the "Ram Biography", because the very strange and strange theories are all in Dong Zhongshu's "Spring and Autumn Prosperity", not in the "Spring and Autumn Ram Biography", the Han Dynasty classics have their own tradition of scripture, and the catastrophe yin and yang are their own traditions, and the Western Han Mixed Yin and Yang theory and scriptures began with Dong Zhongshu and Xiahou Shichang. Prior to this, the theory of yin and yang had not been confused with the Ram, so it could not be "for the sake of its evangelist", and the study of the Ram was called the science of catastrophic yin and yang, "it is more knowable through the scriptures".
Based on the above distinction, Meng Wentong believes that modern modern and modern learning and Han Dynasty teachers and Confucians are often good at internal learning, "which is one of its short". In fact, the study of present and the study of the interior are two schools of learning, and pure modern literature should "eliminate yin and yang and cut off the etiquette" (24). Soon, Chen Zhongfan replied to Meng Wentong, believing that the previous text was generally a generalization, "The foreword qin and han modern texts are mastered by fangshi, also known as western Han scholars, and most of them all speculate that disasters are different, with the purpose of Fu Hui's Six Classics. Gu Wei said that the two Han Classics are not separated from the Wei Wei, and the two Han Classics are all Alchemists." However, Chen Zhongfan also did not agree with Meng Wentong's emphasis on the teacher's teaching of the family law, "The theory that the families are disastrous does not need to inherit the teacher from above and pass it on to his disciples, and we must not deny it because of the words that there is no calamity or difference between the teachers and disciples, so we cannot deny it with the theory of the calamity of the families." The so-called "generalization of the whole at one end, generalization of the whole at the end of the whole, all are not allowed by logic", implying that what Meng Wentong said is only "one end", and Chen still insists that the alchemists of the Qin and Han dynasties are transformed into "the whole", and then believe that "Western Han Studies involves Yin and Yang, and Eastern Han Studies involves Wei Wei, and both belong to the modern scribes, and there is no pre-ancient learning", "It is precisely because of this ancient science that it is cross-examined, and the internal study of modern learning will not be confused in the end". (25) On the contrary, Meng Wentong has always believed that modern scholars "only see modern literature and the five elements of yin and yang together" and "compare modern literature with the religious theology of the European Middle Ages", which "cannot grasp the essence of modern literature." ”(26)
Third, the dispute between the three-body stone classic
At the beginning, Gu Xue was established as a scholar, and thus the Three-Body Stone Classic was established, so the Three-Body Stone Classic became the basis for ancient learning, and the remnants of the Stone Classics could correct Xu's "Shuowen" study, but "the dispute between the Three Character Stone Classics has been long". In 1923, the newly unearthed Wei Trisomy Stone Sutra near Luoyang immediately attracted widespread attention from the academic circles, and Wang Guowei believed that "this matter is of great importance to the study of scriptures and primary schools." (27) Zhang Taiyan believes that "the establishment of the three-body stone scripture, the ancient texts of the Book and the Spring and Autumn Period are revealed for a while, and then there is a statue of learning, and the recipient of the scripture has nothing to be confused about." (28) Therefore, he attached great importance to this matter, and wrote to Yu Youren saying: "In this way, I know that in the wall of the book, the Spring and Autumn Book was donated by Zhang Cang, and the Han Dynasty Secret House was hidden, and it was especially seen by Yus. (29) He then wrote an essay examining the Three-Body Stone Sutra.
Zhang Taiyan first determines the author of the Three-Body Stone Sutra, so as to determine the ancient and modern attribution of the Trisomy Stone Sutra. Wei Heng's "Four-Body Book" believes that Handan Chun wrote the Three-Body Stone Classic, while Fan Ye's "Book of later Han" attributed the Three-Body Stone Classic to Cai Yong. Zhang Taiyan examines that the Wei family and Handan Chun "have an old", and Wei Heng's death is only fifty years away from the beginning, while Fan Ye is "going to go to the beginning for two hundred years", so "the rumors and witnesses are easy to distinguish between reality and do not need to be bought". The copyright dispute between Cai Yong and Handan Chun is actually related to the difference in the nature of the stone classics and ancient texts. Cai Yong once established a one-character stone classic (Xiping Stone Classic), the Poem Julu, the Shang Shu Ju Fu Sheng, and the Spring and Autumn Classics jufu sheng, all of which were used by the official scholars at that time. If the Three-Body Stone Sutra was also established by Cai Yong, then it should also belong to the present text. Zhang Taiyan pointed out that later generations regarded the Zhengshi Shijing as a supplementary engraving of the Xiping Stone Sutra after it was disturbed by Dong Zhuo, "This unknown text has ancient and modern, there is pure refutation of learning, and there is no responsibility for the righteousness of Kuangzheng and the responsibility of making up for it." The one-character stone scripture stands in Han, and the three-character stone scripture stands in Wei", which is different from the ancient and modern grammars. Later, based on the source of the Two Han "Shang Shu" and the master of Handan Chun's "Shang Shu" study, he concluded that Handan Chun nai "took the old copy, obtained its authentic handwriting, and wrote its text by hand, so as to show that the doctor's disciples, those who have no strange feet, must not be suspicious of the Durin affair." (30) Subsequently, Zhang Taiyan successively crossed the newly released stone sutra and the Shuowen two- and used the ancient scripture as the premise, and Tuoben speculated on the overall number of words and lines of each side of the three-body stone sutra. As soon as Zhang's theory came out, Hu Pu'an immediately wrote to Youren, "As discussed in the book of Jue Taiyan and Mr. Yu, Yun Yu has people who cannot agree" (31), and the two of them argued in many ways. Hu Pu'an, citing historical records and the authenticity of the Book of Shang, denied that Zhang Taiyan used ancient literature to deduce the number of words and lines of the stele of the Stone Classics, and Zhang Taiyan also agreed that "the ancient texts of the scriptures have formed strange and inexhaustible ones." Second, although Hu Pu'an believed that the Three-Body Stone Classic was an ancient text, the Three-Body Stone Classic was written by Handan Chun, and Gu Yanwu, Feng Dengfu, and Vance Tong had long been denied, and Zhang Shi "did not cover all the books according to wei luo alone." (32) Third, Hu Pu'an believes that "the excavation of the Three-Body Stone Sutra is enough to increase the value of Han Jian, if it is said to be extremely inventive in philology", "has not yet been seen". However, the discovery of the Stone Classic, "not only is it rare and important, but it can determine the number of trips of the Three-Body Stone Classic, which is of great benefit to archaeology." (33) Zhang Taiyan believes that Hu's excesses are "lighter than on the ancients." (34)
Meng Wentong's "dispute over the Three-Body Stone Classic", especially the differences between Zhang and Hu, has long been "looking at its outlines". At this time, Meng Wentong also saw the three-body stone sutra in Nanjing, so he "heard the rise of the sages". (35) Meng Wentong cites the Commentary on the New Sayings of the World and the Book of Jin and the Biography of Zhao Zhi to argue that "the ancient texts of the Stone Scriptures, not the Handan Chunshu, but the Ji Kang Shu", "the Beginning of the Standing Stone, the Shu Ye And the Yu Zhi Ye", and that "the Three Character Stone Classics are not limited to the Shangshu and the Spring and Autumn Classics", and also have the Mao Poems. However, Meng Wentong did not question the Three-Body Stone Sutra only as the author, but focused on the "relationship between the doctor and the Stone Classic" in order to doubt the Shang Shu of the Stone Classic. Zhang and Hu both believed that "at that time, Ma Zhengzhi's learning was prevalent, so the Stone Classics were written as ancient texts", and that "when the Wei Li Three-Body Stone Classics were established, the pseudo-ancient Shangshu was not seen", so "the Shangshu of the Shijing Books was not pseudo-Confucius". (36) And according to the "Biography of Wei Heng of the Book of Jin", it is believed that the book of the Three-Body Stone Classic must be written in ancient Chinese. (37) The Mongol General Principles examination of The Cao Wei Doctor system proves that the ancient Chinese text and the pseudo-hole "Book of Shang" are within the nineteenth doctor of Wei jin, which can be proved by the evolution of Cao Wei classics at the end of the Han Dynasty. According to Ding Yan's examination of the "Biography of Kong", the author is Wang Su, and according to the "Biography of Wang Su" and Wang Lang's "Yi Biography", it can be known that "the su annotations are all in the school official", and since Wang Su's study "has been honored by Wei for the sake of his wife Ya, it is due to Zi Yong's "Shang Shu" Kong Chuan yi to stand in the scholar's official, and Gu Wen Le Shi is not the true judge of Lu Bi". If it is true that as Zhang Taiyan said, the Zhengshi Shijing is the "Nine Communists", "Mizuo" and other fifty-seven articles, which are ancient texts in the wall, "then the old books are seen in the Huanghuang", how can the pseudo-hole be established in the scholarly official, and the disciples of Zheng Xue at that time, "in the "Family Language" and "Kong Chuan" have not tasted the true and false, then the study of the "Pseudo-Hole" can be published in the Stone Classic, standing on the doctor, all must also be." (38) In this way, "according to the "False Hole" of the Doctor and the Stone Classic, the ancient text may not be the true wall Chinese characters", so it is naturally questionable whether the transmission of the Handan Chun in the early Wei Dynasty is a true ancient script. Meng Wentong agreed with Hu Pu'an's statement that "it is only enough to increase the value of the Han Jian and dare not say that there is an invention of writing." Not only is the case with the Book of Shang of the Stone Classic, but also with the words of the Spring and Autumn And Mao Poems of the Stone Classic, from which it can be concluded that the inscriptions in the Stone Classics are "non-Lubi relics".
However, in the "Sutra Study of the Original", Meng Wentong affirmed the Three-Body Stone Sutra, saying that the Handan Chun transmission should be the Lubi Zhongshu, and when the stone was first established, "the wall book still exists, and It can be relied upon", and regards the stone sutra as "the branch and stream of the six classics". (39) The key to this transformation of The Mongols is in the Kingdom Dimension. When composing "On the Three-Body Stone Scripture with Hu Pu'an", "Wang Jing'an and Luo Shuyan were all examined here, but unfortunately they did not see their texts." Wang Guowei wrote the article "Wei Shi Jing Kao" as early as 1916, and later continued the examination based on the newly excavated three-body stone jing remnants, in 1923 he wrote "Wei Zheng Shi Jing Remnant Stone Examination", and in 1925 he wrote "Wei Shi Jing Continuation Examination". Wang Guowei explained with detailed historical materials that "the Book of Shang established by the Wei Shi scholar is the three families of Ma, Wang, and Zheng, then the stone scriptures should also use the three books", the books "although they may not be the original books of the wall, they should also come out of the wall in the middle of the wall", "The ancient text of the Wei Shi Classics is from the wall book, or the three-written and four-writing version, when there is no major mistake", "it must not be fabricated and discussed." Even if it is different from the original in the wall, it can also be said." (40) Meng Wentong made full use of the relevant achievements of Wang Guowei in the "Zhenwei of Ancient History" and the subsequent study of the Zhou and Qin ethnic groups, so it is reasonable to refer to the above texts of Wang Guowei for the "Three-Body Stone Classic". In fact, Meng Wentong's letter to Hu Pu'an was actually a strong ancient literary color that stimulated Zhang Taiyan when he examined the Three-Body Stone Classic, which was "particularly dizzying", so hu Pu'an was "begging for a balance". (41) Therefore, after seeing the achievements of Wang Guowei, the attitude towards the Three-Body Stone Sutra changed, when it was reasonable, and in terms of doctrine, Meng Wentong did not regard the "Lubi Zhongshu" as the foundation of the ancient scriptures, so the matter of the Three-Body Stone Sutra did not have to stick to the portal.
The debate between Meng Wentong and the "person who sorted out the country and the deceased" is based on their own reasons, and the inconsistencies are actually due to the different positions of many parties in the debate. If the boundary is divided between modern and ancient chinese, the scholars of the two departments of "Guoxue Series" and "Huaguo" tend to be classical literature, criticize modern literature, and establish the ancient literature portal, Hu Pu'an pointed out in 1923 that "guoguo" and "Huaguo" and "Guoxue series" of Southeast University are all one of the veins of the "Journal of National Essence", and the aether Yan doctrine is influenced." (42) Hu Shi's determination to sort out the old learning, he drew a clear line with the elders in the academic circles, advocating that the study of governing the country should abstain from the disadvantages of "strange theory" (taking Zhang Taiyan as an example), "talking about the meeting" (taking Liu Guyu and Liao Ping as an example), and Wang Wenshengyi (taking Liu Shipei as an example). (43) Meng Wentong's first departure from Sichuan, and Chen Zhongfan's discussion on the fangshiization of modern literature, as well as zhang Taiyan's discussion of the three-body stone classic, his intention to strictly distinguish between modern and ancient texts is beyond doubt, and it is precisely because he has negotiated with many people who have sorted out the country's past, and Meng Wentong will return to Sichuan to "discuss Shu studies" and reconstruct the genealogy of modern and modern literature.
4. The Distinction Between Truth and Falsehood in Modern Literature
Although the original intention of studying and asking questions could not be achieved, Jiangnan and his party witnessed "the discussion of the floating beauty of Zhang, the words of a hundred families", and the hidden and unremarkable world style of Kong Xue, so that the intention of Mongolian Tongzhi was finally established. In 1923, when the nearly three-hundred-year academic debate was held, Meng Wentong still placed the Liao Ping lineage under the Qingxue genealogy pioneered by Gu Yanwu, and at this time, he changed his course and set his own banner. Meng Wentong's "Discussion of Shu Studies", based on the Liao Ping Ben in the ritual system, the Ming and modern ancient family laws, passed on by the Ming Classics, passed on according to the scriptures, and the Qing Dynasty Examination Records Based on the Primary School Examination Evidence are "each in opposition to each other". In Meng Wentong's view, the study of evidence is most suitable for the study of "poetry" and "Book of Shang", after all, it is only "in the rhyme" and "detailed in the famous things", while the study of Xingshu is based on the "Book of Rites", "Spring and Autumn", "the poverty of Ji Daoshu", and the "new righteousness" of Confucianism. Liu Xianqiu also wrote to Meng Wentong, saying that "the habit of gluttony is the same as that of China and Japan in recent days, so those who tend to this are easy to establish with small examinations, and it is a shortcut to the name with less citation and refutation" (44). Meng Wentong praised Liao Ping for using the etiquette system to analyze the present and ancient family laws of the Han Dynasty, and advocated the Study of the Spring and Autumn of the Liao Clan: "The study of the Liao Clan is in the Book of Rites, and its essence is in the Spring and Autumn Classics", "it is said that the Liao Clan said the rites, and since the Chengwei and Jin Dynasties have not yet existed, until its examination of the Spring and Autumn Period, then the Qin and Han Dynasties are down, and there is no even thing" (45).
Meng Wentong believes that the most urgent thing at the moment is to clean up the portal: "The comrade of the "Discussion of Shu Studies" is a pseudo-qualitative comrade, Gai Xi Ru many ancient texts, and those who study the present and present texts are often vain and vain, not refined etiquette, or to the point of being attached to The Wei, for the sake of the world's criticism, do not get rid of this confusion, learn what is clear, and this is also the person who is indignant and indignant. (46) As Chen Zhongfan said, "The Fangshi of the Qin and Han Dynasties and the Jinwen Scribes" means to refute the so-called "Jinwen Movement", "In the last days, the delusional people of the last days, under the thousands of years of life, are still thinking of digging up their mud and carrying forward their waves, in the name of the 'Jinwen Movement', calling on the world, Wen Wu said that it is also ruined and knows the opposite." (47) At that time, the criticism of modern literature is mostly concentrated here, and even Liao Ping believes: "Wang (Min Yun) belongs to the old, Zhang (Taiyan) belongs to the new, and all of them must be independent of their own learning, talk with their husbands recently about famous religions, cling to grass and trees, there is no new or old to speak of, and there is really a difference between the phoenix chicken and the crane!" (48) Therefore, Therefore, Meng Wentong first of all wants to get rid of the rhetoric within modern literature, take the etiquette system as the basis, and get rid of the world's criticism and doubts about modern literature.
The revival of modern literature in the Qing Dynasty originated in Changzhou. The road is salty and descends, and the flow is changed throughout the country. At the beginning of the 20th century, Liang Qichao devoted himself to combing through the literary genres of the late Qing Dynasty and the present: "In recent decades, the scholarship that has risen has competed with Hui and Dai, and the winner of the Qi Qi is the study of the Western Han Dynasty and modern literature." The initiator was Wujin Zhuang Fang Gongcunhe, who wrote "Spring and Autumn Zhengci". Later, Liu Fenglu, "for the "Ram Interpretation", is actually the ancestor of the literati who ruled the present. During the Daoguang years, his study and residence flourished, "the most authored Yue Ren and Gong Ding'an Zizhen, Shaoyang Wei Mo Deep Source". Those who are in the line with Gong and Wei and whose academic unity has a cause, "then there are Ruoyang Lake Li Shen Qi Zhaoluo, Changzhou Song Yu Ting Xiangfeng, Ren and Shao Wei Xi Yichen", "Zi Qun Jing Jin Wen all say out", and "Xiangtan Wang Nong Qiu Min Yun, Nong Qiu disciple Jing Yan Liao Ji Ping ping, set his great achievements". Kang Youwei ruled the Ram and zhi jinwen, "Its origin is quite from Jing Yan, and it cannot be blamed. But what is ruled is the same, and therefore the one who governs is different. Those who ruled the Ram in the past are all examples, and the South China Sea is righteous. But if it is involved in the example, it is therefore returned to the pearl and bought the tree; but in the case of righteousness, it is hidden and known. Those who rebranded the "Spring and Autumn" and the Third Dynasty dialect "Spring and Autumn" also came from the South China Sea." (49) In the early 1920s, when he wrote "Introduction to Qing Dynasty Scholarship", Liang Qichao exaggerated the position of "RamOlogy" and Kang Youwei in the genealogy of modern and modern literature: "The center of modern literature is in "Ram", and Liu Fenglu's "Spring and Autumn Ram Sutra Transmission of He Shi Interpretation" is in the Qing dynasty writings, "the most valuable creation". He also determined that Kang Youwei regarded the complete case of the two Han Dynasties and ancient Texts as "the center of the modern literary movement". (50)
There are many people who disagree with Liang's claim, and Qian Jibo criticized "the extremely popular repercussions of Liang's narrative and examination of modern literature, which is the theory of ram literature", which is "knowing one but not knowing the second", as for ram literature, "Liang thinks that he has learned from himself, and he is interested in narration, and he does not know that the ram's modern literature has set up a portal, and he should take the Jiangdu Lingshu Xiaolou to bow his hub." "The Qian clan pushed the Ling clan as the ancestor of the other sons," with the ritual of the ram, authored the eleven volumes of "Ram Li Shu" and one volume of "Ram Li Shu", opening the way of Xiang Xue Wang MinYun and Shu Xue Liao Ping. He also used the "Spring and Autumn Fanlu" to ming He Xiu, as the seventeen volumes of the "Fanlu Notes", and Kai Kangyou as the precedent of the "Spring and Autumn DongShiXue". (51)
However, most of the late scholars have accepted Liang Qichao's core concept, the so-called late Qing scholars, "mostly based on the modern literary school as the mainstream, which began with Liang Qichao's "Introduction to Qing Dynasty Scholarship". (52) The academic circles take Kang Youwei's ram reform and Liu Xin's forgery as the main line to discuss modern and modern literature, and the reputation and praise of late and modern literature are all related to this, as evidenced by the debate between Meng Wentong and Chen Zhongfan's "fangshi of modern literature". Deng Shi once criticized that "today's literary people are the last stream of scholarship, and the world where literature is prevalent today is also the last stream of the world's fortunes." (53) Gu Shi further accused "Kang Youwei to pick up Liao Ping's spit and advocate that all ancient texts be forged by Liu Xin", "Why should Kang blame others for necessity with what he can, and Kang also advocates that the Six Classics do not need words, and all words can be relied upon." His disciple Liang Qichao has changed his teachings slightly so far, and he advocates that the modern text rejects the ancient text. In short, Kang Liang's present is now a cloud of clouds. However, it is also borrowed for the sake of fame and fortune. (54) Hu Pu'an regarded the rise of modern literature as the decline of sinology in the Qing Dynasty, Liao Ping "wrote a lot of books, sometimes there are grotesque sayings", and Kang Youwei "stole Liao's theory, so as to speak out, it is not enough." (55) Zhang Taiyan declared in his 1922 speech on Sinology: "Since the rise of the present-day literary scholars, Wang Minyun, Liao Ping, and Kang Youwei have no enough to take, and the present-day Literary family has declined greatly." ”(56)
Based on this, Meng Wentong repeatedly sorted out the genealogy of modern and modern literature in the 1920s and 1930s. At the end of the 1920s, Meng Wentong said in the "Ancient History Zhen Wei Hou Preface", "The two Chinese dialects, strictly abide by the teacher's law, each has its own righteousness and class of unified sects, in the same way, the afternoon bypass, in the different families are not mixed, firmly believe and abide by, and do not tire of details." Late-western scholars are different. "Song Xiangfeng, Wei Yuan, Gong Zizhen, and Kang Youwei" argue for the sinister, do not explore the origin of the teacher's law, ridicule Kang Cheng, slander Zijun, that is, think that it is for this text", "it is possible to say that Zheng Xue can be praised, but it is not possible to say that modern literature is not"; Hui Shiqi, Jin Yi, Chen Yi, and Zou Hanxun "Chen said that the number of rituals, why not recruit the first Qin, to change the later Zheng, the way out of Gong and Wei. Pi Gu did not pretend to be the present text, and zhang Yiwei used it as a self-expression", "Zhang Huiyan and Chen Shouqi's exposition, then Shu Jinzhi also." The so-called "literature of the previous generation and the present is the only one, and the modern literature has two, and the fish eyes are mixed, and it is not a day." (57) In 1933, the "Ancient History Zhen Wei And Later Preface" was changed to "Ancient History Zhen Wei Self-Preface", adding Liu Fenglu and Cui Shi to the ranks of "pseudo-modern literature".
In 1932, Meng Wentong's work "Jing Yan Liao JipingShi and Modern and Modern Literature" still held the view that "the literature of the previous generation is the only one, and the literature of the modern era has two", and more systematically discussed the inheritance of qing dynasty and modern literature. Meng Wentong once praised kong Guangsen, Zhang Huiyan and other special masters, and in the biography of the Six Classics, he could "advocate the family law, clarify the regulations, and make a deep choice, and really explain the fall of the two thousand years", which is a superior work in the process of "retro liberation" in the three hundred years of the Qing Dynasty. However, if we take the literature of the present and the present, Zhang Huiyan and Liu Fenglu and the like are all immature modern literature, the former understands the meaning of the classics according to the family law regulations, but "the meaning of the one classic is clear, and the relationship between the various classics has not yet been fully seen, and it is the present text of the people who know each family and one corner, and there is no synthesis of each family to form the entire modern literary school", this is "seeing a corner and not peeking into the whole of modern literature"; although the latter can draw a clear line between the classics and ancient literature as a whole, but "the disciples judge whether they are established or not, they know the table but still do not know it", this is" There is literature of today that knows its generalty and does not have its center of gravity." Outside of these two schools is the "Benshi" Liao Ping "synthesizing the group's words and building its pivotal pole", which is "mature modern literature", "Liao Shi pushed the Qing Dynasty scriptures, tasted the Erchen writings, and gradually left the modern and ancient times." Liao Shi's modern literature is solid from Wang Xiangqi's door, but it is close to the modern literature of the two Chen and one school." (58) Liao Ping once said: "The study of the classics of the State Dynasty, Gu and Yan miscellaneous affairs of the Han and Song Dynasties, Hui Dai Zhuan Shen Xun, Er Chen (Zuo Hai, Zhuo Ren) gradually reached the present and ancient times, from coarse to refined, and its momentum was also natural." The contemptuous people followed erchen and described the two Chinese schools, and wrote the "Examination of Modern and Ancient Studies". (59) Meng Wentong also believes that Chen Shouqi and Qiao Feng's father and son's "Five Classics of Different Meanings and Evidence" specifically distinguishes between the two scholars of the present and ancient dynasties, and Chen Li's "White Tiger Tongyi Shuzhi" strives to dredge up the Han Dynasty's modern texts and says that "the righteous rules are rigorous" is actually a representative work of sinology governed according to the family law regulations, but it is only because it "does not exaggerate itself by subterfuge on strange words" that it is ignored and is not attached to the list of modern literature. (60) In The genealogy of modern literature of Meng Wentong, the Liao clan was used to succeed the second Chen, and Wang Minyun was rejected precisely because he believed that the study of the good manners and family law regulations was the authentic modern literature.
Shao Ruipeng, who was praised by Meng Wentong as a giant of Qi Xue, also believed that there was a difference between the ram's study of the present text and the two schools of the present text that governed the modern text according to the family law regulations, "Zhuang and Liu Zhuzi, the good words of the ram Spring and Autumn, are the study of the present text, and the scholar is the first door." Chen Shouqi, Qiao Feng, Chen Shuofu, Chen Li, "one after another, da yi to find the master's method, the debate is consistent." The two factions "have different fun houses, and each of them can call themselves home." Salty and degrading, the atmosphere is getting worse and worse. Gong Zizhen, Wei Yuanchuanzhuang, Liu Zhixue, Pi Xirui and Liao Ping strictly abided by the law of the Four Chens, "taking the old righteousness of Dong Li and distinguishing between family laws as their own responsibility." (61) The Mongolian General Principle goes a step further, believing that Liao Pingji is the culmination of "mature modern literature", "to Liao Shi and then to this text is the great ming, and the Tao is gradually promoted and gradually prepared". Pi Xirui is the only modern scribe who can "go far away from The Second Chen, and take the Liao master closely to rule the modern text". In the "pseudo-modern literature" school, Meng Wentong pointed out Gong Zizhen and Wei Yuan: "If he is Wei Yuan and Gong Zizhen and the like, he also prides himself on the study of modern literature, but the poetry book is a micro-work, there is no need to ask the master to say, in the end, the family law, the Han and Song Dynasties are miscellaneous, and they are also novel and speculative, and they attack Zheng as a matter, and they do not know that Zheng's learning has been taken from ancient times, and different Zheng does not have to be the present text... Gu Gong and Wei Zhixue are not a school, not a pseudo-modern literature, and they have gone far away. ”(62)
Meng Wentong's so-called "han dynasty modern literature is the only one, and there are two modern literatures in this world", that is, it is believed that late Qing and modern literature is divided into mature modern literature and pseudo-modern literature. Mature modern literature is good at speaking about etiquette and is familiar with family law regulations; pseudo-modern literature does not understand the teacher's saying, does not know the family law, the Han and Song dynasties are miscellaneous, and it is also a novel hypothesis, especially pseudo-modern literature will "know the meaning of this text in the Ram", "words are not disciplined", "books are not Han and Song". In short, the "pseudo-modern literature" of the modern literature is centered on the ram, Liu Fenglu and Song Xiangfeng emphasize the ram's small words and righteousness, and Gong Zizhen and Wei Yuan go on to "expound the meaning of the ram III and the three unifications, and discuss the current politics, thinking that it is the way to use it." When Kang Youwei arrived, he proposed to change the law and reform the system with ramology. Liu Fenglu and Song Xiangfeng were still able to establish the gateway to modern literature, while Gong Zizhen and Wei Yuan not only emphasized small words and righteousness, "pushing from the ram to the Qunjing", their so-called scriptures, practical political theories, this atmosphere was opened, making the literature of the late Qing Dynasty and modern times flow into the political theory. (63) Qi Sihe immediately identified that "the late Qing Dynasty and the Jinwen Movement were originally a political movement. (64) In his early years, Meng Wentong had always regarded this vein as pseudo-modern literature. Li Yuancheng also said that Kang Youwei "took the restructuring as the rank of Lilu", while Liao Ping did not talk about politics; "the ram scholar of the modern world, Liu Song is not good at learning, his loss is also foolish, and he has not yet betrayed the way"; Kang Youwei is "the so-called great righteousness and small words, straight Dong He dirt and filthy things"; "There are people in the world who are ignorant of the self-expression of modern and ancient scholars, and there are even those who are high in the dispute between modern and ancient scholars who do not cure scriptures", which is "the purpose of Jing Yan is unknown, and the poison is to the end." ”(65)
Here, it is natural to encounter a problem that cannot be circumvented, Liao Ping is famous for his "Ram" learning, and the academic circles praise and disparage Liao Ping's scholarship is also mostly related to this. Some scholars said, "Liao Pingzhi's thinking is a family of its own, not under Kang Youwei." (66) Zhang Pengyi believed that qing ji was a modern writer, and all three people, Pi Xirui, Kang Youwei, Liao Ping, and Liao Pingzhi's "Ram Studies" should be particularly commended, "The six translations of the works, with the "Thirty Treatises on interpretation", "Spring and Autumn Chart", "Ram Correction", and "Ancient Examination" are superior, all thanks to modern learning." (67) Zhong Tai criticized that "after ding'an, the scholars of the Ram of Xi, liao ping, were shu people, but they were strange and grotesque, and the Confucians of insight did not do it." (68) If the scholar of the Ram is pseudo-modern literature, why did Liao Ping become the master of the collection of mature modern literature?
In terms of modern literature, the only two people who pass on "Spring and Autumn" are "Ram" and "Yu Liang". As Yu Fan said: "This dynasty learned Changming and surpassed the previous generation, and the ruler of the Spring and Autumn Period said "Ram", which is called the system of Confucius Lisu King, the king of Yulu, the change of literature and quality, the new Zhou Dynasty, the song of the new Zhou Dynasty, Chen Yi is very high, and the argument is very discerning... The great changes in scholarship over the decades have been here." However, "Ram" has many very strange and strange theories, and "Yu Liang" is "very fine in style and very righteous, and there is no theory of very different meanings to blame", which is why ""Ram" has drawbacks and "Yu Liang" has no drawbacks", and "The disadvantages of Fang Jin's scholarship are all wrong by the rams, accumulated, and want to save their drawbacks, but not to cure "Yu Liang". (69) "Yu Liang" "Wen Province and Secret" (70), as Confucius said in the song dynasty, "Ram" has no explicit text, "Yu Liang" has it. The saying of honoring Zhou Qinlu and the song in the "Yu Liang" can be described as a unique righteousness, which can sweep away the so-called "very different meaning" of He Xiu's ram family. (71) In his early years, Liao Ping's early years of study, "focusing on the great righteousness", concentrated on the study of "Yu Liang", and then wrote "Examination of Ancient And Modern Studies", dividing the modern and ancient times equally with the etiquette system, referring to He Xiu Ram's study of "Yu Liang" and "Wang System" to describe modern literature. In this way, Meng Wentong reinterpreted Liao's learning, first stating that although Liao Pingzhixue came from Wang Xiangqi's door, it was actually close to the Erchen school, and the root of Liao Ping's scholarship lay in the ritual of "Yu Liang". He only said "Ram" with Yu Li, because none of the scholars of the "Ram" in the world could understand the meaning of "Ram", and Liao Ping was named "Ram". Liao Ping's rule of "Ram" was based on Lu Xue and Qi Xue, and "Ram" was not its academic fundamental. In Meng Wentong's view, Liao Ping was not a master of Qi Xue, but a giant of Lu Xue, so while other scholars mostly attributed Liao Ping to the school of Ram Studies, Meng Wentong believed that Liao Ping was a master of mature modern literature (that is, the Jingsheng school) by virtue of etiquette.
It can be seen that in Meng Wentong's view, "there are two modern and modern texts" not only because there is a difference in the methods of governing Sinology, but also because there is a difference between the "Ram" and the "Yu Liang", and the late Qing Dynasty Ram studies are almost pseudo-modern literature, the so-called "Qing Dynasty and modern scholars are all dominated by the Ram, so they follow the unification with branches, if the language and learning vein, it is inherently not so" (72). Li Yuancheng also believes that "those who cure rams in recent times often lose their attachments, so they are criticized by the world, or they are even said to have no great friendship and whispers", so he advocates that "those who cure "Spring and Autumn" can first establish their roots with "Yu Liang", and then ask for "Ram", and according to Dong Hezhi, they can take it separately, and they can also rebel. (73) Meng Wentong believed that only by taking the etiquette system as the basis and governing the "Yu Liang" according to the family law and regulations was the true and modern literature, and the way to determine the "Yu Liang" as the authentic text of the present text was to prove that the "Yu Liang" conformed to the original meaning of Confucius and was the transmission of Confucius. Mengwen Tongsui "wrote the "Classics of The Original", convinced that outside the Qilu study, and the ancient text is the study of the Three Jins, the sutra is also divided by region" (74), explaining the formation and differences of the modern ancient literature by region, and the modern literature is the combination of Lu learning and Qi learning, Lu xue is the purest, it is the authentic Confucianism, qi learning is mixed, in and out of the sons, and ancient literature is kong's learning transmitted to the Three Jins, mixed with the history of the old Fa.
However, Liu Xianju, Qian Mu and other scholars disagreed with the reconstructed genealogy of modern literature by Meng Wentong. Liu Xianju believes that "the extreme of today's literature, if Liao Jiping", he says "too much", and his modern text says more "abandon the old theory" and learn from Kang Youwei. Liao's exposition of "ancient books, Confucius, Confucius, Liu Xin, worldly affairs, and methods of learning" is "funny", and he wants to "honor the scriptures above ancient history" and "make the scriptures equal to the sons". (75) Although Qian Mu called Kang Youwei "the reform of the Ram and the final escape from Liao Jiping's cage", Qian combed through the academic changes of the past three hundred years, still attached liao ping's theory to Kang Youwei, and criticized "scholars' self-aggrandizement as a reality, not as ji pingzhi especially." (76) Qian Mu used this to criticize the literary scholars of the late Qing Dynasty and the present dynasty for taking "a dead end in a crack, which is neither the ideal of the Qianjia school nor the opinion of the Zhejiang and Eastern Historians." It is not a good idea to consider the reasoning. The mind is physically born, both inside and out. It cannot be said to be seeking truth from facts, nor can it be said that it has been applied through the ages. Qing Confucianism to Daoxian below, scholarship has gone astray, and there is no future." (77) Meng Wentong precisely believes that "new learning" and "undefined path" refer to the current literature flowing into the Ram reform school. Then, the key to saving the evil lies in reinterpreting modern literature, and Montessori's reconstruction of the genealogy of modern literature lays the groundwork for its historical evidence and historical history.
V. Classics and Historiography
Since the fall of the Republic of China, scholars have outlined the genealogy of modern and modern literature with Kang Youwei as the axis, and the origin has its own origins. He Lin once said: "The relationship between academia and politics can also be said to be the relationship between 'body' and 'use'. Academic is the body, politics is the use. If scholarship cannot promote politics, scholarship is useless, politics cannot be based on scholarship, and politics has no body. (78) Hu Pu'an also said: "Politics and scholarship are in the table, political table is also in the academic table, and so is the academic table." The good or bad of self-politics is due to academics. "The change in the political situation in the late Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the People's Republic of China has a great relationship with the rise of literature today." Since Daoxian, the modern literary school of the Western Han Dynasty has flourished from generation to generation of ancient literature, and Fang Geng and Shen have been preceded by Ding'an and Moshen, but "they have only influenced ideology and have not influenced politics"; until Liao Ping "the study of modern literature is unique and profound, and this "Li Yun" is said to be 'three worlds', and this "Analects" is 'advanced' and 'backward', which is strange and gratifying." Nanhai Kangshi inherited it, and even more open-mindedly, to summon scholars, the number is the restoration, the bus is written, for the modern literary school to influence the beginning of politics, generous remarks, popular for a while", but "today's literature has the ability to carry forward the grandeur, but there is no degree of fortitude, so it can promote the newness of the Qing court, but can not cotton the Qing court' zuo." (79) Kang Youwei reformed the system with ram doctrine and applied it through the scriptures, and the literature of the present dynasty thus influenced the political and academic trend of the late Qing Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty, and Liao Ping scholarship became a footnote to Kang Youwei's ram change theory.
When Pi Xirui combed the Taoist style of study, he said, "The more you learn, the more ancient you become, the higher the righteousness is pushed, and the more you move back to the beginning of the period, the more you change to the Tao." Scholars do not know the difference between the Han and Song dynasties, and they all know the difference between the present and the ancient", "The Western Han Dynasty and the modern text have recently been invented, and it is still waiting for posterity to deduce, and people with lofty ideals are even more meaningful!" (80) The disciples of Kang Men have constantly preached that Kang Youwei has collected the great achievements of modern literature and is the center of the modern literary movement. (81) In the entanglement of scholarship and politics, the discussion of modern and modern literature focuses on the ram reform; in the torrent of the history of the classics, the focus of modern literature is attributed to Liu Xin's falsification; on the contrary, the discussion of the dispute between the two Han and modern ancient studies, which has begun since Liao Ping's "Examination of Modern and Ancient Studies", has become sparsely known. (82)
In fact, at the beginning of Kang Youwei's "Examination of the New Study of Apocryphal Scriptures", Liao Ping wrote to Kang Youwei, saying: "Classics have the roots of scripture, and so is historiography. Although the appearance of the "Examination of the Apocrypha" is extremely impressive, it is enough to sensationalize the eyes and ears of the moment, but the inside has no background, and it does not produce the two schools of historiography and catalogs." "Looking at the whole book, there are still experiences in the study of the catalog; however, they have not been able to understand the great righteousness, but dare to reject the old theory, slander the first Confucianism, and the true thief of the real scriptures." It is slightly modified by the new scholarly name, but the so-called modern and ancient texts. (83) Lü Simian also noticed the difference between Liao Ping and Kang Youwei, Kang Changsu "Changyan Confucius reformed the tougu", "Liao's invention of the ancient and modern languages is the difference between the system he said", which is "two major inventions in classics". "There is a Kang's saying, and then the concept of the ancient is better than the present is completely broken, and the study of ancient things is an obstacle." There is a saying of the Liao clan, and then the distinction between the ancient and modern texts can be clearly judged. (84) Kang Youwei broke the "concept that the ancient is better than the present" and opened the way for the evolutionary view of history, and the ancient history discernment movement was a selective abandonment of the Kang doctrine. The skeptical trend of modern and modern literature provides ideological resources for sorting out the national history and the ancient history debate movement to change the classics into ancient historiography, and to use the historical classics to provide ideological resources. Gu Jiegang once said: "Qing classics gradually move towards a scientific approach, and if they are separated from the entanglement of the family school, then the study of classics will become ancient historiography, and the end period of classics will reach the end", "Therefore, after my generation, the study of classics will change into historiography." (85) Liao Ping divided the ancient chinese into modern and modern texts, aiming to "seek liberation in retro times" and seek the great righteousness of Kong Meng. Meng Wentong reconstructed the genealogy of modern and modern literature, commended Liao's "Spring and Autumn" study, aimed at seeking liberation in retro, and liao ping talked about the two Han Dynasties in the past and modern times, and then used "Spring and Autumn" to discuss the pre-Qin. At this time, Meng Wentong's "Zhen Wei of Ancient History" intended to reconstruct the history of the ancient country, clarify the relationship between scripture and history, prove the scriptures with history, and affirm the status of Confucianism in Chinese culture. In the 1930s, Mongolian Wentong entered history from jingjin literature, distinguishing between "writing" and "annotation" with the meaning of "Spring and Autumn", aiming to promote the historiography of Confucianism's rational position. At the time of the national crisis, Meng Wentong advocated "Qin and Han Neo-Confucianism", saying that "only the study of modern literature has its center, and it is the conclusion of the study of Jingyan." Those who do not know the center of this text are not enough to know the zhou qin learning vein. Knowing its center and not seeking Zhou Qin is not enough to see the grandeur of this text. ”(86)
Wang Guowei once said that "the learning after Daoxian is new", "Gong Xuanren, Wei Mo Shen Zhi" is its representative, Daoxian "new learning" greatly affects the understanding of Qing Dynasty scholarship by later generations, and the concept of Qianjia Sinology on the front line has been ignored, so some scholars advocate "writing a more inclusive treatise on the academic history of the Qing Dynasty". (87) This sincerity is insightful. In fact, within the Daoxian "New Learning", scholars had objections to the understanding of the academic context of the Qing Dynasty, and the differences within modern literature were no less than those between the classics and the ancient texts. The two genealogies of modern and modern literature, built with Kang Youwei or Liao Ping as the core, have actually opened up two paths for the transformation of traditional scholarship in modern times. Liao Ping's disciple's reconstruction of the genealogy of modern and modern literature not only enriches the understanding of the academic flow of Daoxian, but also presents the diversified paths of the modern transformation of traditional scholarship.
*The first draft of this article was reviewed by Professor Sang Bing and put forward valuable revision suggestions, thank you very much!
exegesis:
(1) Sang Bing, "Taoism and Factionalism in the Academic History of Chinese Thought", "First Cause And Then Creation and Unbroken: A Study of Academic Schools in Modern China", Life, Reading, and Xinzhi Triptych Bookstore, 2007, p. 39.
(2) Chen Qitai sketched the genealogy of the "orderly and logical unfolding" of Qing Dynasty ramology from the perspective of evolutionary theory, see Qing Dynasty Ramology, Oriental Publishing House, 1997. Cai Changlin used research and righteousness to distinguish between modern and modern literature and ramology, emphasizing the differences between the two, but cutting off the scholar's own academic context and original intention. See "Two Directions for the Development of The Modern Literary School in the Qing Dynasty", in Selected Research Papers on Classics, Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2002.
(3) Wei Yuan: "Examination of the Law of the Two Han Classics and Ancient Scholars", Wei YuanJi, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1976, p. 152.
(4) Liao Ping: "The Book of With Kang Changsu", Journal of China, No. 8, June 1913.
(5) Ye Dehui: "Book with Dai Xuanqiao", Edited by Su You, "Wing Sect Series", Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2002, p. 174. For the question of the "revival of ancient studies" in the Qing Dynasty, see Luo Zhitian, "The Dream of the Chinese Renaissance: From the Revival of Ancient Studies in the Qing Dynasty to the New Wave of the Republic of China", "Inheritance in Fission: Chinese Culture and Scholarship in the Early 20th Century", Zhonghua Bookstore, 2003.
(6) Chen Zhu: "Preface to the Qing Confucian Academic Discussion Collection", "Qing Confucian Academic Discussion Collection", The Commercial Press, 1930, pp. 1-2.
(7) Liang Qichao: "Introduction to Qing Dynasty Scholarship", "Liang Qichao on the History of Qing Studies in Two Kinds", Fudan University Press, 1985, pp. 2-6.
(8) Meng Wentong: "Introduction to Sutra Studies", Jingshi Shuyuan, Bashu Book Society, 1995, p. 10.
(9) Hu Pu'an: "The Trend of Sinology in the Twelve Years of the Republic of China", National Day Supplement of The Republic of China Daily and Guoxue Weekly, October 10, 1923, 1st edition.
(10) Gu Jiegang, "The Changing View of China's Recent Academic And Ideological Circles", Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 11, People's Publishing House, 1984, p. 307.
(11) Song Kongxian, "Taoism by Taoists", Zhejiang Yizhong Weekly, No. 1, October 1, 1923.
(12) Lü Simian, "The Origin of the Five Elements of Yin and Yang", Oriental Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 20, October 1923.
(13) Chen Zhongfan, "Confucianism and Confucianism in China between the Qin and Han Dynasties", Proceedings of the Sinology Research Society, Vol. 1, The Commercial Press, 1923, p. 81.
(14) Chen Zhongfan: "The Fangshihua of the Qin and Han Dynasties and The Classics of the Classics", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1923.
(15) Sun Deqian: "Three Books of Sun Yi'an On Theory", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1923.
(16) Chen Zhongfan: "Chen Xuxuan's Reply to Sun Yi'an", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1923.
(17) Sun Deqian: "The Book of Sun Yi'an", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1923.
(18) Chen Zhongfan: "The Book of Chen Xu Xuanfu Sun Yi'an", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1923.
(19) Liu Shipei, "Zuo Shu Wai Ji And Wei Wei Theory", The Testament of Mr. Liu Shenshu, p. 1371.
(20) Meng Wentong: "Mr. Meng Wentong and Mr. Chen Xuxuan on the Book of Studies", Collected Papers of Chen Zhongfan, Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 1993, p. 104.
(21) Liao Ping: "On Zun Kong", "Siyiguan Miscellaneous Works", "Liuyiguan Series", Sichuan Cungu Bookstore, 1921.
(22) Chen Zhongfan: "The Fangshihua of the Qin and Han Dynasties and The Classics of The Classics", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1923.
(23) Meng Wentong: "Jing Yan Liao JiPingShi and Modern and Modern Literature", Jing Shi Shu Yuan, p. 107.
(24) Meng Wentong: "Mr. Meng Wentong and Mr. Chen Xuxuan on the Book of Studies", Collected Papers of Chen Zhongfan, p. 106.
(25) Chen Zhongfan: "On the Study book of Mr. Meng wentong", Guoxue Series, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 1924.
(26) Meng Wentong: "Miscellaneous Sayings of Zhixue", "The Book of Mongolian General Studies" (Revised Edition), Life, Reading, and Xinzhi Triptych Bookstore, 2006, p. 14.
(27) Kingdom Wei: The Book with Kanda Kiichiro, The Complete Works of Kingdom Wei, Letters, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1984, p. 348.
(28) Zhang Taiyan: "Continuation of the Taiyan Anthology: The Theory of Sinology (Part II)", The Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan (V), Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1985, p. 22.
(29) Zhang Taiyan: "On the Three-Body Stone Scripture with Yu Youren", Shanghai Republic of China Daily, Guoxue Weekly, No. 5, June 6, 1923, 1st edition.
(30) Zhang Taiyan: "The Examination of the New Three-Body Stone", Huaguo Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 1, September 1923.
(31) Hu Pu'an: "On the Three-Body Stone Scripture with Yu Youren", Shanghai Minguo Daily, Guoxue Weekly, No. 15, August 15, 1923, 1st edition.
(32) Zhang Taiyan: "On the Three-Body Stone Scripture with Yu Youren", Huaguo Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1923.
(33) Hu Pu'an: "Three-Body Stone Sutra", Shanghai Republic of China Daily, Guoxue Weekly, No. 33, December 19, 1923, 4th edition.
(34) Zhang Taiyan: "On the Three-Body Stone Scripture with Yu Youren", Huaguo Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1923.
(35) Meng Wentong: "With Hu Pu'an", Compilation of Sinology, Vol. 2, Shanghai: Sinology Research Society, September 1924.
(36) Hu Pu'an: "Three-Body Stone Sutra", Shanghai Republic of China Daily, Guoxue Weekly, No. 33, December 19, 1923, 4th edition.
(37) Hu Pu'an: "On the Three-Body Stone Scripture with Zhang Taiyan", Shanghai "Republic of China Daily, Guoxue Weekly", No. 29, November 21, 1923, 1st edition.
(38) Meng Wentong: "With Hu Pu'an", Compilation of Guoxue, Vol. 2, Guoxue Research Society, September 1924.
(39) Meng Wentong: "Jingxue Shuyuan", "Jingshi Shuyuan", p. 100.
(40) Wang Guowei: Wei ShiJing Kao III, Guantang Jilin, Hebei Education Publishing House, 2001, pp. 599-601.
(41) Meng Wentong: "With Hu Pu'an", Compilation of Sinology, Vol. 2, Sinology Research Society, September 1924.
(42) Hu Pu'an, "The Trend of Sinology in the Twelve Years of the Republic of China", National Day Supplement of Shanghai "Republic of China Daily and Guoxue Weekly", October 10, 1923, 1st edition.
(43) Hu Pu'an, "On the Study of the Two Disadvantages of Sinology when Quitting", Shanghai Republic of China Daily, Guoxue Weekly, No. 3, May 23, 1923, 1st Edition.
(44) Liu Xianju: "Tui Shi Wen Ji , Fu Meng Wen Tong Shu", "Tui Shi Shu", photocopied by Chengdu Ancient Books Bookstore, 1996, p. 2209.
(45) Meng Wentong: "Discussion of Shu Studies", Jing Shi Shu Yuan, pp. 101-103.
(46) Meng Wentong: "In the Past," Jiayin Weekly, Vol. 1, No. 21, December 1925.
(47) Chen Zhongfan: "The Fangshihua of the Qin and Han Dynasties and The Classics of The Classics", Guoxue Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1923.
(48) Wu Yu: Essays on Ai Zhilu, Wu Yu Collection, Sichuan People's Publishing House, 1985, p. 94.
(49) Liang Qichao, "On the General Trend of Changes in Chinese Academic Thought", Xinmin Cong Bao, No. 58, December 1904.
(50) Liang Qichao: "Introduction to Qing Dynasty Scholarship", Liang Qichao on the History of Qing Studies, pp. 61-63.
(51) Qian Jibo: "Reading Secretaries of HoudongJuku", Qinghe, Vol. 1, No. 5, January 1933.
(52) Qi Sihe, "Wei Yuan and the Late Qing Dynasty Study Style", Yanjing Journal, No. 39, 1950.
(53) Deng Shi: "On the Present Of Guoxue", Journal of Guozhi, No. 4, 1905.
(54) Gu Shi: "A Review of Changzhou Literature", Compilation of Sinology, Vol. 1, Sinology Research Society, September 1924.
(55) Hu Pu'an, "The Sects of the Study Groups of The Past Dynasties", Compilation of Sinology, Vol. 3, Sinology Research Society, September 1924.
(56) Zhang Taiyan's Speech, Edited by Cao Juren: Introduction to Sinology, Chinese Cultural Service Society, 1943, p. 38.
(57) Meng Wentong: "Zhen Wei and Later Preface to Ancient History", Journal of Historiography, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1930.
(58) Meng Wentong: "Jing Yan Liao JiPingShi and Modern and Modern Literature", Jing Shi Shu Yuan, p. 105.
(59) Liao Ping: "On the Three Books of Learning and song Yunzi on the Book of Learning", Siyiguan Miscellaneous Works, Chengdu: Sichuan Cungu Bookstore, 1921.
(60) Meng Wentong: "Biography of Mr. Liao Jiping", New Sichuan Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1939.
(61) Shao Cigong: "Republishing the Order of Pi's Refutation of the Five Classics of Different Meanings and Neglect", Henan Confucian Monthly, 1935.
(62) Meng Wentong: "Jing Yan Liao JipingShi and Modern and Modern Literature", Jing Shi Shu Yuan, p. 105.
(63) Qian Mu: "Academic History of China in the Past Three Hundred Years", "Modern Chinese Academic Classics, Qian Bin Four Volumes", Hebei Education Publishing House, 1999, pp. 453-492.
(64) Qi Sihe: "Wei Yuan and the Late Qing Dynasty Study Style", Yanjing Journal, No. 39, 1950.
(65) Li Yuancheng: "The Book of Mr. Shangzhang", Academic World, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1935.
(66) Straight Voice: "Commenting on the History of Jiang Weiqiao's Philosophy in China in the Past Three Hundred Years", Ta Kung Pao Literary Supplement, No. 240, August 8, 1932, 8th Edition.
(67) Zhang Pengyi, "Comments on Reading Liao Jiping's LiuYiguan Series", Journal of the National Peking Library, Vol. 7, No. 2, March-April 1933.
(68) Zhong Tai: A History of Chinese Philosophy, Oriental Publishing House, 2008, p. 362.
(69) Yu Fan, "Ten Volumes of the Regulations on the Transmission of the Spring and Autumn Liang Dynasty," Journal of National Essence, No. 68, July 1910.
(70) Ke Shaochen: "Preface to the Transmission of the Spring and Autumn Liang", Xueheng, No. 64, July 1928.
(71) Mou Runsun: "The Book of Tateyama Garden", Notes on the History of The Series, Beijing: Zhonghua Bookstore, 1987, p. 539.
(72) Meng Wentong: "Jing Yan Liao JipingShi and Modern and Modern Literature", Jing Shi Shu Yuan, p. 106.
(73) Li Yuancheng, "On ramology with Professor Chen Zhuzun", Academic World, Vol. 1, No. 11, May 1936.
(74) Meng Wentong: "Ancient History Zhen Wei", The Collected Works of Meng Wentong, vol. 5, p. 32.
(75) Liu Xianjiao: "On the Classics and Modern Literature", Tui Ten Books, pp. 109-112.
(76) Qian Mu: "The Academic History of China in the Past Three Hundred Years", Qian Bin, Four Volumes of Modern Chinese Academic Classics, pp. 604, 562.
(77) Qian Mu, "The New World of Early Qing Confucian Thought", Treatise on the History of Chinese Academic Thought (8), p. 397.
(78) He Lin: "Academia and Politics", Culture and Life, The Commercial Press, 1988, p. 248
(79) Hu Pu'an, "The Relationship between Scholarship and Politics in Twenty Years," Oriental Magazine, Vol. 21, January 1924.
(80) Pi Xirui: A History of Classics, Zhonghua Bookstore, 2004, pp. 250-252.
(81) Gan Jingxian, "Academic Speculation in China in the Past Twenty Years", Oriental Magazine, Vol. 21, January 1924.
(82) Gao Jiyi, "The Distinction Between the Etiquette System of Modern and Ancient Studies in the Han Dynasty: Taking Liao Ping's Examination of Modern and Ancient Studies as the Center of Discussion," Proceedings of the Institute of History and Linguistics of the Academia Sinica, Vol. 77, Vol. 1, March 2006.
(83) Liao Ping: "Letter to Someone", "Siyiguan Miscellaneous Works", "Liuyiguan Series", Sichuan Cungu Bookstore, 1921. Liao Jiping's Posthumous Manuscript: "Commentary on the Examination of the New Study of Apocryphal Scriptures", Kong Xue, No. 1, August 1943.
(84) Lü Simian: "On the Difference Between Classics and Ancient Texts", "Notes on the Reading History of Lü Simian", Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 2005, p. 725.
(85) Gu Jiegang: Gu Jiegang's Reading Notes, Vol. V, Taipei Lianjing Publishing Company, 1990, p. 2788.
(86) Meng Wentong: "On the Three Manuscripts of Scripture", "Jing Shi Shu Yuan", p. 148. In the 1940s, Meng wentong's perception of "pseudo-modern literature" changed, and this change involved the distinction between Mongolian and "ultra-modern literature" scholars in the 1930s and 1940s of the Republic of China, which is described in detail in a separate article.
(87) Luo Zhitian, "Daoxian "New Learning" and Research on the Academic History of the Qing Dynasty", Journal of Sichuan University (Zheshe Edition), No. 5, 2006.
Source: History of Chinese Philosophy, No. 4, 2012
![Mong wentong: The study of the "Ming Tao"[fig]]()