Ge Lixiong
When I used to read history, I often saw some inexplicable records, or things that I couldn't figure out. It's not that there is any literal obstacle, it's that it's too vague, it's either counterintuitive, or there is no other evidence to be found. However, I really admire that some historical critics can make a big discussion about those groundless "historical facts" and write one paper after another. When he first "commented on the law and opposed Confucianism", he named "thief" as "leader of the slave uprising" and publicized how he was anti-Confucius. As a result, papers on the great significance of the anti-hole of "thief" have been published, and many sites of "thief" activities have also been discovered. When everyone woke up from the nightmare of the Cultural Revolution, they found that it was still a question whether the person "thief" had ever existed, let alone his "deeds" and related comments.
After Yao Xueyin's novel "Li Zicheng" became popular, some historians launched a controversy over how to evaluate Li Yan. But an old gentleman who is familiar with the history of the Ming Dynasty told me that it is still inconclusive whether Li Yan is a person. Yao Xueyin is writing novels, so she can play freely, why do you want to study history and follow it?
The "anti-Confucianism" occurred in the middle of the Cultural Revolution, and the discussion of Li Yan was also shortly after the end of the Cultural Revolution, which can be explained by the influence of the "Cultural Revolution" or "what".
Today, however, this kind of practice of making a big discussion regardless of whether the historical facts are true or false not only still exists, but also has a tendency to become more and more intense. In recent years, I often see some articles praising a certain master or belittling a certain celebrity, or worshipping him, or denigrating him, but after a little attention, I find that it is either unfounded or purely based on the author's subjective imagination. There are even "postmodern" scholars who claim that the facts are not important, but how they are "reconstructed", which makes me wonder if my judgment is too outdated. However, probably because of the influence of historiography, I still believe that there are always facts before commenting can be made, and if things are not clarified, what is the basis for the comments? The so-called "reconstruction" should refer to the reconstruction of things or people that have been restored wrongly. If the original construction is not wrong, what is the purpose of reconstructing it? How is it possible? It is nothing more than a reevaluation! Therefore, I believe that any valuable and meaningful "reconstruction" is inseparable from the basis of facts.
Around the time of Qian Zhongshu's death, an incident about him caught my attention. There is an article that discloses a past incident in his Cultural Revolution: on the eve of the National Day of a certain year, Jiang Qing sent someone to bring him an invitation to a state banquet, but he was rejected by money. The visitor asked, "Can I go back and say that Mr. Qian is sick." Qian replied: "No, I'm not sick, I'm in good health, but I'm not going." Later, I saw some people quoting it, naturally to praise Qian Zhongshu's uprightness and integrity, or to compare the intemperance of some literati in the Cultural Revolution.
However, as soon as I saw this, I first drilled into the horns of the facts, and the more I thought about it, the more absurd I felt.
The first is the source of the matter.
The only people present were Qian himself and the people who came to deliver the invitation, and at most Mrs. Qian Yang Jiang.
Did the Qian family reveal it?
Apparently impossible.
If it had been spread at that time or as soon as the Cultural Revolution ended, so many "money scientists" would have spread the most, and they would not have to wait until Qian's old age.
If it is from the Qian family, since he and his family have been silent for twenty or thirty years, why do they need to bring up the old matter again in the twilight of Qian's twilight years?
As for the person who sent the invitation, judging from the fact that he took the initiative to find an excuse for money, he was not Jiang Qing's eagle dog, but he was just acting on orders, and hoped that he would not embarrass Jiang Qing when respecting Qian's choice. It is estimated that he will never reply to Jiang Qing with the words of the money, and he will still use the excuse that the money is sick.
Taking a step back, if he really reported the money to Jiang Qing, how could Jiang Qing not have a seizure? Then this story should have been published in the Cultural Revolution long ago, and it would not have been until the end of the 20th century. The only person who is qualified to disclose the information is the person who sent the invitation, since he once agreed to reply to Qian and admired Qian's personality, it should have been made public when the "Qian Zhongshu fever" appeared. Even if it drags on for a decade or two for various reasons, there is no need to be incognito, and it is completely possible for me to come out and speak, or provide my real name and source, but these have never been seen in reports or related articles.
The second is to analyze from reason. It can be seen from Yang Jiang's account that Qian Zhongshu adopted an attitude of nurturing obscurity and avoiding disaster during the Cultural Revolution, hiding if he could, and dealing with it if he couldn't, and never openly protested, let alone directly opposed. What's more, if Jiang Qing wants to win over or use someone, he will generally use the banner of Mao Zedong, the Party Central Committee, and the Central Committee of the Cultural Revolution, and even if Qian Zhongshu is not as deceived and flattered as some people, how can he openly resist it? No matter how arrogant Jiang Qing is, he is not qualified to host a state banquet, and the invitation is not from the State Council of the People's Republic of China. In the name of Premier Zhou Enlai of the State Council, Jiang Qing was just a human being, and if Qian Zhongshu really didn't want to participate, he was just indifferent, he didn't want to show his face, and he didn't want to become an embellishment, so how could he use this matter to publicize it? Besides, at that time, Zhou Enlai deliberately arranged for a number of veteran intellectuals to show up at the state banquet in order to promote the implementation of the policy on intellectuals and to give a positive and relaxed attitude at home and abroad. With Qian Zhongshu's life experience, why make a fuss about this!
At that time, I was tempted to write a short essay questioning the matter, but after much consideration, I did not start writing, lest the world should not be unexpected, because I had not yet found a definite counter-evidence.
It wasn't until early 2000, more than a year after Qian Zhongshu's death, that my doubts were finally confirmed when I read Qian Bixiang's article "Two or Three Things About Mr. Yang Jiang" in Southern Weekly on February 18. The relevant paragraph of the article reads:
Soon, the translation of "Mao Zedong's Poems" was put on the agenda again. Originally, Premier Zhou was in charge of this matter, and there was a five-person team working collectively, and Mr. Qian was among them. At this time, Jiang Qing intervened and appointed someone to preside over the work. Mr. Yang repeatedly said, "Zhong Shu is still sick!" and the members of the group came to Mr. Qian's temporary residence every day to work. ...... When the National Day came, Mr. Qian was invited to a state banquet, and Mr. Qian was sick and did not go. This person came to be a lobbyist for Jiang Qing again: "Comrade Jiang Qing specially prepared a car to pick up Comrade Zhong Shu and Comrade Yang Jiang to visit the garden. Mr. Qian said: "I didn't go to the mainland banquet. This person said: "Comrade Zhong Shu can't go, Comrade Yang Jiang can!" Mr. Yang excused himself and said: "Auntie is on holiday on National Day, I have to take care of the sick, and I still have to cook." ”
This article shows that Qian Zhongshu was originally one of the five members of the translation team of "Mao Zedong's Poems" (or whatever it is), and he was an indispensable person who really checked the academic and linguistic aspects. Although Jiang Qing intervened and sent someone to preside over the actual work, the nominal leader was still Zhou Enlai. Qian Zhongshu and Yang Jiang said that they were sick, not because Qian was unwilling to participate, but because he was unwilling to deal more with the person in charge appointed by Jiang Qing, or to reduce the political color of translating "Mao Zedong's Poems", he actually worked at home while sick.
Inviting Qian to attend the state banquet is obviously because he is a member of the translation team of "Mao Zedong's Poems", and it may not be related to Jiang Qing. Even if this matter was Jiang Qing's idea, there was no need for her to send someone to invite her. As for Qian not participating, Yang Jiang said very clearly that it was because he was sick. Qian Zhongshu and Yang Jiang excused themselves from visiting the garden on National Day, and the reason was also to be sick and take care of the sick. Taking a step back, even if someone really sent an invitation to the state banquet on behalf of Jiang Qing, Qian Zhongshu would definitely use illness as an excuse to politely excuse himself, and would never specifically state that he was not sick and did not want to go.
At this point, the cause and effect of this matter have finally been clarified, and it seems that those comments made about it, the praises made, or the criticisms of other literati on the basis of this matter have become nonsense without a purpose. But why the fabricator of this matter did this, only he knows. However, whether it is based on hearsay or false rumors, whether it is a good intention or something else, as far as respect for the facts is concerned, it is not permissible. Our critics and researchers should also be reminded not to express their opinions until the facts have been clarified, or until doubts have been cleared.
When I finally wrote this short article after two years of waiting, Qian Zhongshu's refusal to attend the state banquet may have long been forgotten, and the people who exposed this "inside story" and the people who talked about it later seem to have turned their interest to other things.
But I decided to write the article anyway because I hope that this phenomenon will not occur again and again. Over the years, I have often found that some of the people who wrote the articles of Chen Yinke, Qian Mu, and Ji Xianlin were not from a historical background, and they had not even seen their historiographical works. It's okay to just make some general comments, or talk about things outside of academics, but almost every one of them deals with their "master" status and academic achievements.
I'm not saying that people who don't come from a historical background can't study historians, but if you want to study what makes historians "masters", how can you do without their historical treatises?
How can you not know the necessary academic background?
How can they not be compared with other historians of their time?
In the past, there was a saying that "flowers bloom in the wall and red outside the wall", but now it has developed to "there are no flowers in the wall and red outside the wall". For example, the man who was once called "the most influential historian" by the media and other academic circles is almost unknown in the historiographical circles, and it is not known what historical writings he has. A well-known person in the philosophical circles has published a new book, and the topics and contents are 100 percent history, but they do not need the approval of the historical circles, and they are still highly praised by colleagues in the philosophical circles. This kind of thing is actually called "interdisciplinary", but the disciplines they have stepped into do not feel it at all, and they have not even seen their shadows. What goes on is to print some non-existent titles on business cards to bluff people, and even use editing and photocopying to create a batch of fake books, which can also deceive some touting book reviews, and can still be promoted to professor, doctoral supervisor, advanced and subsidized. Of course, these are not simple academic issues, but if we can adhere to the attitude of first having facts before making comments, at least we will not be easily fooled by them!