Wang Siyu/Finishing
On June 11, 2021, the first session of the 2021 Young Scholars of Modern Chinese History Reading Class of Fudan University was held online. The event was convened by Professor Dai Haibin of the Department of History of Fudan University, and was invited by Associate Professor Wang Gang of the School of History, Culture and Tourism of Jiangxi Normal University to give a lecture entitled "How to "Take Evidence" with the "Double Evidence Method"? ——The Crisis of Historical Materials in Modern China and the Academic Response of Wang Guowei.—— The reviewers were Peng Hua, professor of the School of History and Culture and the Institute of Ancient Book Collation of Sichuan University, and Wang Liang, an associate researcher of the Department of Ancient Books of fudan university library and the great-grandson of Wang Guowei. This article is a compilation of the main speaker's speech, and the commentator's speech is attached at the end.
I. Small Quote: Let's start with a commentary on the history of historiography
Wang Gang, Ancient Documents and Manuscripts of Academic History, Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2017
Let me first explain the word "response" in the title. Roughly speaking, Wang Guowei's "cause" is the orientation of "taking evidence" represented by Hu Shi, and "should" means that he responds with profound academic research practice and thus responds to the historical crisis facing modern China.
George Zhong's "History of Chinese Historiography" has the following view: "The 'underground new materials' listed by him (Wang Guowei) are only oracle bones and gold texts, which are actually written materials. With the newly discovered written materials combined with the existing literature research history, China has been like this since ancient times, so why should it advertise the 'double evidence method'? In fact, this is to oppose the 'ancient history discernment' movement launched by Gu Jiegang and provide a weapon of public opinion for the Xingu faction. ...... This 'double evidence method' with serious logical errors has been abused even more, forming a wrong tendency to put archaeological findings into the framework of ancient books, which has a great negative effect on historiography. The first is that it served as the main idea that blocked the revolutionary path of 'ancient history discernment', and the other was to become the hub for the formation of many fallacious views in the study of Pre-Qin history in China. This proposition was inherited by subsequent institutes.
Based on historical facts, although Chen Yinke, Guo Moruo, Gu Jiegang and others have a different path of study than Wang Guowei, they all have an affirmative and admired side for Wang Guowei and his learning. This can be refuted by Qiao Wen's total denial of Wang Guowei and the "double evidence method". What needs to be further asked is: what is the true connotation of the "double evidence method" from the perspective of materials in a return to the historical context, putting aside political factors and portal views? I think that the key point in solving this problem is the "historical crisis" at that time and Hu Shi's proposition of "taking evidence" pulled out by "sorting out the national history".
The ancient history debate movement, which was just started by Gu Jie, has an academic orientation that focuses on the collation of historical materials. In the process, the historical crisis of modern China has also begun to stand out. The theoretical source behind Gu Himself is closely related to Hu Shi's "sorting out the country's history" and "taking evidence". After understanding this background, and then analyzing the "double evidence method" from the perspective of academic genesis, the following question can be asked: In terms of motivation, is it the opposition between the doubtful ancient ("revolution") and the xingu ("counter-revolution")? In terms of basic attributes, is it an academic approach or a political movement? From the perspective of the times, is the double evidence method "from ancient times"? Isn't it a product of modern scholarship (new historiography)?
II. The Crisis of Historical Materials and "Taking Evidence"
As for the reasons for the crisis of historical materials in modern China, in my personal opinion, there are two main points: First, the modern transformation of historiography, that is, from the crisis of historiography to the crisis of historical materials. On the one hand, it is manifested in the fact that the intellectuals represented by Liang Qichao to Hu Shi are dissatisfied with traditional historiography, have made new breakthroughs in the concept of history, and gradually realize the importance of historical materials, which is the inevitable trend of the transformation of historiography to modern times at that time. On the other hand, from evolutionary theory and change detection to scientific research based on historical materials, it has become an inevitable path for the reconstruction of academic theories and methods. Second, in the process of transformation, there has been a phenomenon of alienation and "return" to tradition. The latter is mainly reflected in the discovery and inheritance of the internal resources represented by the Qianjia School's historical data processing method and Zhang Xuecheng's historical theory. Judging from the above two points, the occurrence of the crisis of historical materials is a link that cannot be avoided in the transformation of modern Chinese historiography.
In the process of "returning" to tradition, Hu Shi is a particularly noteworthy figure. The method he used in "sorting out the country's history" was a combination of the Qianjia method and the Western scientific method. In the process of going from historical data to evidence, he creatively put forward the idea of "taking evidence". This view is generally believed to have come from Hu Shi's December 1927 lecture "Several Anti-Theoretic Thinkers", which was actually first revealed in 1921 and 1922, and can be traced back to the book Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy. Hu Shi wrote in the introduction: "Anyone who examines the authenticity of historical materials must have evidence to convince people. He then reiterated and elaborated on the issue of historical censorship when he published the book in 1919. This view has a revolutionary impact on modern Chinese historiography, as Huang Jinxing said: "The proposal of this question is the necessary initial stage in the transformation of the paradigm of historical research from tradition to modernity. In line with this line of thinking, Hu Shi gradually led to Gu Jiegang's systematic skeptical thought, which formed a core component of the 'Sorting Out the National History' movement he himself led. ”
Hu Shi and the Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy
In the ancient history debate movement, the skeptical school represented by Gu Jiegang advocated that "there is no history of faith above the Eastern Zhou Dynasty", which is actually in line with Hu Shi's proposal in the introduction to the Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy that "there can only be a skeptical attitude toward the ancient history of China before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty". On the surface, this proposition is only "to smash the history of ancient letters into pieces", but what has been brought about and carried through through is the total collapse of the entire ancient literature. The legitimacy and evidence of traditional historical materials are not only a visual manifestation of the crisis of historical materials, but also bring new academic challenges to the study of ancient history.
III. Acceptance and Change: From the "Double Proof Method" to the "Double Evidence Method"
In 1913, Wang Guowei, who had transferred from philosophy to the study of classics and history, proposed the "double proof method" in the first draft of the "Mingtang Temple Bedchamber Examination", although it was mainly aimed at ancient artifacts and ancient texts, but to some extent it can be regarded as the prototype of the "double evidence method" that he later readjusted according to the sense of evidence. However, it is worth noting that this paragraph was deleted when it was included in the Guantang Jilin . It was not until 1925 that Wang Guowei officially changed the term to the "double evidence method". From the "double proof method" to the "double evidence method", it is a major adjustment in the era of "academic three changes" of Wang Guowei. This makes people wonder: how did the "double proof method" develop into the "double evidence method"? What is the academic motivation? Why was it deleted later?
From the perspective of learning methods and academic tendencies, Wang Guoweixue has a strong sense of the times, and always pays attention to and adapts to the development of the times in academic research. At the same time, he is academically new and does not reject academic changes. Carefully sorting out the development context of China's modern academic history, after "sorting out the national history", the biggest trend is how to deal with the challenge of the historical crisis, how to deal with the examination of historical materials and evidence, which is the academic ideological background when the "double evidence method" was proposed. Secondly, Wang Guowei's pursuit of scholarship covers the path of Western studies, the integration of Chinese and Western cultures, and "one level higher than the Qianjia elders", and in this regard, he has a high degree of consistency with Chen Yinke and Hu Shi, and also reflects the common pursuit of all people after the transformation of modern scholarship. In addition, Wang Guowei's strong sense of evidence and rich research practice are important parts that cannot be ignored, and the two constitute a mutually reinforcing relationship. For example, in the course of his research on the history of oracle bone evidence in 1917, he wrote to Luo Zhenyu: "There are no people who have no true views in ancient and modern times that cannot be proved", and he expressed the view that it is confirmed to become an iron case. In the same year, the three articles "The Examination of the First Gong and the First King Seen in the Yin Bu Ci", "The Continuation examination of the Former Gong And the First King seen in the Yin Bu Ci", and "The Theory of the Yin Zhou System" were also the products of the successful combination of evidence awareness and research practice.
It is worth noting that research practice is not the same as proposing a conscious method, and the practical application of the "double evidence method" predates the proposal of the method. As mentioned earlier, the emergence of theoretical self-consciousness is also related to the crisis of historical materials and the stimulation of Hu Shi. It can be found that whether it is "taking evidence" or "double evidence method", it covers three basic aspects of evidence (evidence and science), material (what kind of material can become evidence), and method (method of using evidence), which shows that the two actually share the same ideas and resources. But on closer inspection, the two are different. According to Zhang Jinghua, "In terms of academic flow and construction, Wang's 'double evidence method' is the product of years of academic accumulation, as well as the combination of current situation and materials, and various factors play a role in it." However, an important aspect that cannot be ignored is that its academic target is the suspicious ancient trend of thought at that time, which is the academic 'flashpoint' that it came into being. The last sentence points out the side of Wang Guowei's rational approach to Hu Shi's faction.
In the face of the crisis of historical materials, although Hu Shi and Gu Jiegang proposed and practiced the way of "taking evidence", they were not successful in the field of ancient history. Because they are only reviewing rather than looking for provable evidence, they are also too arbitrary in excluding (pseudo)evidence. The lack of theoretical precedence and long-term experience leads to immaturity in practice. On the contrary, Wang Guowei chose to use empirical methods, and through long-term research practice, especially with the help of new materials, he made empirical method summaries and constructed a methodology of "ancient history and new evidence" system science. From a specific perspective, at the level of historical material review and "taking evidence", Hu Shi only put forward preliminary thinking and problems, but the improvement and solution of problems still need to be improved and solved by Wang Guowei and his "double evidence method".
Wang Guowei and the New Evidence of Ancient History
In 1925, Wang Guowei formally proposed the famous "Double Evidence Method" in the course "New Evidence of Ancient History" for the Tsinghua Institute of Chinese Studies, and its core views were as follows:
The study of ancient Chinese history is the most controversial issue. In the ancient things, legends and historical facts are mixed and inseparable, and there are inevitably some fates in historical facts, which are no different from legends; and there are often historical facts in legends, and the two are not easy to distinguish. ...... And the fault of doubting the ancients is also doubted by the character of Yao Shunyu. Its skeptical attitude and critical spirit are not undesirable. However, it is a pity that the ancient historical materials have not been fully processed. My generation was born today, fortunately in addition to the materials on paper, but also in the new materials underground; from this kind of material, my generation can solidify the materials on the paper, and we must also prove that a certain part of the ancient book is all true, that is, a hundred indecent words, and there is no fact that one side is expressed. This dual method of evidence can only be done today. Although the ancient books have not been proved, they cannot be denied; and those who have been proved cannot but be affirmed, and can be asserted.
A careful analysis of the above text shows a few points: First, Wang Guowei mentioned three "proofs", indicating that he attached great importance to this concept. Secondly, the phrase "new materials underground" actually links the results of archaeological excavations with historical materials. Third, "only today can be done" points out the uniqueness, epochality and pioneering nature of the "double evidence method" in the methodological sense. Finally, the text talks about the transgressions of doubting the ancients and the doubts about the characters of Yao Shunyu, which undoubtedly points the spearhead at the subversive ideas of the ancient history discerning school.
Unlike the view that the "double evidence method" is only "strategically cloaked in the cloak of 'new' science" and "expanding its influence by the wind of emerging archaeology, and also receiving the approval of conservative scholars", we think that the evolution of the words from "proof" to "evidence" is not Wang Guowei's arbitrary choice, but his wise choice to deal with the construction of historical materials.
In the period when the "double proof method" was proposed, the consciousness of doubting the ancient was not yet popular, and the direction of "proof" here was "affirmative". After the 1920s, when Wang Guowei proposed the "double evidence method", Hu Shi was vigorously advocating the so-called "taking evidence". "Evidence" has become synonymous with legitimacy in academic circles and is closely linked to "science". In other words, an important focus of the "skeptical" school of thought that the literature above the Eastern Zhou Dynasty is "forged" is the lack of evidentiary power that meets scientific standards. Faced with the situation that ancient historical materials began to be highly doubted and affirmative arguments could no longer be trusted, Wang Guowei established his foundation and persuasiveness with "neutral" and extremely "scientific" "evidence" at that time, which became an academic choice.
Therefore, Wang Guowei discussed at the beginning of the "New Evidence of Ancient History" that "legends and historical facts are mixed without distinction". For the "most controversial" ancient historical materials, he believes that they should not be completely abandoned, but should seek the "plain land" and "one-sided facts" of historical facts, which is aimed at and corrected Hu Shi's view of the comprehensive negation of mythological historical materials. Therefore, scientific examination through "evidence" to establish historical materials and establish the history of faith has become a new direction.
The adjustment from "proof" to "evidence" is not to cancel "proof", but precisely to better "prove", so the word "proof" frequently appears in the "New Evidence of Ancient History" quoted above. In Wang Guowei's view, establishing the basis of "evidence" has become a step before "proof". Historical materials are no longer natural, they must be examined to be eligible to become historical materials. This new historical material, in terms of academic and disciplinary support, is no longer the "ancient script and ancient artifact knowledge" that was paid attention to in the past, but "the new material underground". The former is epigraphic; the latter is within the scope of modern archaeology. Therefore, he deliberately pointed out that "it can only be done today", that is, the affirmation of the "double evidence method" as the fruit of the modern academic transformation.
Fourth, how to "new evidence" of "ancient history"? - From "finishing" to "adequate handling"
When Wang Guowei proposed that "it is a pity that the ancient historical materials have not been fully handled", the implication is that the "doubtful ancient" faction has simple and rude features on the issue of historical materials, and its attitude and method are not mature. Interestingly, in the "sorting out the country" movement, "sorting" is a very hot word, and Wang Guowei does not use "sorting" but "processing", and it is "full treatment", which should be a voice outside the words, implying that he and the "doubtful ancient" school are competing in the historical method. At the same time, the method that can achieve "full handling" is undoubtedly the "double evidence method" advocated by Wang Guowei, which provides a strong guarantee for "new evidence of ancient history". So, as a new method of evidence, where is it new? How new is it? And how do you "take the evidence"? We need to answer each of these questions.
(i) Expansion of the evidence base: the meaning of "new materials underground"
Previously, the historical materials that could be used as evidence were very narrow, and the emergence of new underground materials made it possible to expand the evidence base. This expansion was first manifested in the expansion of quantity, and a large number of underground artifacts were excavated. Wang Guowei wrote in 1925's "The Learning of New Discoveries in China in the Last Twenty or Thirty Years": "Most of the new learning in ancient times has been due to new discoveries. There are Confucius's bibi books, and then there are the learning of ancient writers since the Han Dynasty; there are zhao and Song ancient artifacts, and then there are the study of ancient artifacts and ancient characters since the Song Dynasty. ...... However, China's paper learning depends on underground scholars, and it is not from today's beginning. ...... These discoveries, which are fully studied by scholars of the world, have not yet been expounded in half, and the subsequent discoveries are also infinite, and this cannot but await the efforts of the youth. "This shows the importance of material expansion to evidence and methods." To some extent, the expansion of materials also affected the view of the Fu Si Nian series of the Shiyu Institute that "where a kind of knowledge can expand the material he studies, it will progress, and if it cannot, it will regress.".
In 1928, Fu Sinian, then a full-time researcher and director, published the article "The Purpose of the Work of the Institute of Historical Language" in the first fascicle of the "Proceedings of the Institute of History and Linguistics of the National Academy of Sciences", which became the declaration of the establishment of the Institute of Historical Language.
Secondly, it is reflected in the qualitative advantage, which includes three aspects: direct material, historical basis and certainty, and connection with archaeology. Among them, directness is the basic attribute of "new material underground". Certainty means that the excavation of underground materials establishes a time point for paper documents and provides a historical basis. And because of its nature, underground materials have a natural connection with archaeology. As Li Ji said: "The discovery of Anyang, on the one hand, links the materials above and below ground, and on the other hand, links history and prehistory. This is a very important event; Without this connection, all materials are only materials that time and space cannot determine. With the intervention of archaeology, based on modern disciplines and scientific methods, the "double evidence method" is not a simple mutual verification of paper and underground, but also a gap with the methods and visions of ancient epigraphy. The summary of "this dual method of evidence, but it can only be done today" is a matter of course.
In contrast, Hu Shi in the book "Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy" from the text material, although put forward raw materials, by-materials and other statements, but unilaterally can not determine the time point of the material, so it was later called "old paper pile" and "inner circulation". Until 1928, Hu Shi's article "Methods and Materials for Governing Learning" wrote:
From Mei Que's "Ancient Literature Shangshu Examination" to Gu Jiegang's "Ancient History Discernment", from Chen Di's "Mao Shi Guyin Examination" to Zhang Binglin's "Wenshi", although the method is scientific, the material is always written. The scientific method can actually make the old paper pile shine brightly, but the material of the old paper will eventually die the scientific method, so these three hundred years of scholarship are only the scholarship of words, and the three hundred years of light is only the flame of the old paper pile!
The re-examination of the old paper material here undoubtedly has the shadow of Wang Guowei and the stimulation of the "double evidence method" behind it. As soon as this article came out, it was tantamount to declaring that "sorting out the country's history" was headed for a "dead end."
(2) From "five kinds of evidence" to "double evidence": the stratification of facts and the classification of materials
Examining the evidence itself, and further logically judging and classifying it, is the primary problem that needs to be solved when "taking the evidence". The main issues that should be implemented and refined are: Where does the evidence point? How is the evidence characterized? Wait a minute. In the introduction to the Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy, Hu Shi once put forward five kinds of evidence methods of historical events, text, style, thought, and circumstantial evidence, and talked about the issue of falsification in the introduction to the "Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy", that is, the "pseudo-chapter" and "pseudo-book" of a certain thing and a certain text were discussed by the "pseudo-text" and "pseudo-book". The above statement has its contribution, but it also raises a new question: the evidence points to the fact that there is no doubt, but the "falsity" of something or a certain article can be presumed to be all falsification of a book or a document? "Facts" all forged? In other words, the phrase "in any case, there is no historical value" should be debatable.
Let's look at Wang Guowei's sayings and practices. The first is how to find and confirm the facts. Wang Guowei pointed out, "Fortunately, in addition to the materials on paper, there are also new materials underground; from this kind of material, my generation can solidify the materials on the paper, and we must also prove that a certain part of the ancient book is all a record, that is, the words of a hundred indecent tames are not without facts." Here, Wang Guowei not only distinguishes between historical facts and their different aspects, but also pays attention to the connection of historical facts at different levels: 1. The facts of one side; 2. The facts of the system, and the "one side" can advance towards the "system". Such rigorous thinking and judgment undoubtedly benefited from his previous philosophical foundations and training.
Guan Tang Ji Lin Volume 1 "Discussion with Dr. Lin on the Book of Luo Xuan"
The second is to determine new facts through the determination of known (mainly new historical materials) to determine new facts. Wang Guowei pointed out in the "Discussion with Dr. Lin again on the Book of Luo Xuan", "We should judge the facts by facts, and not with the theories of future lives, which is of course the place for scholars today." In a letter to Luo Zhenyu in August 1922, he said of others: "I can also work hard, but its atmosphere is quite similar to that of Japanese scholars of literature." The "Nippon Scholar of Literature" here refers to Kukichi Shiratori, the founder of the Tokyo School, who was criticized by Wang Guowei for his advocacy of the "Yao ShunYu Obliteration Theory". Two records show that from facts to theories, it is an important point that distinguishes Wang Guowei from the Hu Shi faction.
Again, heirloom material. Whether it is its historical events, writings, or styles and ideas, there is a possibility of "edge decoration" in the process of circulation. This means that the writing of history is not the same as the historical facts themselves. Wang Guowei wrote: "The study of ancient Chinese history is the most controversial issue. In the ancient things, legends and historical facts are mixed and inseparable, and there are inevitably some fates in historical facts, which are no different from legends; and there are often historical facts in legends, and the two are not easy to distinguish. All countries in the world have paid attention to this matter in ancient China. That is, acknowledging this. At the same time, he also pointed out the existence of "Sudi" and believed that myths, legends, etc., as products of human history, also have a factual basis behind them. Therefore, the best thing to do is not to abandon it completely, but to prove its factual side through material processing (not simple collation).
So starting from the facts, when extracting evidence, how to determine the properties of the material? Different from Hu Shi's refinement of the five kinds of evidence, when Wang Guowei emphasized the "double evidence" above and below ground of different historical sources, he mainly implemented the facts in two aspects: 1. characters; 2, historical events (deeds), and advocated that it be carried out at different levels, with characters first and historical events after historical events.
For example, his criticism of "doubting the faults of the ancients is also doubting the characters of Yao Shunyu", that is, he believes that although Yao Shunyu's historical events have many "edge ornaments" or "layered" parts that can be doubted, they cannot completely deny the existence of the characters themselves. For example, before discussing Wang Hai's deeds in the "New Evidence of Ancient History", he first determined the authenticity of his person through the examination of his name on the inscription, and then pointed out, "His person is indeed non-fictional, and it can be seen that ancient legends exist between Zhou and Qin are not unfounded." "From the "Two Examinations" to the initial affirmation of Yao Shunyu's character, and then from the character to the cautious advancement of historical events (legends and deeds), Wang Guowei adopts the method of starting from direct materials and determining (materials) at fixed points (time).
In addition, the Classical Texts of China are diverse, not all of them are actual or fictional, so a distinction should be made between rigorous and indecent Hundred Sayings. Under the mutual verification of the two pieces of evidence, Wang Guowei also examined the ancient texts containing the coexistence of "Yuanju" and "Sudi", and made the following classifications from the text generation mechanism of the actual record and the examination letter: 1. The actual record, such as the "Shiben" according to the historical record; 2, the book of the false Youyuan ornament, such as the "Shan Hai Jing", "Chu Ci", and "Tianwen"; 3, the books that were written in later generations, such as "Yanzi Chunqiu", "Mozi", "Lü Shi Chunqiu"; 4, the late books, such as the "Bamboo Book Chronicle", etc.
(3) What should I do when there is insufficient evidence? - "Que Doubt" and "Return to the Covenant with Bo, Gain Faith from Doubt"
Since ancient times, China has had a tradition of "que doubt", which also affected Wang Guowei. He said in the New Evidence of Ancient History: "Confucius said: 'Faith is good and ancient. He also said, "A gentleman does not know it, and gai que ruye." 'Therefore, in the ritual of Xia Yin, I can say it, Qi, Song is not enough to sign, and the literature is not enough. Mencius is suspicious of ancient events, then he said: 'There is a transmission of it.' To the unbeliever, say, 'He who does good deeds does it.' 'Tai Shi Gong's "Five Emperors Benji" takes Confucius's "Five Emperors" and "Imperial Family Names" and rebukes the indecent and tame hundreds of words; in the "Three Dynasties Table" to take the "Shi ben", and the yellow emperor has been denounced since the years of espionage, and his technique is extremely cautious. ...... Although the ancient books have not been proved, they cannot be denied; and those who have been proved cannot but affirm and can be asserted. It can be seen that when the evidence is insufficient, Wang Guowei believes that both lack of evidence and doubt are desirable methods. For example, it is a vacancy rather than a veto, and it is cautious rather than an easy judgment. Doubts "exist" because there is still a possible side of "faith." In essence, it is doubtful rather than untrustworthy.
When Hu Shi talks about "que doubt", he is quite consistent with Wang Guowei in the logical starting point. He also talked about "hanging on and on" and stressed that "it cannot be arbitrary". But the problem is that the "existence" of "doubt" is originally in the transition zone between faith and lack of faith. Hu Shi equates "doubt" with untrustworthiness, and then goes to the opposite side of the starting point. The importance of the "que" has also been overlooked or downplayed. Therefore, in their research practice, Hu, Gu and others advocated that "there is no history of faith above the Eastern Zhou Dynasty", that Liu Xin forged and forged layer by layer, which made "doubtful antiquity" become "no antiquity" in essence, and lost any possibility of certainty. Coupled with the fact that people often fail to carefully verify bold assumptions, not only does it lead to the assumption becoming a "fact", but it also fails to leave room for further interpretation in the future.
In 1923, Gu Jiegang published "On ancient history books with Mr. Qian Xuantong" in the 9th issue of reading magazines, putting forward the view of "ancient Chinese history caused by layers"
Back to "Que Doubt", what to do after "Que Doubt"? Wang Guowei believes that the solution is "to return to the covenant with Bo, to gain faith from doubt, not to be disobedient or confused, and to be reasonable." Inherited and elaborated the traditional view of Confucius's so-called "many smells and doubts". Because new evidence can only be found if one tries to present multifaceted facts on the basis of a wealth of material. Otherwise, "although the word can never be interpreted, it will also be chiseled to explain it, and even the purpose of the ancients is doubtful." "Doubt" is not the end, but a method of starting and transitioning, and its ultimate goal is to "gain faith from doubt." This is in line with Wang Guowei's attitude of adhering to the needs of academic research.
(4) "Take the evidence" and research ability
From the above analysis, it can be found that the view of the "double evidence method" as "the discovery of archaeology is loaded into the framework of ancient books" is not only extremely simple and superficial, but also not the "double evidence method" in Wang Guowei's mind. Otherwise, Wang Guowei, who upholds the "double evidence method", can neither enter the deep facts to do the empirical work of hooking and sinking, nor can he find out the "facts on one side" and then determine that "a certain part is all true", let alone reach the realm of "not contradictory and confused, and should be reasoned".
As an academic paradigm, the "double evidence method" can be realized and truly extracted scientifically powerful and logical evidence, relying on deep new and old learning and specialized research capabilities. Wang Guowei once criticized the sons of modern literature for having the consciousness of breaking through but not having the ability to break through in the face of new materials and ancient texts, "It is said that the easy painting of ghosts and charms is unscrupulous and unscrupulous, to zhuang Baochen, Gong Ding'an, Chen Songnan's disciples, and the ancient literature is extremely bad." And Jiang Ruzao said in the preface to the Guantang Jilin: "There are so many new ones that they have not been as good as the Junshu. The number of new Jun's gains is due to the large number of new historical materials that have been produced in recent days, but if it is not the knowledge of Jun, it is impossible to reason with Dong Zhi. "He highly affirmed Wang Guowei's own learning and ability. The anti-positive example highlights the importance of individual research ability.
When studying ancient history, the first requirement is the ability to interpret language and writing, and the knowledge of traditional primary schools (language and script training), ancient scripts, and paleontology (from jinshi to new materials) is both the threshold and the foundation.
The second is the empirical ability of traditional scripture and historical documents. This ability includes both the mastery of scripture, which is the foundation of the study of the roots, but also the need to dabble in different materials and artifacts, and the need to try to achieve the understanding of classics and history, Sinology and Song studies, supplemented by accumulated empirical experience. Wang Guowei once borrowed Luo Zhenyu's mouth to say that his own learning continued the study of ancient texts and ancient artifacts from Cheng Yaotian, Wu Dayi and others, paying attention to "visual inspection". After arriving in Japan, he "specialized in the history of the scriptures, read and annotated several volumes every day, and also ruled the study of the sound and rhyme of ancient characters." ...... Speaking of the great righteousness of the scriptures, there has never been such a coherent line, and the study of Gaijun is actually based on the rhyme of words to examine the ancient system and cultural relics, and the reason for its establishment is so. ...... The same is true of the doctrine of the ancients. "There is no doubt that it will be said for posterity. The third is the ability to classify logic after penetration. Luo Zhenyu wrote: "Since Qianjia, there have been many classifications, so they are more closely related to their predecessors. In Haidong, he and Zhongwu (Wang Guowei) discussed the appropriate taxonomy for today's cultivation, so Zhongwu used this method in writing "Interpretation of Coins", "Hu Fu Kao", and "Jian Mu Procuratorate Examination". "Points out the inheritance and use of traditional taxonomy by the two." However, there are actually two sources in the scholarship of Wang Guowei: one is to inherit the method since Qianjia, and the other is the Western method. Unlike traditional scholars who make judgments based on experience alone, Wang Guowei's own logical vision and philosophical background, supplemented by his "through-string" research vision and vision, have jointly created his academic and new and refined brilliance.
The reviewers made statements
Peng Hua: In Brother Wang Gang's lecture, I think it mainly talked about three issues: the understanding, understanding, and evaluation of the kingdom's weiqi people, their time, and their learning. The focus is on the study of Kingdom Weiqi, that is, the investigation centered on the "double evidence method". So, I'll make a personal comment on the above issues in general.
The first is the understanding of the Kingdom Uighurs. I once talked about the "three levels of kingdom dimension" in the preface to the book "Treatise on Confucianism of the Kingdom" (drawing on the archaeological concept of "stratigraphy"). The first level of the Kingdom Dimension is the Kingdom Dimension as an outstanding scholar. In many fields such as philosophy, aesthetics, pedagogy, literature, primary schools, classics, and history, Wang Guowei has achieved extraordinary, fruitful, and excellent results, so he is an excellent expert and an outstanding scholar. The second level of the kingdom dimension is the kingdom dimension as an academic everyone. Wang Guowei not only opened up new fields in academic research, but also set an example in the methods of governance. Its brilliant example is the "double evidence method" that Wang Gangjie talked about today. At the same time, methodological innovations complement brilliant practices. The most typical and successful example of Wang Guowei's use of "double evidence" to prove each other's history is undoubtedly the "Examination of the Former Princes and The First King" seen in Yin Bu's Speech, which was promoted by Fu Si Nian in 1917, and the "Continuation Examination" and "Theory of the Yin Zhou System" made in the same year. Therefore, Chen Yinke concluded in the Preface to Mr. Wang Jing'an's Testament, "Therefore, his works can transfer the atmosphere of the moment, and those who show it are also on track." "The third level of the kingdom dimension is the kingdom dimension as a cultural master. In terms of academic philosophy, academic philosophy, and cultural concept, Wang Guowei has its far-reaching ultimate concern, which is not too much to expand here.
The second is the understanding of the kingdom's maintenance time. The subtitle "The Crisis of Historical Materials in Modern China and the Academic Response of Wang Guowei" refers to Wang Guowei's concern, dialogue, judgment and criticism of modern Chinese scholarship, schools, and scholars. The lecture not only analyzed Wang Guowei's "opponents" Gu Jiegang and Hu Shi, but also talked about Liang Qichao, Chen Yinke and others. Implicit in the theme is that compared with his contemporaries, what is Wang Guowei's view, and is Wang Guowei's view correct? Looking back at this history today, what should the newcomers do?
The third is the understanding of kingdom vichology. Liang Qichao once said that the study of kingdom maintenance should be based on the big picture and start from the small place. As far as the current personal governance is concerned, it actually requires the effort of "one head and one tail". One end is the history of the pre-Qin and Qin and Han dynasties; the other is the history of modern and contemporary scholarship. Without the cultivation of "one head and one tail", the understanding of Wang Guowei's scholarship and his people can only be scratching the itch of the boots and the clouds of the people. Wang Guowei's "double evidence method" and his views on historical materials and evidence are basic concepts, involving the issue of starting point and direction. What Brother Wang Gang is talking about today is the work of drawing salaries from the bottom of the "wind of empty talk" in the academic circles.
Finally, why learn Kingdom Dimension. Wang Guowei once said: "Today's era can be described as the era of discovery", "Most of the new learning in ancient times is due to new discoveries". Chen Yinke also said: "The scholarship of an era must have its new materials and new problems. The use of this material to study the problem is the new trend of scholarship in this era. Those who are in charge of learning, those who have been foretold by this trend, are called pre-flow (to borrow the name of the first fruits of Buddhism). Those who have not been predetermined are said to have not entered the stream. It shows that the two people attach great importance to new discoveries and new materials. At present, it is the "era of great discoveries", and the results of archaeological excavations and excavated materials are endless. On the one hand, this makes the study of ancient characters and excavated documents become the dominant science of the moment, which is certainly gratifying. On the other hand, under the appearance of wind and fire, there are actually many places that are not optimistic. Xu Guansan said in "Ninety Years of New Historiography": "The world knows that (Wang) Guowei is an expert, or regards him as a paleographer, a paleontologist or an ancient historian, but he does not know that he has achieved the cause of an expert with the resources of others. At the end of the lecture, Brother Wang Gang talked about the cultivation and ability of the Kingdom's Weizhi Studies, which echoed Xu Guansan's evaluation and was undoubtedly a kind of correction and correction of the academic atmosphere.
Wang Liang: I personally have not studied ancient history, but mainly focus on academic history. I have always been more concerned about the research of the academic community on Wang Guowei. Brother Wang Gang's explanation of the connotation of the "double evidence method" and the background of the times today is very clear and insightful. Here, I have some sporadic ideas that I would like to put forward for discussion.
First of all, the "double evidence method" is mainly summarized by Wang Guowei himself, and has different expressions in different eras and gradually deepens. At the same time, this statement can be divided into two situations, on the one hand, it is a statement of Wang Guowei's personal scholarship; on the other hand, it is a summary of the characteristics of Luo and Wang Zhixue, which is mainly embodied in the articles "New Chinese Learning in the Past Twenty or Thirty Years". In fact, Luo Zhenyu implements the method of comparing texts with physical objects very well in academic practice. But he personally does not use the concept of the "double evidence method". Does this indicate that the "double evidence method", as an academic expression, is not derived from traditional Chinese academic concepts. It may also be speculated that although Luo Zhenyu agrees with the research essence of the "double evidence method", he is not particularly satisfied with this expression.
Secondly, the "double evidence method" also contains some implicit judgments in addition to textual explanations. One of these connotations has to do with the history of tradition in terms of science (not limited to science, but possibly also with the full knowledge of mankind). Around 1914, Wang Guowei had just begun to engage in the study of Sinology and Oracle, and he mentioned in the preface to the "Guoxue Series": "The gentleman of the present day is not all contempt for the ancient, that is, all the ancient. The detractors, out of scientific insight, do not know that there is historiography. The ancients, out of historical insight, did not know that there was science. "The contemptuous ancient here corresponds to the doubtful ancient, and the Shanggu is actually the xingu." Whether it is all contempt for the ancients, or all the ancients, it is a bad tendency. Therefore, in the follow-up discussion, he also listed some relatively good research examples. For example, the actual occurrence of solar eclipses is calculated by modern scientific methods, and the records of solar and lunar eclipses are compared with ancient books such as the Bamboo Book Chronicle, so as to examine the reliability of the records of the Bamboo Book Chronicle. Another example is the location of The Tomb of Shakyamuni in Xuanzang's Records of the Western Regions of the Great Tang Dynasty. The same example is reflected in his compilation of his own anthologies. The first article of the "Guantang Xuelin", "Life And Death Bully Examination", is to use the knowledge of the moon phase to examine the nouns in the scriptures. Wang Guowei put this article at the beginning of the anthology, which undoubtedly has deep meaning. In terms of academic internal theory, he actually attaches great importance to the combination of science and traditional scripture and history.
As several teachers said, because of the limitations of the times, mainly the excavation of underground materials at that time, often from pirate excavations or accidental discoveries, has not yet formed a systematic and formal archaeological scale, there is no relevant archaeological report, Wang Guowei probably did not have the opportunity to personally explore the site, which led to his understanding and application of knowledge of archaeology such as strata and utensils in academic research. However, Wang Guowei also noticed some related investigations from his own academic philosophy. For example, for the place where some artifacts were unearthed, he used the contents of the artifacts and texts to make some inferences and examinations, which were reflected in many of the titles and treks he wrote, and also echoed the phenomenon that Wang Gangge noticed that Wang Gangwei was very sensitive and attached importance to the elements of time and space.
In addition, the question of the background of the times raised by the "double evidence method" also deserves further analysis. Brother Wang Gang just mentioned that it is mainly a response to the Hu Shi school of thought, which is a very interesting point. However, more "evidence" needs to be taken from the time series. In my personal opinion, Luo and Wang discussed many issues in their correspondence, and Hu Shi entered their field of vision relatively late. So, is it possible that around 1913 or 1925, when Wang Guowei proposed the terms "double proof method" or "double evidence method", it was actually a response to japanese new scholars such as Shiratori Kuji? Because in the letters of Luo and Wang, the two had direct comments on him. Luo Zhenyu also mentioned in 1916 that "the study of the Easterners, the so-called research scholars, directly cut the dog dung and ear", this very harsh criticism is likely to be aimed at the Shiratori Kuji faction.
Another point is that in addition to the physical research, the "double evidence method" research also re-examined and judged the ancient texts at that time. For example, Wang Guowei mentioned in the lecture distinguished and summarized many documents, and took the documents such as the Classic of Mountains and Seas and the Tianwen, which are generally not used as historical materials, as the objects of historical examination, and indeed found important materials, which is a very remarkable place for him.
In general, in addition to completing his personal research results, Wang Guowei also pays great attention to the induction and summary of academic methods. Because of his training in philosophy, literature, and history, the consciousness of systematic concepts and methods is very prominent in him. This has a very realistic reference value for our study today. The big philosophical background of the "double evidence method" is actually what Wang Guowei said: "The things in the world are not enough to know the song, and the non-song is not enough to know the whole." The concepts of "penetration" and "profundity" should not be outdated at any time.
Editor-in-Charge: Shanshan Peng
Proofreader: Ding Xiao