Author: Song Hongbing (Professor, College of State Studies, Chinese Min University)
From the end of the Qing Dynasty to the beginning of the Republic of China, the study of legal scholars showed a momentum of revival. Zhang Taiyan, Liang Qichao, Mai Menghua, Yan Fu, and others all defended and justified the legalists, and all agreed to varying degrees with the historical contributions and practical reference significance of the legalists. With the historical notoriety of the Dharma family for more than two thousand years, it has gradually been removed and replaced by a positive image of being energetic, striving for governance, advocating justice and the rule of law, and striving for prosperity and strength. Undoubtedly, the evolutionary view of history is one of the fundamental theoretical bases for the legalists to get rid of historical notoriety.
China's ancient society since the Han Dynasty has adhered to the historical concept of "three generations" as the "golden age", advocating that there was once a beautiful era under the leadership of the holy king, and the realistic ideal is not to look forward, but to "go to the king Yao Shun, and then make the customs pure", returning to the three generations of politics of benevolent government and rule by virtue. The change of Zhou Qin not only did not have the slightest progressive significance, but also because of the harsh punishment of the Qin government, he did not understand the principle of "taking against the grain and obeying it", did not know the principle of "immediately winning the world, ruling the world under the horse", and did not carry out indoctrination, resulting in the death of the second emperor. The doctrine of the Fa and the criticism of "Violent Qin" are just like twin sisters, naturally one. Very few scholars were willing to acknowledge that the centralized county system initiated by the Qin Dynasty was of positive and progressive significance, and since the Song Dynasty, the scholars were more even criticized for Han and Tang politics. The theoretical consequence of this is that the doctrine of the Legalists is mainly for criticism, and its tragic lack of grace will always be the negative teaching material of Confucian benevolent government and moral governance. The Dharma cannot speak of any historical contribution at all.
However, since the late Qing Dynasty, Chinese intellectual circles have gradually accepted the theory of social evolution imported from the West, acknowledging that social evolution has developed from low to high, showing obvious stages. Under this logic, the change of Zhou Qin evolved from the dispute between "feudalism" and "counties" in the ancient Chinese context into a key historical step in the evolution of the low-level social stage to the high-level social stage. Both the doctrine of the Law and the politics of the Qin Dynasty gained positive historical significance in this historical process. The Legalists have changed from the negative teaching materials of Confucian benevolence and moral governance to an important school of thought that promotes the process of history, and they have directly participated in the political practice of promoting historical progress, and have made major historical contributions.
Yan Fu took inspiration from Zhen Kesi's thought, believing that the stage of social evolution should be three stages of "totem", "patriarchy" and "state", he lamented that China's patriarchal society lasted too long and failed to enter the "militaristic society" as soon as possible, and he distinguished between the low-level "patriarchal society" and the high-level "militaristic society". The "socialism" and "nationalism" mentioned by Liang Qichao are also in the evolutionary logic of Zhen Kesi's "patriarchal society" and "militaristic society". Chang Yansheng's view of biological history applies Spencer's theory of social organisms to the analysis of human society, believing that human society has gone through four stages: family, tribe, nation and nation. The national stage is the highest stage of the evolution of human society and the largest organic group. Chen Qitian distinguished feudal politics, monarchy, and democratic politics from the form of the political system. Even Xiao Gongquan distinguished between the development stages of "tribal society", "feudal world", "authoritarian world" and democratic society. Using the theory of social evolution to observe Chinese history, there have been various forms of social stage theory, and the former stage contains the motivation and tendency to evolve to the latter stage. It is in the logic of this social evolution that the Legalists have achieved unprecedented liberation, and the historical stigma of the Legalists has gradually given way to the merits of promoting historical progress.
In this process, both Yan Fu and Guo Moruo had hesitated. When Yan Fu mentioned the transformation of "feudalism" and "counties" at the time of Zhou Qin, on the one hand, he believed that the "great unification" political system pioneered by Shang Martin, Qin Shi Huang, and Li Si had the "autocratic" color of suppressing civil rights, and could not like it in any case; on the other hand, he realized from Zhen Kesi's theory of social evolution that "Shang Martingale and Li Siqi benefited China infinitely." To make feudalism without destruction is to make the last stream of China the same. Those who resist the rule of the three generations of anti-Huai know it" (Yan Fu: "Social Interpretation"). If there had been no legalists and the Qin government to open up the political pattern of "great unification," China would have been torn apart, and there would have been no longer a historical map and a political culture of "great unification" that lasted for more than two thousand years without interruption. Yan Fu also agreed with the historical merits of the Legalists at the level of social evolution, although in his personal position he would have determined that the historical Doctrine of Jurisprudence was not worth advocating as an "authoritarian" doctrine. Of course, after the Xinhai Revolution, his political stance and ideological concepts have undergone certain changes, and he has embraced Shen Hanzhi's learning and emphasized its practical value.
Guo Moruo also had wavering and hesitation on the issue of how to deal with the Fa. On the one hand, based on the five-stage theory of socialism of historical materialism, he agreed that the early legalists were state-based and upwardly developing ideological theories; on the other hand, he criticized the concept that the Shenhan doctrine was influenced by Taoism and formed the concept of "technique", thus concluding that its ideological nature was monarchical. The early jurists and the study of Shen Han are both legal scholars, so how can we kick the study of Shen Han out of the five-stage theory of social development, only recognize the historical progress of the early legalists, and at the same time criticize the study of Shen Han? Then it must be concluded that Shen Hanzhixue no longer plays any historical progressive role, but is a kind of slavery system of "returning to the light". Guo Moruo deliberately distinguished between the pre-legalists and the Shen Hanzhi, deliberately distinguished between the state standard and the monarchical position, and disregarded the historical progressive significance of the consistency of the inner thinking of the early jurists and the Shen Hanzhixue, and the root cause of all this lies in the contradiction between the social evolutionary theory of social evolution presented in the five-stage theory of social development and its "people-oriented" position.
Hou Wailu, Lü Zhenyu and others recognized the historical contributions of the legalists, including Shen Han, and clearly pointed out that the concept of "miserable and widowhood" based on the Confucian position was unfair and justified the name of the legalists, but at the same time pointed out that the significance of the legalists' doctrine was only a historical contribution, and did not mean any positive value to the realpolitik of the twentieth century. In any case, the historical reputation of the Dharma, liberated from the tyrannical criticism of the ancient Confucian position under the idea of social evolution, has won unprecedented praise. Of course, this process varies from stage of thought to thinker. On the whole, modern scholarship has gone through a process from a critique of traditional or Western democratic positions to an evolutionary theory of recognition of the historical contributions of Qin and jurists.
There is no doubt that the acceptance of the "evolutionary view of history" in modern Chinese academic circles is an ideological event that accepts the Western concept of modernity. Intriguingly, in ancient China since the Han Dynasty, the Dharma has been criticized and excluded under the Confucian standard of "good and bad", and has not been able to turn over for more than two thousand years. Once exposed to the evolutionary view of history with a strong modern conception, the Legalists magically gained historical progress in the Chinese intellectual circles, coupled with the practical need to build a nation-state to resist the humiliation of the great powers, the historical notoriety of the Legalists was gradually washed away in the twentieth century, which was unimaginable in ancient China, where Confucianism was the ideology. To some extent, it can be said that the revival of the Dharma in modern China is itself an event of modernity. As for the "good or bad" of the Legalists, the revival of the Legalists in modern China and what it means for China's modernity are all ideological topics worth pondering.
Guangming Daily ( 2020.04.04.07 edition)