A Three-Hundred-Year Academic History of China (Vol. 1 & 2)

Author: Qian Mu
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 1997-12-01
Features: A History of Modern Three Hundred Years of Chinese Scholarship is a seminal work by Professor Qian Mu on the academic history of the Qing Dynasty and one of his most important scholarly achievements. The book narrates the thoughts of 51 academic figures, highlighting the Han scholars' concerns with the rise and fall of the empire. It is well-documented and meticulously researched, standing alongside Liang Qichao's as parallel pillars in the study of Qing Dynasty academic history. Its influence on modern Chinese scholarship is profound, and contemporary scholars studying Qing Dynasty academia cannot afford to ignore Professor Qian's research findings.
Author's Self-Introduction: In the autumn of the 20th year of the Republic of China, I began teaching at Peking University and lectured on the academic history of the past three hundred years to my students, taking notes for reference. Five years later, I managed to complete the work. I believe that modern scholars often divide Han and Song studies into separate domains, unaware that without understanding the Song School, one cannot truly grasp the Han School, let alone resolve the controversies of the late Han Dynasty. Therefore, I began with an introductory essay, briefly summarizing the essence of Song Dynasty scholarship. Since the Song School emphasized practical governance and the illumination of the Dao, its ultimate goal was political discourse, hence the following discussion on the Donglin movement. During the late Ming and early Qing period, scholars' research often carried the legacy of the Donglin school. Li Yu followed the footsteps of Wang Yangming, Zhang Xuecheng inherited the tradition of Cheng Yi, Huang Zongxi avoided deep discussions on the mind-nature, while Wang Shouren criticized both the Song and Ming schools, yet all were deeply influenced by their teachings. Those who remained loyal to their heritage and aspired to practical governance were indeed the elders of the old state, standing in stark contrast to the rigorous scholarship of the Qianlong and Jiaqing eras.
Excerpt: The distinction between compiling and writing, between scholarship and effort, further extends to the difference between compilation and writing. At the time, Han scholars admired the note-taking of Wang Shouren, Gu Yanwu, and Yan Fu, while Wang Shouren argued that note-taking was indispensable for modern scholars. However, note-taking alone cannot constitute a work. As recorded in Literary and Historical Criticism, Volume 3 of the Outer Essays of Literary and Historical Records, note-taking and writing are, from a historical perspective, akin to the two schools of compilation and writing. Wang Shouren cited examples: Ban Gu's History of the Han Dynasty was a work of writing, while Liu Xin and Jia Yi's Records of the Han Dynasty were compilations. Sima Guang's Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government was a work of writing, while Liu Yuxi and Fan Chengda's Extended Drafts were compilations. These two schools were complementary rather than contradictory. However, those engaged in compilation must understand the essence of writing, ensuring that the materials compiled can serve as a foundation for writing, allowing for the flexibility and creativity of the writer. Moreover, they must recognize that their own compilations and writings draw from different sources, and they should not mock the looseness of writing for its lack of rigor or the uniformity of compilation for its uneven focus. That is the way to do it.
Letter to Mr. Huang Dayu, Outer Essays of Literary and Historical Records, Volume 3. Wang Shouren elaborated on this idea in the Teaching of Books in the Inner Essays of Literary and Historical Records, Volume 1, saying in part: "Before the Three Dynasties, there were established methods for annotation but no fixed names for writing; after the Three Dynasties, there were fixed names for writing but no established methods for annotation." In the Teaching of Books. The Book of Changes states: "Divination is round and divine, while hexagrams are square and wise." I once borrowed this meaning to say that the records of ancient and modern times should be like the roundness and divinity of divination, while annotations should be like the squareness and wisdom of hexagrams. "Wisdom preserves the past, while divinity knows the future." Annotations aim to preserve the past without omission, hence their fixed form and square wisdom; writing seeks to inspire the future through selection and rejection, hence its flexibility and round wisdom. The Rites of Zhou contains 360 posts, covering the intricacies of heaven and earth, yet no official position was dedicated to writing. Thus, the legacy that lasts through the ages requires the right person to bring it to fruition—only the sages and wise can truly understand the profound essence of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors to achieve this.
In the Teaching of Books. Wang Shouren's argument, though rooted in history, can be applied to all scholarship. Therefore, it is said: "Round wisdom and square wisdom must not be neglected since the dawn of recorded history." In the Teaching of Books.
Regarding the Confucian classics of the time, compilation and collection, uncovering hidden truths, were indeed akin to preserving the past with wisdom. Even the study of names, terms, and interpretations, as well as the examination of rites and institutions, ultimately aimed to preserve the past with wisdom. These were tasks of annotation and compilation, yet they could not be equated with writing. The inadequacy of compilation and annotation to constitute writing is the same as the inadequacy of effort to constitute scholarship. Scholarship cannot exist without effort, just as writing cannot exist without compilation and annotation. Compilation and annotation serve as the foundation for writing, and Wang Shouren did not intend to criticize them. However, those engaged in compilation and annotation often failed to recognize that their work was merely a means to an end, instead believing it to be the pinnacle of achievement. This misidentification of effort as scholarship has led to the distortion of the true essence of scholarship.
Wang Shouren also stated: "I have always believed that effort can be borrowed, but the spirit cannot. If the spirit can be borrowed, then there would be no distinction between the wise and the foolish in ancient and modern times."
Letter to Zhou Yongqing on Academic Discourse, Outer Essays of Literary and Historical Records, Volume 3.
Compilation and annotation rely solely on effort, while writing and creation depend on wisdom, which Wang Shouren called "discernment," rooted in the human spirit. Yet scholars cannot long remain at the level of effort without striving for the achievement of scholarship, so compilation and annotation must ultimately lead to writing and creation. Therefore, Wang Shouren also said: "The evolution of the Confucian classics must ultimately enter history."
Letter to Wang Longquan, Outer Essays of Literary and Historical Records, Volume 3. Scholars who seek truth must reach the pinnacle of expression, while those who compile must achieve the heights of creation. The Confucian classics preserve the past, while history opens the future. Here, "history" should be understood in the context of creation. Based on this insight, Wang Shouren placed great emphasis on literary expression in his discussions on scholarship. He said: "The saying goes: 'The highest virtue is to establish the Dao, the next is to establish merit, and the next is to establish words.' Writing, too, has these three distinctions: those who uphold the Dao are the sages of writing; those who focus on textual criticism are the builders of merit; those who excel in literary expression are the sages of words."
Letter to Shen Fengchi on Academic Discourse, Outer Essays of Literary and Historical Records, Volume 3. He also said: "Note-taking cannot constitute a work. If it is considered effort, then one must further refine their literary expression. Confucius and Mencius spoke of the Dao, yet it was never divorced from literature." However, what is achieved is the Dao, while what remains is effort. Scholarship is the path from effort to the Dao. Literature is the means to express one's scholarly insights at different times; note-taking is the practice of refining one's understanding to advance toward the Dao.
Letter to Lin Xiuzi. He also said: "The ancients expressed their scholarship as literature, with the aim of illuminating the Dao. Was there ever a distinction between textual criticism and classical literature?" He added in a note: "In this world, there are only a limited number of scholars, and textual criticism is merely a part of scholarship, not a separate discipline."
Letter to Wu Xushi, Outer Essays of Literary and Historical Records, Volume 3. Scholars who seek to express themselves through writing only grasp the essence of books, while those who specialize in research delve into the minutiae of names and terms. Both contribute to the greater Dao, like the leftover grains of a field. Yet they cannot achieve harmony because they are divided by boundaries and criticize each other.
Letter to Shen Fengchi on Academic Discourse.
Expressing oneself is the same as writing, and research is akin to annotation and compilation. All of this reflects Wang Shouren's emphasis on literary and historical studies as a means to correct the biases and shortcomings of Confucian scholars of the time.