National and Academic: Intellectual Debates on National Studies in the Late Qing and Early Republic

Author: Luo Zhitian
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features: What is the study of Chinese classics? Does the study of Chinese classics hinder China's "path to the world"? How can the study of Chinese classics go global? These were major issues of concern and continuous debate among scholars and the academic community during the last two or three decades of the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China. Starting from the state and public efforts to preserve Chinese essence and the ensuing debates, to the reorganization of Chinese classics during the New Culture Movement, and then to the two major discussions on Chinese classics and the study of Chinese classics before and after the Northern Expedition, the process roughly evolved from preserving Chinese essence to reorganizing Chinese classics, and finally to denying that the study of Chinese classics was truly "scholarship." The most prominent thread in this process is the relationship between (broadly defined) scholarship and the nation. Although these discussions, all centered on scholarship, far exceeded the scope of "scholarship" itself, they formed a relatively broad intellectual debate involving widespread social participation. They reflected the perspectives of the time, which viewed "the study of Chinese classics" more from an ideological than an academic angle, projecting and articulating the common aspirations of many Chinese scholars in the early 20th century—the overall "revival" of China.
Excerpt: Distinguishing between "Kings' Learning" and the Study of Chinese Classics
Before the Wuxu Reform, Liang Qichao proposed the concept of "Kings' History," which provided these scholars with an interpretive direction. Deng Shi, Huang Jie, and others developed a theory of "Kings' Learning" based on this concept. However, Liang Qichao's "Kings' History" primarily referred to the overall Chinese historiography represented by the official histories of past dynasties, contrasting it with the yet-to-appear "People's History," leading to the conclusion that China had "no history." In contrast, the "Kings' Learning" of the essence-study school was one part of the existing "study of Chinese classics," corresponding to the entirety of scholarship. If one suppressed this while promoting the other, there was still the possibility of "revival." Dividing traditional scholarship into "Kings' Learning" and the "study of Chinese classics" and clarifying their praise or condemnation with the rhetorical device of the Spring and Autumn Annals was an attempt to reconstruct the Chinese scholarly tradition, still carrying a considerable degree of constructive meaning. However, because "Kings' Learning" drew inspiration from the "Kings' History" theory, which was primarily characterized by destruction, it could also lead to the conclusion that China had "no learning." This trend became increasingly clear after the close connection between scholarship and the "pragmatic" material level emerged.
In 1897, Liang Qichao stated: "There are Kings' History, National History, and People's History. The writing of People's History flourishes in the West, while in China it is nearly extinct. For two thousand years in China, whether official histories, chronological records, chronicles, biographies, annals of events, or imperial decrees and memorials, the majority are Kings' History. Works like the Tongdian, Tongzhi, Wenyian Tongkao, Tang Huizhao, and the Huizhao of the Han Dynasty are closer to National History, but their organization is still incomplete." Although there were secondary works like the Tongzhi that were relatively disregarded by the ancients and were closer to "National History," this statement nearly swept away most of China's major historical texts.
The meaning of Liang Qichao's "Kings' History" was that the compilers of history throughout the dynasties were not concerned with the strength of the nation or the livelihood of the people. "They merely compiled genealogies for the rulers of each dynasty: how to attack cities and seize land, how to gain prestige and establish dominance, how to consolidate the realm and prolong the lineage—as much as that." In his Discourse on Chinese History (1901) and New Historiography (1902), he no longer mentioned that China had anything close to "National History" in the past. Instead, he further developed the negative connotations of "Kings' History" and bluntly declared that China had "no history."