Sixty years of reading history and experiencing the world

Author: Ho Ping-ti
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-07-01
Features: The Sixty Years of Reading History and Observing the World is a meticulously written memoir by Ho Ping-ti, accompanied by personal letters and academic evaluations, detailing his insights and experiences over the past six decades. It reflects the intellectual journey of young scholars studying abroad in their pursuit of knowledge, opening up new perspectives, and integrating Chinese and Western cultures. It stands as a glorious page in the history of modern and contemporary education and academia, holding significant legacy value. Due to his primary research focus in recent decades on certain perplexing issues in pre-Qin thought that have puzzled scholars for over two millennia, the writing of this book was often interrupted. As a result, the chapters vary in form and organization. To provide readers with more types of historical materials, some chapters include additional sections such as "Special Recollections" or "Appendices," and even appendices after "Special Recollections." For example, in the chapter "Family Background and Father's Education," the main text is followed by both "Special Recollection" and "Appendix." "Special Recollection 1: The Two Pillars of the Ho Family" aims to narrate and analyze the limitations of even the most successful members of the Ho family (clan) in supporting and assisting their relatives. This "Special Recollection" is then used as a type of example in the "Appendix" to strengthen the critique of the excessive exaggeration of family functions and the overly negative view of the imperial examination system's role in promoting social circulation among Western scholars studying Chinese society, family, and the imperial examination system in recent decades. As an academic memoir, this book does not shy away from important academic debates. The "Upper Part" (domestic section) and "Lower Part" (overseas section) of this academic memoir differ significantly in content and style. This is mainly because the "Upper Part" represents the "receptive" stage of Ho Ping-ti's intellectual journey, while the "Lower Part" represents the "contributive" period after completing his academic studies. Due to the revolutionary changes in education policies and systems in mainland China, the focus of recollections and evaluations in the "Upper Part"—the academic atmosphere of Tsinghua and Peking Universities in the 1930s and 1940s, the level of specialization in the entrance exams for graduate studies, and the requirements for English writing—was aimed at exploring standards for the future development of general education in the Chinese-speaking world. Chronologically, the "Lower Part" covers the past half-century. The first two chapters detail each stage of Ho Ping-ti's doctoral work at Columbia University, with particular emphasis on the two-hour oral examinations in postdoctoral subjects (British History and Western European History). This is because these exams, long regarded as the most challenging part of the doctoral program, not only reflect the depth and breadth of knowledge but also represent a topic rarely discussed by humanities and social science students since Hu Shi. The remaining chapters are largely similar, outlining the experiences and achievements in teaching, selecting schools, and researching Chinese history. However, the "Lower Part" is not a traditional academic chronology; instead, it intersperses discussions on different academic climates, inter-institutional competition, scholarly exchanges both within and outside Ho Ping-ti's field, and debates. This is done to avoid the monotony and dryness of academic chronicles. Reading this book not only allows readers to absorb Ho Ping-ti's accumulated insights in historical research but also enables them to relive the tumultuous changes in China over the past century through his resilient and extraordinary memory. It is indeed a thought-provoking work.
In the 1930s, Tsinghua University's Department of History had already been established for the last four or five years of the old system (1925-1929). Tsinghua College had previously founded the Institute of Chinese Studies, an extraordinary institution with extremely rigorous selection criteria and a very small number of faculty members. In the field of Chinese history, the three masters—Liang Qichao (1873-1929), Wang Guowei (1877-1927), and Chen Yinque (1890-1969)—were already "wealthy enough to rival a nation." The institute demanded an exceptionally high and specialized foundation in Chinese studies, a rarity in both ancient and modern times. However, as Tsinghua College was about to be transformed into a four-year national university, with the departments of literature, science, law, and engineering planning to establish a comprehensive research institute, the Tsinghua Institute of Chinese Studies, lacking an undergraduate foundation and only accepting specialized scholars in Chinese studies, was in irreconcilable conflict with the university's overall development plan. Adding to this, the suicide of Wang Guowei (1927) and the prolonged illness of Liang Qichao led to the permanent discontinuation of the Tsinghua Institute of Chinese Studies in the spring of 1929.
In the reformed Department of History and Department of Chinese Literature, Chen Yinque was the last surviving master of the Institute of Chinese Studies. Due to this historical connection and the recent decades of intense international scholarly interest in Chen Yinque's contributions to literature and history, numerous papers and a dedicated collection of essays have been published, leading many scholars to consider Chen Yinque as the core of the so-called "Tsinghua Historical School" (if the term is appropriate). In reality, the Department of History at Tsinghua in the 1930s was not centered around Chen Yinque. Since the spring of 1929, when Mr. Jiang Tingfu was appointed as the head of the Department of History from Nankai University, the faculty, curriculum, and research direction of the department underwent significant reforms. Unlike the history departments of Peking University, Yanjing University, and Fu Ren University at the time, Mr. Jiang emphasized the importance of foreign history (Western, Japanese, and Russian history). In the June 1, 1934, issue of Tsinghua Weekly's "Guidance Special Issue," he clearly stated: "In recent years, the History Department has offered an average of 22 courses per year, with an equal distribution of Chinese and foreign history."
In 1980, during an interview, I provided the following brief recollection of the Department of History at Tsinghua in the 1930s:
At that time, Professor Chen Yinque excelled in textual research, Professor Lei Haizong focused on broad synthesis, and the department head, Mr. Jiang Tingfu, specialized in modern Chinese diplomatic history, emphasizing both textual research and synthesis, with a stronger bias toward synthesis. Mr. Jiang believed that historical research must be grounded in basic social sciences, encouraging history students to take courses such as Introduction to Economics, Principles of Sociology, and Modern Political Systems. Within the broad field of history, he advocated studying Western history first, adopting the strengths of Western historical methods and perspectives, and then analyzing and synthesizing major topics in Chinese history. Looking back, in 1930s China, only Tsinghua's history department combined history with social sciences; Western and Chinese history; textual research and synthesis. While Tsinghua's policy was far-sighted and not (hasty in seeking success), not all students followed this path. I consider myself one who truly did.
Mr. Jiang Tingfu's main measures in reforming and developing the Department of History at Tsinghua included four aspects:
1. First, recruiting Professor Lei Haizong from Wuhan to lead the foundational course in Chinese General History. Professor Lei was undoubtedly the most profound scholar in Europe's medieval and ecclesiastical history in China at that time. After graduating from Tsinghua College in 1922, he completed his doctorate in history and philosophy at the University of Chicago in five years. Upon returning to China in 1927, he soon began teaching cultural morphology history at Central University and Jinling Women's University, attempting to establish a macro-theoretical framework for Chinese general history. Lei Haizong's Chinese General History sparked great interest and curiosity among students but was not without controversy within the department.
2. Utilizing the Tsinghua Institute of Studies to cultivate historical research talents for the country, some of whom could meet the needs of the Tsinghua Department of History. The greatest attraction of the institute was that if students' courses and theses reached a certain level, Tsinghua would fund their further studies abroad. Based on existing research resources, graduate students could choose either the history of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Qing dynasties or one of the other subjects as their main field of study, with a very wide range of options in Western history courses. Below is a table listing the graduation years and thesis topics of Tsinghua's historical department graduate students.
(Note: Shao Xunzheng, Wang Xinzong, and Zhang Dechang were respectively sent to Paris, Tokyo, and London for further studies and returned to Tsinghua as professors after completing their degrees. Although Zhu Yanfeng was disappointed upon graduation, he later won a scholarship under the Sino-British Education Commission. Professor Yao Weiyuan later taught at Wuhan University, becoming one of the pillars of medieval Chinese history at Wuhan University alongside Professor Tang Changru.)
3. Another method Mr. Jiang used to cultivate the talent needed for Tsinghua's history department was to grant research assistants about three years to prepare new courses. By the fall of 1934, when I enrolled, Wu had already been promoted to assistant professor and was officially teaching the new course on Ming history. He also assisted Mr. Jiang in guiding senior students and graduate research on Qing dynasty institutions and domestic affairs. When I enrolled, Gu Ji Guang was already a teacher but had no opportunity to participate in teaching on the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Qing history. After serving as an assistant and teacher for five years, Yang Fengqi used Tsinghua's vacation leave to specialize in Italian history at the University of Rome.
4. Mr. Jiang Tingfu and Mr. Liu Chonghuang also utilized the Tsinghua scholarship exams (also known as the Sino-American Education Commission) to train historical talent for the country and Tsinghua. For example, in the second Tsinghua scholarship exam held in 1934, assistant professor Yang Shaozhen passed the American History section. This year, just after graduating with excellent results, Xia Nai also wanted to take the American History section, but since he had not completed two years of research studies, he could only qualify for the exam with a recommendation from the department. At the time, Mr. Liu Chonghuang was acting as the department head and only allowed Xia Nai to take the archaeology section. Unintentionally, this temporary "measure" determined Xia Nai's (1910-1985) glorious mission in life—to make archaeology in New China one of the most fruitful and celebrated disciplines in humanities and social sciences, earning worldwide praise. It must be noted that Xia Nai had originally been studying Qing history under Mr. Jiang Tingfu. His undergraduate thesis, "The Problem of Land Tax in the Yangtze River Provinces Before and After the Taiping Rebellion," was published in Tsinghua Journal a few months later. To cultivate experts in Russian history, the fourth Tsinghua scholarship exam (1936) included a "Southeast European History" section (labeled as "Russian History" to avoid drawing too much attention). The winner was Zhu Qingyong, a fifth-year student (graduated in the summer of 1933).
After several years of Mr. Jiang's reforms, by the time I enrolled, the seven full professors, two associate professors (equivalent to assistant professors at the time), and one instructor in the Department of History had established a substantial curriculum (see page 71).
Additionally, some specialized courses on China were offered by scholars from other institutions as adjunct lecturers. In 1934, Qian Mu taught Three Centuries of Chinese Academic History and Tao Xisheng taught Chinese Social History, among others. These courses were adjusted annually, but the new arrival Tan Qixiang's Historical Evolution of Chinese Geography had already begun to receive praise and became a regularly offered specialized course alongside Zhang Xinglang's History of Sino-Western Relations, which was already a staple course.
In the last few months of his life, Mr. Jiang Tingfu, at his alma mater Columbia, evaluated the reforms of the Tsinghua Department of History in the following oral remarks:
"If it weren't for the outbreak of war, I firmly believe that if we had continued along this path, Tsinghua's Department of History would have become the only and truly outstanding history department in the country within ten or twenty years."
My colleagues often exchanged views on the political and social science concepts I advocated. Fortunately, the president and the academic council agreed with our approach. Therefore, Tsinghua developed a curriculum suitable for Chinese students. If someone were to compare Tsinghua in 1929 with Tsinghua in 1937, they would certainly find significant changes in the curriculum. I believe this was a great contribution to Chinese education, and I have always been happy to have played a small part in it.
The courses, talent, and research orientation of Tsinghua's Department of History in the 1930s seemed more balanced, reasonable, and comprehensive than those of other universities in the country. The curriculum model was somewhat similar to that of top universities in the United States, such as Harvard and Columbia, but on a smaller scale. The proportion of Chinese history courses at Tsinghua was higher than the proportion of American history courses at American universities, because the United States and Western Europe shared cultural roots, while China and the West had fundamental differences in history and culture. What mattered most was that Tsinghua firmly adopted the orientation of Western liberal arts general education. Tsinghua's policy of combining social sciences, Western and Chinese history, textual research and synthesis, and inclusiveness had already begun to show results just before the outbreak of the 1979 War. Without the interference of war and ideological fragmentation, it should have borne abundant fruits in the second half of the 20th century.
The strengths of Tsinghua's Department of History in the 1930s were partially highlighted in a meeting of members of the Academia Sinica's humanities group and heads of related institutions in Taipei on the afternoon of July 3, 2000. A few minutes before the tea break, Academician Ding Bangxin strongly advocated the establishment of a new institute from the existing humanities institutions of the Academia Sinica to further specialize research. After the tea break, Academician Lin Yusheng spoke, saying that original contributions must be based on extensive knowledge and tools, and innovation depends on a sound tradition. Academician Lin's remarks led me to propose a counterargument to Academician Ding Bangxin. I first cited the courses I took and self-studied during my sophomore and junior years at Tsinghua—Lei Haizong's thought-provoking macro-Chinese General History, Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (read independently before officially enrolling), Professor Kong Fan's European Medieval History, Professor Chen Yinque's Tang Dynasty History (writing a thesis instead of taking an exam), Professor Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy, Professor Chen Zhi Mai's Modern Political Systems, Professor Liu Chonghuang's 19th Century European History (exam plus research-based reading reports), several pre-World War I diplomatic history classics studied under the guidance of Professor Liu—plus two years of German and supplementary reading of German diplomatic archives—illustrating that courses with such different natures could not even satisfy the insatiable curiosity of young scholars even if the current humanities institutions of the Academia Sinica were combined into a single school, let alone the absence of masters like Chen and Feng. Without the joy of roaming through the past and present at a young age, how could one have the necessary courage to persist in tackling the challenges of Chinese history for a lifetime! After the tea break, Academician Ding Bangxin was not present, but most of the colleagues present agreed with my view, and some even explicitly told me, "You should say this more often."