A Critical Biography of the Academic Thought of Qian Mu

Author: Wang Xuequn
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 1998-08-01
Features:
Excerpt:
Introduction Qian Mu, originally named Enrong, styled Binsi, changed his name to Mu in the first year of the Republic (1912). He was born on the ninth day of the sixth month in the twenty-first year of the Guangxu reign of the Qing Dynasty (July 30, 1895) and died on August 30, 1990. He was a renowned modern historian, thinker, and educator in China. With his profound knowledge, he established a unique cultural historical system, occupying an important position in the historiography of the 20th century. Qian Mu was diligent throughout his life, well-versed in the Four Books and Five Classics, and wrote extensively, with research spanning various fields of traditional culture, but primarily focused on historiography. His historiography included history (primarily general history, historical theory, and historical methods), academic thought, and culture, and he made contributions in all three areas. Academic thought was the core of Qian Mu's scholarship, serving as the main thread of his academic pursuits. He innovated in Confucian classics, metaphysics, Buddhism, Neo-Confucianism, and the academic thought of the Qing Dynasty. In Confucian classics, he traced the history of pre-Qin academic thought to reveal the fundamental spirit of Confucian classics, which was the awakening of the commoner class, and organized the Confucian and Mohist schools as the axis to establish an interactive academic system of Confucian classics. Regarding Laozi, after research, he identified Laozi as three individuals, with the merging of these three into one beginning with the Records of the Grand Historian. As for the Tao Te Ching, he inferred the historical context of the book from its theories, the development of pre-Qin thought, and linguistic and textual evidence, proving it to be a work from the late Warring States period. From a historian's perspective, he grasped the unification of the Hundred Schools from a dynamic angle, believing that although the unification began in the pre-Qin period, it was completed during the Qin and Han dynasties, represented as a process where Confucianism, as embodied by the Transmission of the Changes and the Doctrine of the Mean, played a major role. Qian Mu's approach to Confucian classics, like his approach to the Hundred Schools, was rooted in historiography, blending the differences between the school of Confucian classics and the school of ancient and modern texts. He emphasized the origins of Confucian classics, stressing that Confucian classics were not referred to as "jings" (classics) in the pre-Qin period but emerged in the Han Dynasty, with the "Six Classics" also being the work of Han Confucians. He sought to restore the historical context of Confucius and the "Six Classics," aiming to break down the barriers between the school of Confucian classics and the school of ancient and modern texts. He divided the development of Confucian classics into five periods: the Han Dynasty, the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, the Sui, Tang, and Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties, and studied their characteristics in different periods, outlining the trajectory of their development. He summarized the spirit of Confucian classics as humanism, emphasis on history, unity of heaven and man, application of Confucian classics to practical life, and education, and based on this spirit, he elaborated on the Confucian method that neither textual research nor principle could be neglected. The study of the Book of Changes and the Four Books was also an important part of his Confucian research. He developed a new interpretive framework for the Book of Changes and the Four Books by combining textual research with principle. Additionally, he revealed the internal connections between the Four Books and described the evolution of their principles, highlighting their position in the history of Confucian classics. Qian Mu also had distinctive insights into metaphysics and Buddhism. He revealed the spirit of metaphysics as "the awakening of the individual self" and primarily studied the thought of three schools of six masters: Wang Bi, He Yan, Ji Kang, Ruan Ji, Xiang Xiu, and Guo Xiang, tracing the origins, development, and transformations of metaphysics. Regarding Buddhism, he did not reject it outright but conducted detailed research on Buddhist texts, the introduction and spread of Buddhism in China, and its development and transformations, pointing out that the spread and development of Buddhism in China was essentially a process of sinicization, highlighting the inclusiveness of Chinese culture and its strong vitality. Qian Mu also highly esteemed Neo-Confucianism, calling it "the pursuit of the great self." He believed that the Neo-Confucians of the Song and Ming dynasties were commoner Confucians, returning to the style of pre-Qin Confucianism in terms of teacher-student relationships, scholarship, and governance. Just as pre-Qin Confucians integrated the Hundred Schools, expanding Confucianism, the greatest contribution of Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism lay in taking Confucianism as the core to integrate Buddhism and Taoism, forming a new Confucianism. Based on this overall understanding, he connected Neo-Confucianism from a historiographical perspective, revealing its origins, development, and transformations, blending the supposed absolute opposition between the (Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism) and (Lu-Wang Mindology). The study of Zhu Xi's academic thought was the core of Neo-Confucianism. He compared Zhu Xi to Confucius, highlighting Zhu Xi's position in the history of Chinese academic thought after Confucius. He then studied Zhu Xi from academic, philosophical, and methodological perspectives, revealing the characteristics of Zhu Xi as a great Confucian and a polymath, embodying the spirit of studying Zhu from Zhu's own works. Qian Mu also explored Wang Yangming's academic thought, affirming the value of his ideas in solving the problems left by Song Dynasty Neo-Confucianism, such as the conflict between Zhu and Lu and the tension between Confucianism and Buddhism, which he largely resolved. The academic thought of the Qing Dynasty was a field where Qian Mu made significant contributions to the history of academic thought. He called Qing scholarship "the development of national spirit" and "the recognition of material science." His research on Qing scholarship focused on its origins and the development and transformations of its academic thought. Postscript: I began my research on Qian Binsi's academic thought in early 1993, thanks to Professor Guo Qiyong of Wuhan University, who introduced me to the academic world of Qian Binsi. The published Biography of Qian Mu is the fruit of our collaboration. Its publication and positive reception are due to him. Due to time constraints, some issues were not thoroughly explored, so I began writing a monograph on Qian Binsi's academic thought. After completing the draft, I was occupied with other projects. In February last year, I was invited by Professor Dai Yi to contribute to the Biography of Famous Chinese Scholars of the 20th Century series, writing the Biography of Qian Mu's Academic Thought, which led me to revise and perfect the draft into this book. In addition to the introduction, conclusion, appendix, and postscript, this book is divided into nine chapters,，、、、、、（）、。 The outline of this book is designed based on the characteristics and logic of Qian Binsi's historical research. His historiography mainly includes three parts: academic thought history, history (primarily historical theory, methods, and categories), and culture. The logic of his historiography is to first conduct a comprehensive study of history to grasp general historical theory and methods, then lay history out in a systematic manner, studying various fields of history, primarily academic thought history, and finally return to culture. In his view, when studying history, history is merely the surface, while culture is the content, and only within culture does history ultimately complete itself. Among the histories, he devoted the most effort and made the most significant contributions to academic thought history, particularly the history of the Qing Dynasty. Based on this, this book, in addition to exploring academic exchanges, thought origins, and works, centers on academic thought history, with the history of the Qing Dynasty divided into two chapters, and concludes with the study of history and culture, largely reflecting Qian Binsi's historical characteristics and approach. Compared to the Biography of Qian Mu, this book has the following features: , different structure. In addition to the study of history and culture, there are seven chapters on academic thought history, indicating that this book is centered on academic thought history, reflecting the characteristics of Qian Binsi's historiography. Second, it studies the sources and development of Qian Binsi's thought. His academic thought sources are attributed to the late Qing and early Republic period, including the new historiography, the integration of Han and Song Confucian classics, the revival of the Hundred Schools, and national essenceism, all of which were his thought sources. The development of his thought is a progression from literature to Confucian classics and the Hundred Schools, and finally to historiography. Third, it positions Qian Binsi's scholarship in the academic history of the late Qing and early Republic period, with a focus on comparisons with his contemporaries, highlighting his cultural historiography. Since his cultural historiography is centered on academic thought history, it particularly emphasizes his contributions in fields such as Confucian classics, the Hundred Schools, metaphysics, Buddhism, Neo-Confucianism, and Qing scholarship. Additionally, it points out the shortcomings of his academic thought, such as the overemphasis on emotional factors in historiography and relying solely on textual research. Fourth, it introduces the basic content, publication, and revision of Qian Binsi's major works, as well as the current state of academic research on him and provides comments. Lastly, I express my gratitude to Professor Dai Yi, Professor Cao Helong, Ms. Liu Zhuoying, Professor Fang Delin, and Brother Daha for giving me the opportunity to publish this book. I also thank my parents, wife, and brother for their long-standing support and assistance. It should be noted that my research is preliminary, and there may be shortcomings in the book, which I welcome criticism and correction. Wang Xuequn, Beijing, Anhuaxili, January 1, 1998