Chronicle of Xu Beihong's Life

Author: Wang Zhen, Compiler
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2006-12-01
Features: Wang Zhen sent his new manuscript, A Comprehensive Chronicle of Xu Beihong's Life, from Shanghai, asking me to write a preface. But how could it be easy to write a preface? I decided to read it first. After reading only a small part, I was deeply moved. It turned out that some "histories" we had long been familiar with were unreliable, some were false, and some true historical facts remained unknown. Many people have talked about their own or others' relationships with Mr. Xu Beihong, some out of malicious attacks, and others to boast about their friendship with celebrities. In reality, these were all fabricated lies. To harm others with lies is extremely vicious. Wang Zhen called it "malicious attacks," "fabricated lies," "newly fabricated lies," "old fabricated lies" (where "old fabricated lies" refer to lies from a decade or half a century ago, and "newly fabricated lies" refer to those from recent decades), "lies," "deceiving readers," and so on. Although the wording was harsh, it was the truth. A writer once said, "In the 1930s,××× wrote something like this in a letter." Wang Zhen simply replied, "Please show me the handwriting?" or "Where was this letter published?" The other party had no answer, as the letter never existed. Another writer claimed, "Zeng Jinke published a short article titled 'Preface to the Exhibition of Liu Haisu's European Tour Works' in The New Era," which included a passage saying, 'Both Liu Haisu and Xu Beihong, as students, benefited greatly from the guidance of a talented and appreciative teacher like Cai Yuanpei. Without his support, their artistic paths might have been entirely different.' The writer also said, 'This triggered a debate on the Chinese art scene that lasted for half a century.' However, Wang Zhen had a copy of the preface and confirmed that it did not contain the passage the writer claimed. The Xu-Liu debate was not caused by that statement. Therefore, Wang Zhen stated in the chronicle that the writer was merely using fabricated lies to embellish Liu Haisu and deceive readers. Another "master" claimed in 1988 that in November 1932, "Kang Youwei and others advised me not to debate with Xu Beihong." This was published in the Lion Art magazine in Taipei. Wang Zhen couldn't help but laugh upon seeing it. The chronicle notes, "This is truly absurd! Kang Youwei had passed away in March 1927 in Qingdao. How could he appear five years later to advise against the debate?" Indeed, with modern scientific standards, it seems impossible to bring back someone who had been dead for six years, but in the mouths of some "great authorities," it was possible. Isn't that terrifying? The issues mentioned above are not just academic problems; they are also very serious in academia. To base arguments without evidence or to overturn facts with empty words is a major taboo in scholarship, but such things are all too common. People are too busy today to have time for careful research or to consult sources, yet they still feel the need to comment or write articles. As a result, they resort to hearsay or casual talk, but listeners believe it, and the more it spreads, the more it becomes "history." Another type of problem is to chase shadows or bark at shadows, but it still gains momentum, and the truth is obscured. When we read officially published "histories," we are often deceived. In China, it is easy to be an authority or a big figure; as long as you dare to deceive and exaggerate, the bigger your lies, the higher your reputation. As Yan Fu said, "The character of the Chinese people and their lack of wisdom" (), and as Chen Yinque said, "officials deceive, and the people are foolish" (). Deception is easy. Lu Xun once lamented the "ignorant and weak people" but also said, "China has always been a federation of liars and rumor-mongers" (Lu Xun Complete Works, Volume 7, Correspondence). This problem is even more serious. Some people lie and spread rumors, others boast and deceive, while others believe them, and it only gets worse. As a result, the truth in China becomes increasingly scarce, and what fills the world are falsehoods and hypocrisy. The social atmosphere grows worse. However, China was once a country that valued "seeking truth and fostering sincerity." To purify the social atmosphere and "restore the customs to purity," we must commend loyalty and integrity, expose and condemn treachery and evil, and establish standards of right and wrong. This task falls to true scholars. Art is based on beauty, religion on goodness, and scholarship on truth. True scholars seek truth and reality, which differs from ordinary "scholars." Ordinary scholars lack the awareness to "seek" truth and reality, often blindly accepting others' claims without research, using ready-made "materials" without verification. Sometimes, they even base their research on false or incorrect materials, leading to inevitable errors in their conclusions. Therefore, the two essential qualities of a true scholar are "skepticism" and "verification." Skepticism means scrutinizing any conclusion to see if it is well-founded and whether the evidence is reliable. Verification means checking every detail to ensure absolute clarity, stopping only when the truth is fully established. Thus, one must speak with reason and support their claims with evidence. Of course, this is a laborious process and requires considerable expertise. It is not as easy as speaking randomly or as simple as relying on hearsay. After reading Wang Zhen's A Comprehensive Chronicle of Xu Beihong's Life, I deeply felt that he was a true scholar, never following the crowd and never blindly believing unfounded claims. He dared to expose self-promotion and fabrications, demonstrating the moral integrity and sense of responsibility of a true scholar. Wang Zhen's writings are meticulous, with every sentence backed by reliable evidence and original sources—a rare quality in today's era of. Reading his book is truly moving.
Opening the chronicle, the birth date of Xu Beihong was originally clear and seemed settled. For half a century, all books, papers, and articles introducing Xu Beihong had stated he was born on July 19, 1895. This was determined by a painter in the early 1960s in the book Xu Beihong (Series of Chinese Painters), and even Xu Beihong's family came to believe it. Even Wang Zhen himself, in his research on Xu Beihong a decade ago, adopted this view, and I included it as well. However, Wang Zhen eventually discovered that this claim had no basis. He found Xu Beihong's handwritten letters stating, "My birthday is the twenty-sixth day of the fifth lunar month" (June 18, 1895, Gregorian calendar), and Xu Beihong celebrated his birthday on the same date throughout his life. The July 5, 1945, Central Daily News published an article by Xu Zhongnian titled Celebrating Xu Beihong's 50th Birthday which stated, "The twenty-sixth day of the fifth lunar month marks Mr. Xu's 50th birthday" (referring to his age). This provided conclusive evidence. Almost all books claimed that in 1915 (or mistakenly 1914), Xu Beihong met the "president of Fudan University, Li Denghui." However, at that time, there was no Fudan University; it was called "Fudan Public School." Fudan University was not established until 1917, when the undergraduate program was launched and the school was renamed. In early 1916, Xu Beihong's life fell into dire straits, and he painted a horse to give to the "Aesthetic Bookstore." However, some books mistakenly wrote "Aesthetic Hall," and the Shanghai Publishing Dictionary even wrote "Aesthetic Library." In 1918, Xu Beihong met Cai Yuanpei through the introduction of Hualin. This is recorded in articles and books by Xu Beihong and Jiang Bivie. However, Liu Haisu claimed, "I introduced Xu to meet Mr. Cai Yuanpei." In reality, Liu Haisu had no interaction with Xu Beihong at that time, and Liu himself did not even know Cai Yuanpei, let alone introduce him. Almost all articles introducing Xu Beihong stated that in September 1929, Cai Yuanpei appointed Xu Beihong as the president of the Beijing Art Academy. However, Wang Zhen's research revealed that in October 1928, Xu Beihong accepted an invitation to become the president of the Beijing Art Academy of Peking University, based on newspaper reports at the time. Xu Beihong himself also stated in his 1950 article A Brief Overview of Beijing Painting in the Past Forty Years that, "In the autumn of 1928, I was invited by Li Shizeng to head the Beijing Art School. After a month, I transformed it into the Beijing Art Academy." Xu Beihong referred to the "Beijing Art School" as the abbreviation for the Beijing Art Academy of Peking University. At that time, Cai Yuanpei was not the president of Peking University, and Li Shizeng was serving as the state councilor and president of Peking University. Xu Beihong painted The Goddess of Mercy Scattering Flowers for Mei Lanfang. Luo Ninggong wrote a seven-line quatrain after seeing it, which Jiang Bivie recorded in My Life with Xu Beihong, a book widely cited. At first, this seemed unproblematic, but Wang Zhen found the article by Mei Lanfang's secretary, Xu Jituan, and Mei Shaowu's book My Father Mei Lanfang, which contained the same poem. Upon comparison, Jiang Bivie and others had made two mistakes. Although it was a minor issue, it demonstrated the seriousness with which Wang Zhen approached his research. Of course, Wang Zhen's book contains countless new materials and corrections to errors that had been mistaken as facts for decades. I do not need to repeat them here; readers can discover them in his book. Some might ask, "If Wang Zhen writes like this, won't he offend people?" Offending people depends on who you offend. A police officer arresting a thief will undoubtedly offend the thief, and a disciplinary committee punishing corrupt officials will offend them as well. Can we allow thieves and corrupt officials to run rampant? As for those with refinement, they "welcome criticism." Zheng Banqiao once said, "To criticize someone to the core is also exquisite." Of course, they would welcome such articles. If Wang Zhen had not written this way, he would have been wrong. As the Mencius states in the chapter "Lilou," "There are three kinds of disrespect to one's parents, the greatest being failing to have descendants." The specific explanation is: "Those who are disrespectful in three ways are those who blindly obey and bend to their parents' wishes, leading them into injustice. This is the first kind of disrespect." In other words, not correcting a parent's wrong words out of blind obedience, leading to disastrous consequences and placing the "parent" in an "unjust" position, is the greatest disrespect. If one corrects the error promptly, preventing disastrous consequences and ensuring the "parent" is correct and wise, that is true filial piety. The same principle applies to those with refinement and teachers. How can there be talk of offending people? I once wrote a preface for another book by Wang Zhen, mentioning how he had painstakingly searched for materials for decades, allowing us to now enjoy the ease of "following the map to find the treasure." But hearing him describe the hardships of researching materials makes one deeply moved. For example, a certain "master" in Shanghai claimed, "Ba Jin once wrote an article saying that Xu Beihong and Lin Fengmian were students of×××." We all thought Ba Jin had written such an article. After years of research by Wang Zhen, he discovered that Ba Jin had never written such an article. Only Zeng Jinke, in the preface to a "master's" exhibition, had made a similar statement. Because Zeng Jinke was not as famous as Ba Jin, he had replaced Zeng Jinke with Ba Jin in a "transfer of flowers and branches." Another "master" was once called an "art." He claimed that a principal of a women's school, after seeing his school's humanistic painting exhibition, said, "××× is truly an art and a pest in the education. He openly displays nude paintings, severely damaging public morals, and must be punished." He said this was published in the Times. Wang Zhen spent decades researching newspapers and discovered that the principal had never said this, let alone that "××× is an art." While the principal was alive, the "master" never mentioned her in this way. After the principal passed away in 1924, the "master" fabricated her statements in 1925. Wang Zhen also noted that the "master" himself had first coined the term "art" in his article Art published on February 25, 1925, calling it, "Great artists must continuously fight and create, revolutionizing traditional art. In reality, they are rebels in the world of art!" He also said in that era, "Our society lacks such art. I hope my friends do not lose their courage and become art! If we can continue to produce more art, it will be the continuous creation of new life for humanity." He further praised Van Gogh as "a strong-hearted art, the greatest painter of the modern art scene, and a poet of the sun." By September 23 of the same year, he claimed the principal called him an "art." This was tantamount to saying he was as great as Van Gogh. Although the "master's" deception was not sophisticated, it deceived half a century, the "passersby of the world," and countless big figures, including Guo Moruo. Guo Moruo even wrote a poem: "The art has great courage, forging new paths with extraordinary paintings." I remember Zhang Guotao often quoted Marx in his speeches or lectures, saying, "Marx said, 'No wind without waves.'" His words were light, but verifying whether Marx had said this would require a decade of effort, as we would need to consult not only Marx's works but also those of Engels and books about Marx, as well as learn several foreign languages to check untranslated books and articles. Yet the "master" fabricated a sentence in just two minutes, while Wang Zhen spent decades researching it. How much effort does a scholar who takes history seriously and has a sense of justice need to put into scholarship? If you want to know how some people in the "federation of liars and rumor-mongers" lie and spread rumors, how they boast and deceive; if you want to understand true history; if you want to know how Mr. Xu Beihong struggled and how he was attacked and slandered; how many lies the old and new fabricators imposed on him over the past seventy or eighty years—you must read Wang Zhen's A Comprehensive Chronicle of Xu Beihong's Life.