-
2. The Marginalization of Classical Studies and the Rising Prominence of Historical Studies during the Late Qing and Early Republic: A Reappraisal
- The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 2 The Marginalization of Classical Studies and the Rising Prominence of Historical Studies during the Late Qing and Early Republic: A Reappraisal* Luo Zhitian In both the wider society and the intellectual world, traditional Chinese orthodoxies went into decline in the modern period. At the same time, that which had been marginal rose to greater prominence. When discussing this aspect of Chinese intellectual history of the late Qing and early Republican periods Hu Shi 胡適 (1891–1962) noted how the “orthodox tradition had collapsed and the forces of heterodoxy revived.”1 I have previously discussed the logic of the transposition that saw classical scholarship retreat from a central position in intellectual discourse to the margins and the progression of historical studies to the center. The center and the margins should, of course, be understood as relative to each other.2 Here, I reexamine how the modern discipline of history emerged, in effect, through its replacement of classical studies as representative of authoritative and useful knowledge in the Chinese scholarly and official worlds. The “rise” of history was shaped both by the implosion of traditional classicism and by the impact of so-called Western Learning. The political implications of the rise of history were clear and unavoidable by the late Qing; the new historians of the time understood history to be integral to national salvation. Yet only when history became less central to political discourse could it be treated more clearly as an academic subject, as one discipline among others. * I am grateful to Hu Baoguo 胡寶國, Peter Zarrow, Brian Moloughney, and Xiaobin Ji, all of whom provided feedback on draft versions of this chapter. 48 · Luo Zhitian To conceptualize the center I have generally drawn on the notion of a “dictatorship of Han Learning” (Hanxue zhuanzhi 漢學專制) as formulated by Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873–1929).3 During the Qing dynasty, Han Learning flourished under the reign of both the Qianlong (r. 1736– 95) and Jiaqing (r. 1796–1820) emperors, and it continued to have an influence down into the early years of the Republic.4 Because of the “dictatorship” of Han Learning, other forms of scholarship occupied marginal positions. However, different forms of learning were not rigidly categorized in China. For two thousand years, scholars had paid attention to a broad spectrum of learning, typically devoting most attention to classical studies. Despite this situation, other forms of scholarship were still considered an indispensable part of learning, and those who pursued these forms often displayed an independent consciousness. Historical study occupied a particularly prominent position within the Chinese scholastic system. Its origins predated classical studies, hence the claim that “the Six Classics are all history.” The formation of the classics was a developmental process: after the elevation of Confucianism to its dominant position in the Western Han, and the state recognition of the status of the classics, history and the classics parted ways.5 History slowly came to occupy a lower position than classical studies, a situation that persisted until the modern period. But of all forms of scholarship, history was closest to classical studies; it retained a special place, although it could never attain equality with classical studies. Because of this, scholars have repeatedly sought to clarify the relationship between them. For instance, Su Xun 蘇洵 (1009–66) argued that history and classical studies both had their origins in the sages’ fear of the immoral actions of “petty men,” thus “the two kinds of learning have the same significance,” although “their forms are different.” The two complemented each other: “The classics are superior for discussions of the Way and its laws, history for understanding the words and deeds” of our predecessors. And when it came to the actual matter of undertaking study, it was also the case that history should only be properly studied in conjunction with the classics, for without history the classics would be obscure and difficult to penetrate . Neither form of scholarship could be practiced on its own6 In contrast, Tang Bin 湯斌 (1627–87) argued they were identical in nature: “The Book of Documents covers the achievements of monarchs; it is a classic and yet also a comprehensive history. The Spring and Autumn Annals establishes the laws for myriad generations; it is a history, and yet also a classic.” Both were foundational for historians, and in their writing [54.205.179.155] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 14:05 GMT) The Marginalization of Classical Studies · 49 they always paid attention to the Way and its laws as well as the words...