Wang Q.E. Inventing China Through History: The May Fourth Approach to Historiography
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
in English, and were pleased by this correspondence. Apparently,
they tried to produce new tides in Chinese culture. They hoped
that a new cultural tide waged by their introduction of Western
science could lead to the rebirth, or the renaissance, of Chinese
culture.
Why was it necessary? Fu explained that compared with schol-
arly developments in the West, Chinese scholarship had seven basic
failings. First of all, Chinese scholars lacked an individualist and
relativist approach to their subjects. As a result, many of them were
both pompous about themselves and ignorant of different opinions.
In addition, Chinese scholars often overstate two things: one was
practical scholarship, the other comprehensive understanding. As
the former resulted in superficiality, the latter trapped them in
frivolousness. Yet what disappointed Fu the most was the fact that,
in traditional education, scholars did not seek logical argumenta-
tion. Instead, they were indulged in speculation, which hindered
methodological improvement. Consequently, in conducting their
research, scholars were often complacent about advancement in
form, but not in content.
88
To overcome these fallacies in Chinese traditional scholarship,
Fu stated, required a change of attitude toward and cognizance of
modern scholarship, which meant that Chinese scholars needed to
fully understand the essence and spirit of Western culture. Fu
regretted that because Chinese scholars tended to be interested only
in form rather than in content, what had been imported from the
West to China in the past was merely military technology. But
military technology per se was not sufficient to help resuscitate the
Chinese culture that had been seriously ill. A better approach was,
Fu believed, to recognize fully the fundamental difference between
Chinese and Western culture and re-evaluate the Chinese cultural
legacy by Western standards. Only with this radical approach could
China survive the fierce competition in the modern world. Only by
wiping away obstacles in traditional learning would China be able
to create a new culture.
89
Western theories were thus brought in for the purpose of dealing
with problems in China. In Fu Sinian’s essay on Chinese history
and historiography, we can see how he used the Western concept of
periodization to discuss the evolution of Chinese history. To justify
the necessity of using the Western concept, Fu first attacked dynas-
tic historiography. When history was broken into various dynasties,
Fu complained, historical change and distinction were blurred. But
while he supported the idea that Chinese history use the Western
periodization of ancient, medieval, and modern to indicate periodic
78 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
changes, transcending the fall and rise of dynasties, he opposed the
division made by some Japanese historians to Chinese history as
seen at the time. For him, their attempts were shallow and super-
ficial. In his opinion, what the Japanese did was simply merge a few
dynasties together to make a historical period. Their division failed
to show the fundamental transformations in Chinese history. A
tenable periodization of Chinese history, Fu contended, should
reflect a scholarly understanding based on studies of the trend of
Chinese history. Because Chinese history was fraught with wars
between “barbarian” peoples and the Han Chinese people—both of
them established dynasties in China—he suggested that such
periodization reveal these struggles and the interaction and blend
of “foreign” and “native” cultures.
90
In other words, Fu proposed to
use the growth and decline of Han Chinese culture as barometers
in studying Chinese history.
For him, this ebb and flow of Han Chinese culture could first be
seen in the fifth century, for none of the subsequent dynasties were
able to fortify its governance after the fall of the Han Dynasty. The
rise of the Sui and Tang Dynasties in the sixth century did not rep-
resent a true revival of Han culture, but the opposite, because both
dynasties were founded by non-Han peoples. After a long period of
recovery, Han Chinese culture finally reached an age of prosperity
in the Song Dynasty of the tenth century, only to be subdued again
by the Mongols in the thirteenth century. It was not until the Ming
Dynasty, founded in 1368, that Han Chinese culture regained its
position. Nevertheless, it only lasted three hundred years and lost
again to the Manchus in 1644. In order to emphasize the Chinese
people’s struggle in maintaining their culture, Fu rearranged the
three-stage division seen in the Japanese works. He also sub-
divided historical periods by breaking down the dynastic division to
illuminate the changes in history.
91
Fu shows his originality in understanding Chinese history.
Written in 1918, his work also became one of the earliest attempts
made by a Chinese historian to address theoretical issues in
Chinese historiography. Noticeably, in periodizing Chinese history,
Fu adopted a multi-ethnic approach to understanding the historical
evolution in China. His interpretation thus differed fundamentally
from many old and new theories seen at the time, including the
revolutionary approach advanced by Zhang Taiyan for overthrow-
ing the Qing Dynasty. Zhang Taiyan had adopted a racial approach
to explaining the change in Chinese history. He and his comrades
in the Revolutionary Alliance had argued that the Manchu rulers
in the Qing did not represent Han Chinese culture. The “barbarian”
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 79
rule of the Qing Dynasty caused many problems, including China’s
defeat by the West. Viewed in this regard, Fu’s distinction between
Han and non-Han peoples was reminiscent of Zhang’s focus on racial
and cultural differences between the Han and the non-Hans. But
he departed from Zhang by pointing out that before the Manchus,
Han Chinese culture had already encountered many up and down
turns. He implied that there was no “pure” Chinese culture before
the Manchu invasion in the seventeenth century. In his discussion,
he also reminded his readers that in the past, non-Han Chinese
peoples too had performed commendable feats. Historians should
base their explanations on facts, rather than on emotions.
92
While Fu’s interpretation of Chinese history was not agreed to
by all in his time, his attempt to break down the dominance of
dynastic division in Chinese historiography proved significant and
influential. His theory inspired, for example, his Beida schoolmate
Yao Congwu to form his interpretation of the interactions between
Han and non-Han Chinese people in history.
93
Fu Sinian himself
also used a similar approach to periodizing the history of Chinese
literature. Instead of discussing different literary genres that flour-
ished along the dynastic lines, he tried to look at Chinese literature
as a whole and portrayed its evolution by discussing the changing
trends of different historical periods.
94
Fu Sinian’s effort to use Western theories to reform Chinese
culture thus extended well into other areas in the humanities. As
Hu Shi’s close follower, for instance, Fu supported Hu’s literary
revolution, which aimed to unite written and spoken Chinese and
adopt the vernacular in writing. Yet in his own analysis of the
Chinese language, Fu went much further and argued that a thor-
ough and successful literary revolution depended on a total aban-
donment of the written literary Chinese so that one could use
Western/foreign terms directly.
95
In his own writings, he often used
English terms for precise expression. On one occasion, he even went
so far as to argue that the true solution to the Chinese language
was to abandon the ideographs and replace them with the Roman
alphabet.
96
This radical iconoclasm suggests Fu’s strong bias in
favor of Western culture. But again, one may notice that his empha-
sis on the change of language for cultural reform is reminiscent of
the Qing evidential scholarship, as evidenced by the work of Zhang
Taiyan at that time.
While a highly noted student leader of the May Fourth Move-
ment, Fu Sinian himself also experienced an intellectual transfor-
mation through the movement. Before the May Fourth Movement,
he was a “Confucius’ successor,” admired and appreciated by his
80 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
peers and teachers for his classical knowledge. But after the May
Fourth Movement, he became a committed cultural reformer, most
noted for his radical iconoclasm and scientific conviction. To account
for this drastic change, Hu Shi’s influence was crucial. Although
Fu sometimes turned out to be even more radical than Hu Shi, he
was obviously indebted to his teacher for many of his ideas. In
the May Fourth Movement, Fu and his friends often spent their
weekends at Hu’s to exchange ideas. Fu’s interest in science sprang
from these meetings and conversations. Luo Jialun later recalled
that although New Tide members came from different departments,
they shared a common interest in reading Western books. For
example, Fu Sinian was in the Department of Chinese Literature
whereas Luo in the Department of English, they however paired
together to search for English books. Buying and reading English
books thus became Fu’s life-long habit on which he often spent all
his money.
97
Fu’s enthusiasm for Western learning was indeed emblematic
of the entire May Fourth “student” generation. It was this kind of
enthusiasm that prompted Fu and many of his cohorts to seek
opportunities to receive a Western education, following the footsteps
of their teachers like Hu Shi and He Bingsong. While many Chinese
students of that generation became quite “Westernized” in both
their conceptual outlook and lifestyle, hence alienating them-
selves from the Chinese society,
98
there were still many more
who remained committed to the cause of Chinese cultural reform.
Members of the New Tide society seemed to be good examples in
this respect. Buoyed by antitraditionalist ideas, as mentioned
earlier, Fu once suggested romanizing the Chinese language and
believed that only by so doing could the reform make headway. But
his suggestion actually reflected the influence of Qing evidential
scholarship.
99
Interestingly enough, Fu was never really able to rid
himself of the influence. When he returned from Europe to China
in 1927, he proposed to establish the Institute of History and Philol-
ogy, one of the earliest modern research institutes in China. To
some, Fu’s decision to pair history off with philology suggested the
German humanist influence, to which he was exposed while study-
ing in Germany. But, as we shall see in the next chapter, it is equally
legitimate to say that his decision, too, evinced the Qing evidential
focus on linguistic studies.
Thus, it seems that even the most radical iconoclasts in the May
Fourth Movement were tradition-bond in both their outlook and
approach, despite their avowed antitraditional claims. On surface,
there was an obvious contrast between tradition (Chinese culture)
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 81
and modernity (Western science) as perceived and presented by the
participants in the movement. But these cultural reformers never
eschewed tradition in their cultural pursuit. Indeed, as analyzed by
Edward Shils, constructive intellectual pursuit usually began by
working with an existing tradition. The purpose of their criticism of
tradition was to help re-create it, which required a scrutiny. In fact,
according to Shils, real intellectuals always take a critical attitude
toward tradition; they “create works which extend and change their
traditions.”
100
The May Fourth intellectuals’ re-creation of tradition also
underscores their firm political commitment to Chinese nation-
alism. In addition to China’s repeated military losses from the mid-
nineteenth century onward, the country met a diplomatic defeat at
the Versailles conference in 1919. This increasingly deepened polit-
ical crisis called students into action. The leadership role Fu Sinian,
Luo Jialun, and other New Tide members played in the movement
clearly indicated that the May Fourth Movement was not only a cul-
tural experiment, but also a political campaign. When students
made their first rally on Beida campus, Fu was elected the marshal
and led the demonstration onto the streets, whereas Luo Jialun
drafted their manifesto. Fu, his brother, and other fellow students
also broke into Cao Rulin’s house and set it on fire, because Cao was
an alleged pro-Japanese minister and had fled his home by the time
students got there.
101
After this momentous action, Fu graduated from Beida and
prepared to study abroad. On his graduation, he reflected on his
experience at Beida, especially his involvement in the New Tide
Society and the journal, with a sense of fulfillment. Before his depar-
ture, he wrote an article concluding the activities of the New Tide
Society. He stated: “I believe that the purest, deepest, most durable
feelings are those based on a shared mind-set. These far surpass
religious or familial alliances. Those of us who came together did
not have previous contact.”
Apparently, this “shared mind-set” was based on their nation-
alist concern for the country and their commitment to its cultural
revival.
102
Their interest in science, hence Western culture, is
juxtaposed with their concern for the nation. This juxtaposition,
therefore, characterized the binary dimensions of the May Fourth
Movement: one showed a strong nationalist impulse and the other
a transnational interest in science. These two merged together in
their pursuit of scientific history—like their teachers, Fu Sinian, Gu
Jiegang, and Luo Jialun all became historians. On the content level,
this scientific history was nationalistic, aimed to portray China’s
82 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
past from a nationalist perspective. Yet on the methodological
level, this history was pursued on a conviction in the universal value
of scientific method that united Chinese tradition with modern
culture.
Fu Sinian arrived in England in January 1920 and was enrolled
in the University of London. In spite of his earlier training in the
humanities, Fu decided to pursue a degree in science. He took
courses in biology, psychology, and mathematics at the university
and tried to earn an M.A. in experimental psychology.
103
It seems
that after his dramatic conversion to “new culture” at Beida, Fu
Sinian was ready to make another big change in his life. To Fu, this
change was quite rational, based on his understanding of the need
of China’s cultural reform and his interest in Western scientific
culture. Luo Jialun, his close friend, later provided a good explana-
tion in his memoir:
In order to understand Fu’s decision [to major in science], we
must understand the psychological background of the May
Fourth scholars. At that time, we all worshiped [Western]
natural science. We wanted not only to learn the trustworthy
knowledge provided by the study of natural sciences, but also
to obtain its methodological training. We thought that the
method of natural science was applicable to all subjects.
104
Luo’s words revealed that for Fu and his friends at that time, the
advance of Western learning lay principally in its methodological
improvement. It was very likely that they obtained that idea from
John Dewey’s lectures at Beida, in which Dewey stressed that
modern science manifested “the methodological importance of
testing hypotheses with verifying evidence.”
105
Fu’s decision to
study science reflected this belief, to which he had been converted
before his departure for England. In other words, while enthusias-
tic about modern education, he was not really interested in becom-
ing an expert in any specific field. Rather, he was interested in
pursuing “real learning” in order to solve “big problems.”
106
Here the
“real learning” meant the scientific method, which, in Fu’s belief,
enabled him to solve all kinds of problems, be they social, political,
or academic.
Fu’s understanding of science, therefore, was positivist. He
strongly believed that a scientific approach could be used to explain
all riddles in life and give it a meaning. In 1918, he wrote an essay
for the New Tide discussing the meaning of life with his knowledge
of social sciences. He stated that in order to appreciate fully the real
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 83
meaning of life, one had to look beyond the discussion of human life
per se and take a glimpse at how human life was being studied by
biology, psychology, and sociology, because those studies provided
answers to the questions of what the position of human beings was
in nature, how the composition, function, behavior, and will of
human beings were shaped, and how individuals were associated
with each other in a society.
107
Therefore, Fu had begun showing interest in methodological
questions before going abroad. Influenced probably by Hu Shi, he
did some studies on logic, especially Western theories on the subject,
such as W. Stanley Jevons’s The Principles of Science: A Treatise on
Logic and Scientific Method, and F. C. S. Schiller’s Formal Logic: A
Scientific and Social Problem, which he reviewed for the New Tide.
Unlike Hu, however, he was not sure if the study of logic constituted
a major interest among traditional Chinese scholars. Fu’s interest
in methodology also led him to take notice of Freud’s theory of
psychoanalysis. From his study, he concluded that “philosophy is
inseparable from science; it is rather a synthesis of science.”
108
Thus viewed, Fu’s study of science in England extended his long
interest in scientific method. To him, scientific method was proba-
bly somewhat of a magic finger that could turn dross into treasure
by a single touch.
Needless to say, Fu was ambitious, but he was also earnest. In
a letter written to Hu Shi from England on January 8, 1920, he told
Hu that he found himself interested in the study of science and
regretted the fact that he had been a student of literature at Beida.
He also stated that the reason for him not to take any philosophy
courses in England was that he thought it necessary to have some
knowledge in natural and social sciences before attempting any
philosophical contemplation.
109
To that end, as shown in his book
collection, Fu bought and read a variety of books while in Europe,
whose subjects ranged from physics, biology, and geology to phi-
losophy, history, and linguistics.
110
Fu did not act alone; his idea was shared by many of his cohorts.
In Europe, many of the students of the May Fourth generation were
inclined to seek a versatile education, tapping into every subject
that seemed interesting and potentially useful. Their purpose was,
according to Luo Jialun, to seek a general understanding of modern
scholarship, especially the linkage of natural science, social sci-
ences, and humanities. Among Fu’s friends, Mao Zishui, later
known as a Chinese philologist, was a mathematics student at
Beijing University. But after graduation, he took part in the exam-
ination for studying history in Germany and he, together with Yao
84 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
Congwu, succeeded in it. While in Germany, Mao took courses in
geography and Greek. Their friend Yu Dawei (1897–1972), who later
became the Minister of Defense in Taiwan, had even a more versa-
tile interest. In Germany, Yu studied mathematics, mathematical
logic, Western classics, music, and finally ballistics and military
strategy. Compared with his friends, Luo was relatively focused on
philosophy, history, and education, namely the study of the hu-
manities. While likening the May Fourth Movement to the Enlight-
enment in Europe, Luo declared that their behavior was comparable
to that of the French Encyclopedists. He even compared Fu with
Voltaire.
111
The only exception among them was probably the
nerdy student Yao Congwu, who confined his study in Germany to
history. But before going to Germany, Yao had also been interested
in geography.
Of course, Luo was very proud of his friends. While praising
their enthusiasm for modern education, his remarks also revealed
a paradox in this scientific pursuit. Apparently, what drove them to
study in the West was the desire to learn how to overcome the defi-
ciencies in Chinese learning. One of these deficiencies was its com-
prehensiveness, as Fu had acutely observed in his critique. In other
words, traditional scholars rarely tried to specialize their study and
confine their interest. While critical of the Chinese tradition, these
May Fourth scholars were not immune to this tradition in their
pursuit of Western knowledge. In his influential study of the May
Fourth antitraditionalism, Lin Yu-sheng has observed this problem,
albeit from a different perspective. He argues that the totalistic, or
comprehensive, rejection of tradition, as shown in the work of these
intellectuals, reflected the traditional influence. Namely, their indis-
criminating, “either-or,” approach showed a traditional line of think-
ing.
112
Lin has ingeniously shown us the traditional nexus of the
May Fourth Movement, which was also well present during this
period when these young radicals furthered their interest and
education abroad.
Indeed, the comprehensive approach adopted by the May Fourth
scholars to scientific learning extended their activities in the New
Tide Society. As the end of the society was to promote cultural
reform, an important issue concerning the majority of the students
on campus, the society attracted members across the departments.
Its journal also published essays written by authors from many
departments, not necessarily by the humanities students. For
example, Mao Zishui, a mathematics major, wrote an important
essay discussing the possibility of applying science to the study of
traditional Chinese culture. It was received so well that Fu Sinian,
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 85
one of the “authorities” from the society on such subjects, admitted
that there was no need for him to elaborate on the same subject.
113
Likewise, Fu also attempted to learn about other subjects. Luo
Jialun recalled that, though Fu majored in Chinese literature, he
often took English courses in Luo’s department. The two, too, shared
courses with Gu Jiegang in the Department of Philosophy.
114
Thus
viewed, Fu’s decision to study psychology was not a spur-of-the-
moment action, but underscored a shared mind-set of his genera-
tion in understanding the potency of science and in response to the
need of cultural reform.
While a worthwhile plan designed after careful thinking, Fu’s
study of science in England was anything but smooth. First of all,
he arrived a bit late, failing to catch the beginning of the spring
semester in 1920 at the University College of London University,
where he was registered in the Department of Psychology, chaired
by Professor Charles Spearman. Moreover, no sooner did Fu arrive
in London than Yu Pingbo, his friend and a New Tide member at
Beida, decided to go back to China. Fu chased Yu from England to
France and tried to persuade Yu not to quit, but to no avail. As a
result, he had to enroll in the fall semester.
115
In the interim, he took
some time off for preparation.
116
During this interval, Fu seemed unable to resist the temptation,
his old habit, of reading literary works, although he was supposed
to prepare for becoming a psychology major. Fu read widely in
English literature, particularly poems, and history. According to
Luo Jialun, Fu finished all the works of Bernard Shaw during his
brief English sojourn. From Shaw’s works, Fu gained some knowl-
edge of modern European literature and learned for the first time
the term Ibsenism.
117
Although later on, Fu became quite critical
of Shaw, considering his ideas unoriginal in both literature and
politics.
118
Despite the distractions, Fu was able to complete his under-
graduate program in London in two years and was also admitted
into the graduate program. However, Fu later decided to forsake his
pursuit of a master’s degree in psychology in England, either
because of financial or academic difficulty.
119
In 1923 he left England
for Germany, entering the University of Berlin. While maintaining
his interest in science, he seemed to have decided to stay away from
psychology permanently—he indeed never reverted to it throughout
his life. He became attracted to the breakthrough of modern physics
made by the German physicists Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
But what really interested him was positivist theorists, such as
Ernst Mach (1838–1916). He was engrossed by Mach’s Analyse
86 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
der Empfindungen and Mechanik, on which he spent most of his
leisure time.
120
More interestingly, encouraged by his friends Chen Yinke and
Yu Dawei, Fu began to resume his interest in the humanities,
attending classes in history and comparative philology. He was
enchanted with the German historiographical and philological
achievement. Besides the German achievement in physics, he and
his friends considered German historiography to be another contri-
bution to the modern world. Fu was excited about the idea that with
that philological method, he could reorganize his classical knowl-
edge and thereby find a new horizon in the study of Chinese anti-
quity.
121
No sooner had he returned to China in 1926 than Fu
practiced his idea by founding the Institute of Philology and History
at Sun Yat-sen University.
Thus it was in Germany that Fu’s later career began to take its
shape. Out of his conviction in positivism, Fu took pains to integrate
the study of natural science with his humanistic interests. He
adopted a liberal approach to his study in Germany, taking what-
ever courses he liked. Exhorted by Chen Yinke, for example, he
attended history and philology classes; accompanied by Yu Dawei,
he studied physics and other sciences. His ambitious plan was not
particularly successful, but it allowed him to gain a broad knowl-
edge base and later helped him to become an effective academic
administrator in designing research plans for the Institute of
Philology and History.
122
But Fu was not yet ready to become a historian; he still tried to
become a scientist. When he heard about the National Studies
Movement, especially the “Ancient History Discussion,” led by
his former roommate Gu Jiegang and his mentor Hu Shi, he became
very excited about it and closely followed its progress. He looked
for Gu’s article on Xia and Yu in Germany, two legendary emperors
in ancient China, and showed it to Chen Yinke with great enthusi-
asm and excitement. On Gu’s request, he wrote a long letter back
to Gu, which was published in the journal of Sun Yat-sen Univer-
sity in January 1928, entitled “A Letter to Gu Jiegang about Ancient
Historical Books.”
123
In his letter, he praised Gu’s achievement,
calling him the “king of historiography.” In the meantime, however,
he said that having spent so many years in the West pursuing a
scientific knowledge, he himself was no longer a student of the
humanities.
124
Fu’s final return to the field of humanities did not occur until
he received an appointment from China. At the end of 1926, he
went back to China to become the dean of the School of Humanities
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 87