Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:03:33.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Textual Criticism to Social Criticism: The Historiography of Ku Chieh-kang

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Laurence A. Schneider
Get access

Extract

The central role of the intellectual in Chinese history, and the centrality of A history to the Chinese intellectual—this is the most persistent theme in the provocative writings of Ku Chieh-kang (b. 1893), iconoclast editor of the Kushih pien and historical revisionist par excellence. During the nineteen-twenties and thirties Ku Chieh-kang was a pre-eminent exponent of that non-Marxist scholarship which set for its goal a purge and reconstruction of China's major intellectual traditions. In this essay, as we examine his efforts to “reorganize the nation's past,” we will want to keep in mind that his interests in China's past and China's present meet in his concern with the place of intellectuals and scholarship in the larger society.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , August 1969 , pp. 771 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, see Ku's preface to the Pei-ching ta-hsüeh kuo-hsüeh men chou-k'an, I:1 (Jan. 1, 1926); and “Tao Wang Ching-an hsien-sheng,” (Obituary for Wang Kuo-wei), Wen-hsüeh chou-pao, chüan 5 (Feb., 1928); and Ku's preface to “Nien Pao” issue of the Kuo-li Chung-shan ta-hsüeh yu-yen ti-shih-hsüeh yen-chiu so chou-kʻan, VI:162/63/64 (Jan. 16, 1929), 1–6.

2 For example, see Ssu-ma Chʻien, Grand Historian of China, (New York, 1958)Google Scholar, Appendix A, translations from the Shih Chi, “Basic Annals of the Five Emperors,” and “Preface to the Chronological Table of the Three Dynasties,” pp. 183–84. And for a broad sampling of “antiquity doubters” since the time of Ssu-ma Chʻien (145–90? b.c.), see Ku Chieh-kang, editor, Pien-wei tsung-kʻan (Expositions on the Critique of Spurious Literature), 8 volumes, (Peking: Pʻu-she Publishing Co., 1928–1935).

3 For examples of his contemporaries' refusal to call the Golden Age a myth sec KSP vols. I and II, especially the writings of the scholars Liu Yen-ta, Hu Chin-jen, and Chang Ying-lin. Chang Ping-lin's resistance to the demolition of ancient history by Kʻang Yu-wei, and by Ku Chieh-kang and his associates is epitomized in Chang's Kuo-hsüeh kai-lün, (Taipei reprint, 1965) and in Ku's preface to KSP vol. I, translated by The Autobiography of a Chinese Historian, (Leyden, 1931) [hereafter: Autobiography].Google Scholar

In the late 1920's Ku's highschool textbook, Pen Kuo Shih Vol. I, (Shanghai, 1923), ran afoul the officials of the Kuomintang because it treated the Golden Age as a myth. The Commercial Press received a fine for printing the book, and while it was not interdicted, the book did not receive official authorization for use in the schools. (See Hu Shih, “Hsin wen-hua yün-tʻung yü Kuo-min-tang,” Hsinyüeh, 1:6–7 (Sept. 10, 1929), p. 4; and Ku's preface to his San Huang kʻao, (Peiping 1936), p. 25; and cf. Mary Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism, (Stanford, 1957), Chap, xii, especially p. 304.)

Golden Age events and characters continued to find their way into Sun Yat-sen's San Min Chti-i lectures (translated into many editions under the tide of The Three Principles of the People), and into Chiang Kʻai-shek's China's Destiny & Chinese Economic Theory (New York, 1947), and into Philosophy of Life (New York, 1948), esp. Chap. vi.Google Scholar

4 Ku began reading Chang's Wen-shih tʻung-i in 1914. (See his article “Tsʻung wo tzu-chi kʻan Hu Shih,” Ta Kung Pao (Dec. 24, 1951), and Autobiography, 170–71). His interests in Chang continued strongly into the early twenties, and it seems that he would have devoted himself to a major study of Chang were it not for Hu Shih's rival interest in the subject, and his suggestion that Ku's efforts be devoted to a study of Tsʻui Shu. (See KSP I, 7–19; TTPIS, I, 1).

5 On Tsʻui Shu's thought and Ku's reaction to it, see below. For an example of such an echo, see Chang Ping-lin, op. cit., esp. Chap, ii; also see Confucian China and Its Modern Fate (Berkeley, 1958)Google Scholar, Vol. I, Chap, vi; and see Intellectual Trends in the Chʻing Period, trans, by Hsü, I. C. Y., (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 111–12.Google Scholar

6 Although this paradigm is modelled closely after the thought of Chang Hsüeh-chʻeng, I believe it reflects the intellectual attitudes of a larger body of Confucian thinkers. Thus, Ku's challenge to the paradigm had subversive implications for some deep-rooted tendencies in traditional thought about the past. For example:

(1) On Chang's typicality in his attitudes about the role of the golden age in history, the relationship of the Tao, history, and the Classics, and the immanentist tendencies of his thought, see Historians of China and Japan, (London, 1961), pp. 179–81Google Scholar.

(2) On the typicality of the polarity of “knowledge and action” which structures the paradigm see Confucianism in Action (Stanford, 1959), pp. 50–63Google Scholar; and his Foreword to Liang Chʻi-chʻao, op. cit., pp. xi-xxii. Also, Studies in Chinese Thought, (Chicago, 1953), pp. 112–46Google Scholar, esp. part 1, “Some Traditional Habits of Thinking;” and Nivison's book on Chang, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsüeh-chʻeng (Stanford, 1966), esp. chaps, vi and viii.

(3) Ku Chieh-kang discusses the “Five Classics are all History” formulation in “Wang Shou-jen wu-ching chieh shih shuo,” (On Wang Yang-ming's Thesis That the Five Classics are all History), in Tse-shan pan-yüeh kʻan, I:11 (Sept. 16, 1940), pp. 20–21. He relates Wang, Chang Hsüeh-chʻeng, Chang Ping-lin, and Kʻang Yu-wei wirnin the context of the formulation.

(4) cf. Watson, op. cit. pp. 134–54 for “Ssu-ma Chʻien's Theory of History.”

(5) Ou-yang Hsiu (Stanford, 1967), 18,100.Google Scholar

(6) The first chapters of Liu Hsieh's (ca. a.d. 465–522) Wen-hsin tiao-lung are an early formulation of the essentials of our paradigm even though they are speaking to literature in general, and not historical literature specifically. See Vincent Shih's translation, The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons (New York, 1959), pp. 8–21)Google Scholar. And see Demievielle, op. cit., pp. 178–79, on Chang Hsüehchʻeng's relationship to the thought of Liu Hsieh.

7 Nivison, “The Problem of Knowledge and Action,” p. 132 citing Yen Yuan (1635–1704).

8 Nivison, Life and Thought, pp. 201–2.

9 Schwartz, “Foreword,” p. xvii.

10 “Lün Kʻang Yu-wei pien-wei chih chʻeng-tse,” (On Kʻang Yu-wei's Accomplishments in Critiques of Spurious Literature), Chung-ta chou-kʻan, XI:123/124 (March 26, 1930), p. 13.

11 Preface to Ku's Shih-lin tsa-chih (An Historical Miscellany), (Peking, 1963), p. 1. On the Classics and History question also see J. R. Levenson, op. cit.; and cf. Chung-kuo li-shih yenchiu fa (Taiwan, 1967, original edition, 1922.) pp. 47, 49.Google Scholar

12 Ku's preface to KSP IV (1933), 10.

13 Correspondence: (1) Ku to Hu Shih (Nov. 24, 1920). KSP I, 7; (2) Ku to Hu Shih (Dec. 26, 1920), KSP I, 17; (3) Ku to Chʻien Hsüan-tʻung (Jan. 21, 1921), KSP I, 23; (4) Chʻien Hsüan-tʻung to Ku (Jan. 27, 1921), KSP I, 24–25.

14 “Kʻao hsin lu ti-yao” TTPIS, II, chap, ii, p. I. For Chang Hsüeh-chʻeng's concept of “fashions” or feng-chʻi, see Nivison, Life and Thought, p. 160.

15 “Pu shang ku kʻao hsin lu,” TTPIS, II, chap, ii, p. 31.

16 Ibid., pp. 31–35.

17 KSP, V (1935), 255, 259.

18 TTPIS, II, chap, i, 31.

19 Ibid., p. 32.

20 Correspondence: Ku to Chʻien Hsüan-tʻung (May 6, 1923), KSP I, 59.

21 TTPIS, II, Chap, i, 1.

22 Ibid., pp. 14–15.

23 “Chu ssu kʻao hsin lu,” TTPIS, III, chap, ii, 17.

24 This is evident throughout the “Tʻi yao” and is discussed with insight by Chao Chin-shen in his continuation of Hu Shih's article “Kʻo-hsüeh te ku-shih chia Tsʻui Shu,” (Tsʻui Shu, Scientific Ancient Historian), Part II, TTPIS, I, 108.

25 “Tʻang Yü kʻao hsin lu,” TTPIS, II, chap, ii, 8–10.

26 “Tʻi Yao,” TTPIS II, Part II, 4.

27 See Ku's “Cheng Chʻiao tui-yu ke-ssu yü ku-shih te chien-chieh,” (Cheng Chʻiao's views on folksong and legend), in Hsiao-shuo yüeh-pao, 14.11 (Nov. 1923).

28 In particular, see Ku's studies of the legend of Meng-chiang nü (Lady Meng-chiang): (1) in Ke-yao chou-kʻan (Folksong Weekly), Nos. 69, 73 of 1924, and extensive material throughout January through June issues of 1924; (2) “Meng-chiang ku-shih chih li-shih te hsi-tʻung,” (An Historical Filiation of the Meng-chiang nü legend), serialized in Hsien-lai pʻing-lün Vol. III, Nos. 75, 76, 77 (May, 1926); and Meng-chiang ku-shih: yen-chiu chi (The Legend of Lady Meng-chiang: An Anthology of Studies), edited by Ku Chieh-kang, (Canton, 1929).

29 KSP I, 60. Original in Tu-shih tsa-chih, No. 9, 1923.

30 “Chan-kuo Chʻin-Han chien jen te tsʻao wei yü pien-wei,” (The Criticism and Creation of Spurious Literature by the Men of the Warring States, Chʻin-Han Era), KSP, VII, Part I, 9. Originally in Shih-hsüeh nien-pao, II:2 (1936).

31 “Chou o chʻi-shih shih te fa-sheng tzu-ti,” KSP II, item no. 78, 82–92. And cf. D. C. Twitchett, “Chinese Biographical Writing,” in Beasley & Pulleyblank, op. cit., pp. 95–115; The Confucian Persuasion (Stanford, 1960), pp. 47–76Google Scholar; and his Confucian Personalities, (Stanford, 1962) ed. by Wright, A. F. and Twitchett, D., pp. 3–23.Google Scholar

32 KSP I, item no. 42, Part VI, 149–50; and Ku's “Chin Tʻeng pʻien chin tu,” (A Commentary Translation of the “Chin Tʻeng” chapter of the Shu-ching), KSP II, item no. 67, 63–75.

33 Ku's preface to KSP IV, (1933), 4.

34 Ku's preface to KSP II, (1930).

35 Correspondence: Ku to Wang Po-yang (June 18, 1921), KSP I, 35.

36 This is repeatedly expressed by Ku throughout his Autobiography. Also see WTCSS, chap, xv, PP. 538–54.

37 Also see discussion of Liao Pʻing (1852–1932) and New Text revival in J. R. Levenson. op. cit., Vol. III, chap, i; and Fung Yu-Ian, History of Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, 1952), Vol. II, 705–22.

38 Ku's preface to KSP II (dated 1930), 4–6.

39 Ku's preface to KSP III, 6–7.

40 Ku Chieh-kang, “Chung-kuo shang-ku-shih yen-chiu kuo ti-erh hsüeh-chi chiang-i hsü-mu,” KSP V (1935). 362. (Original, Yenching, 1930.)

41 Correspondence, Ku to Chʻien Hsüan-tʻung (Feb. 25, 1923), KSP I, 60.

42 John Dewey, “Historical Judgements,” reprinted in Hans Meyerhoff, The Philosophy of History in Our Times, (New York, 1959), p. 169. Dewey's statement continues: “It is certainly legitimate to say that a certain thing happened in a certain way at a certain time in the past, in case adequate data have been procured and critically handled. But the statement ‘It actually happened in this way,’ has its status and significance within the scope and perspective of historical writing.”

48 See Ku's “Juan Yüan Ming Tang lün,” in Chung-ta choukʻan, XI. 121 (Mar. 5, 1930), p. 13.

44 SJCYMC, p. 50.

45 “Chʻun-chʻiu shih te Kʻung Tzu ho Han tai te Kʻung Tzu,” (The Confucius of the Spring and Autumn Era and the Confucius of the Han Era), KSP II (dated 1926), 135.

46 SJCYMC, p. 82. Also see similar examples regarding Chang Heng (CHFSJS, p. 143), and Liu Hsin (Ku's preface to KSP, V, 6–7).

47 This conception “… signifies a phenomenon intermediate between a simple lie at one pole, and an error, which is the result of a distorted and faulty conceptual apparatus, at the other. [And the conception is being employed] when we no longer make individuals personally responsible for the deceptions which we detect in their utterances, and when we no longer attribute the evil to their malicious cunning … [and] when we more or less consciously seek to discover the sources of their untruthfulness in a social factor.” Ideology and Utopia (New York, Harvest paperback ed., n.d.), p. 61.

48 Dewey epitomized this view in this way: “History … has discovered itself in the idea of process. The genetic standpoint makes us aware that the systems of the past are neither fraudulent impostures nor absolute revelations; but are the products of political, economic, and scientific conditions whose change carries with it change of theoretical formulations. The recognition that intelligence is properly an organ of adjustment in difficult situations makes us aware that past theories were of value so far as they helped to carry to an issue the social perplexities from which they emerged.” From the speech “Intelligence and Morals,” delivered at Columbia University, March 1908, and reprinted in Dewey's The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy (New York, 1910), p. 68.Google Scholar

49 This is the burden of SJCYMC.

50 See for example, Ku, et al., “Mo Tzu hsing-chih pien,” (Discussions on the Name Mo Tzu), in Shih-hsüeh chi-kʻan, I:2 (1936), 151–75; and also The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China, (Shanghai, 1922), Part III for a re-evaluation of the role of Mohist thought in antiquity.Google Scholar

51 “The Concept of Ideology,” in History and Theory, Vol. IV:2 (1965), 164–95.Google Scholar

52 This discussion of the “Four Idols” is based on Ku's preface to KSP, IV (1933), 4–12.Google Scholar

53 “Chang-kuo Chʻin-Han chien jen te tsʻao wei yü pien-wei,” op. cit.

54 This problem of interpretation was brought to my attention by Professor J. R. Levenson.

55 CHFSJS, 43–44.

56 This theme is best seen in CHFSJS.

57 Preface to “Nien Pao” of Chung-ta chou-kʻan, op. tit., p. 2.

58 Ibid., p. 3.

59 See Ku's WTCSS.

60 SJCYMC, esp, Part III, pp. 30–119.

61 Cf. Chinese Communist evaluations in Donald J. Munro, “Chinese Communist Treatment of the Thinkers of the Hundred Schools Period,” in China Quarterly, No. 24 (Oct.-Dec, 1965), pp. 119–41.

62 See CHFSJS, esp. chaps, ii–iv; and also Ku's Chʻin Shih Huang Ti (Chungking, 1944).

63 CHFSJS, p. 50.

64 See Ku's “Tung Chung-shu ssu-hsiang chung te Mo-chiao chʻeng-fen,” (Mohist Elements in the Thought of Tung Chung-shu), in Wen-Ian hsüeh-pao, III:1 (March, 1937), 7 ff.

65 Preface to “Nien Pao” of Chung-ta chou-kʻan, p. 2.

66 CHFSJS, p. 81.

67 CHFSJS, p. 65.

68 CHFSJS, pp. 104–05.

69 1955 introduction to CHFSJS, p. 8.