Mr. Xie Yong wrote a very interesting article "Back to Fu Sinian", which was included in the book "No Arranged Road" published by Yunnan People's Publishing House in May 2002. What does "return to Fu Sinian" mean? That is to return to Fu Sinian’s view of history. As for Fu Sinian's view of history, summarized by Xie Yong, "Simply put, 'history is the study of historical materials.' He believes that the responsibility of historians is to 'find things with all your hands and feet'." >
If the materials are sorted out, the facts will become clear. Every piece of material will produce a very good product. If there is no material, nothing will be produced. '"
The so-called "History" is It is historical data science." This is actually not an original idea. China's old history has always been like this, and the West also has Ranke and the Ranke school under his influence. Ranke's famous saying about history is that the "purpose of history is only to show the true feelings of history" and "every historical data can tell a story." But now why does Xie Yong seriously propose the proposition of "returning to Fu Sinian"? What is the significance of this? It turns out that once upon a time, the question of whether history is historical material science is no longer a simple academic question, but a major issue related to the attitude, stance, and class attributes of scholars, and to the "struggle between two roads in historical science."
In the Chinese historical circles in the 1950s, there was the so-called "struggle between two roads", that is, the struggle between the historical materialism school under the guidance of Marxism and the school of historical materials. This struggle kicked off with a 1958 report by Chen Boda, then deputy director of the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee and member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, entitled "Concentrate on the present while ignoring the past, and learn by doing." Chen said in his speech: "How much contribution have China's bourgeois intellectuals made over the past few decades? They have accumulated some information, are familiar with some information, and are said to be very knowledgeable. No matter how big the problems are, how much contribution they have. If the accumulated materials accept the leadership of Marxism and the proletariat, then their materials are useful, otherwise what is the use?" Based on this, history students from Sun Yat-sen University, Shandong University, Sichuan University and other institutions of higher learning launched a campaign. Criticism by famous scholars such as Chen Yinke, Cen Zhongmian, Tong Shuye, Xu Zhongshu, etc. This criticism can be traced back to the "three bosses" in the history academic circle before 1949 - Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang, and Fu Sinian. The weapons and content of criticism can be seen from a limerick written by a student of the History Department of Shandong University:
Thinking too much about the past and too little about the present, and taking theory lightly;
Main and Lieutenant General Si Mao, never care.
Newspapers and magazines are stored as historical materials;
Fifty or sixty years later, a large amount of capital.
Studying ancient history, one must call it Er Chen;
Shi Guan Yinke Lao, Shi Fayuan An Gong.
As for modern history, Liang Rengong is the first to be recommended.
What is the use of theory? The historical data is profound.
The meaning is very clear, but the poem is not very elegant. Compared with this, the analysis of scholars is more weighty. Let’s look at the articles of Fan Wenlan and Hu Sheng, the leading figures of the historical materialist school. Fan Wenlan's "Historical Research Must Focus on the Present and Overshadow the Past" (see "Selected Historical Papers of Fan Wenlan" in the Chinese Social Science Edition) was published after Chen Boda's report was conveyed. There are three main points: it is a fine tradition of Chinese historiography to focus on the present and overshadow the past; To favor the present over the past and to favor the past over the present is a struggle between two lines. Fan alleged in the article that the cumbersome research conducted by historians represented by Hu Shi was "an attempt to separate academics from revolutionary politics and turn it into a dead thing without a soul." Hu Sheng's long article entitled "How the Study of Social History Becomes Science" (included in the People's Edition of "Zao Xia Lun Cong") was published in 1956. The tone was relatively peaceful, and it focused on criticizing Fu Sinian's view of history. He said: "Use The replacement of history by historical materials will not only destroy the science of history, but also lead the work of historical materials down the wrong path. Whether it is 'internal' or 'external' research on historical materials, the purpose should be to provide a scientific understanding of history. A reliable basis for understanding; if it is conducted in isolation from the scientific research of the entire history, it will lose its direction and be aimlessly drowned in the ocean of history. "Both students and scholars have the same dissatisfaction with the historical school. In their view, the historical school only focuses on possessing data and verifying historical facts, and rejects the guidance of theory (which should of course be historical materialism). Therefore, it is unable to go deep into the essence of historical phenomena to discover the connections between various phenomena and their objective laws.
Looking back on this "struggle", it can now be said that Fan Wenlan and others' accusations against the Historical Materials School have no basis, because people in the Historical Materials School do not necessarily reject theory. For example, Gu Jiegang wrote for "Historical Quarterly" as early as 1940 When he wrote the "Issue for Publication", he expressed the following opinions on the relationship between textual research and historical perspective: "Historical scientists are accustomed to studying small problems and dare not look at the big picture... If they do not participate in the philosophy of history, they will have to make appropriate choices. But wasting countless years on trivial historical facts is nothing but a waste of vitality! Therefore, any historical science that is not guided by the philosophy of history will have no destination.
"Let's see what is the difference between Gu's theory and Hu Sheng's quote above? Gu Jiegang has another famous saying, which can be found in his preface to the fourth volume of "Ancient History": "Historical materialism is not the root of taste, and it does not need to be used in any dish." This sentence made Gu's critics angry in the 1950s. In fact, Gu's "flavor of nature" and so on are not affirming the function of historical materialism from another angle?
According to normal logic, the historical data school and the historical materialism school should not develop to the point where they cannot coexist. Not only do Gu Jiegang and others clearly agree with historical research under the guidance of historical views, but also Fan Wenlan and Hu Shengbu. Has he ever affirmed the work of historians? Hu Sheng said clearly in the above article: "Many Chinese historians inherited the work of the Qing Dynasty 'Sinologists' and made use of modern European and American traditions. He has acquired various scientific knowledge and relatively sophisticated logical concepts, and has made many achievements in the research and revision of historical materials. It seems now that they did not do too much work, but that they did too little. Their work achievements and work experience should not be ignored but should be accepted and carried forward. "Despite this, the "line struggle" still reminds us readers of later generations of the seriousness of the past controversy, otherwise Chen Yinke, who taught Sun Yat-sen University at the time, would not have angrily refused to start classes for students. So the differences between the two groups of historians Where is the essence? First of all, there is the existence of misunderstanding. As Xie Yong analyzed: "The criticism of the historical data school is to construct an assumption that the historical data school has no theory. Under this premise, the so-called importance of historical data and theory and the pursuit of truth are The contradiction with Zhiyong is a mutually opposing hypothesis, and the former is denied. In fact, these problems do not exist. Because common sense in history tells us that there has never been historical data without theory, and there has never been a theory of historical data at all.” Secondly, I think it should be a difference in understanding of the connotation of “theory” and “historical view.” As quoted before, historical materialism Pai Gu attaches great importance to the guidance of theory, and the Historical Materials School does not exclude it. However, the Historical Materials School opposes the vulgarization of "theory" and bases it on historical materialism. For example, Gu Jiegang believes that "study the chronology of ancient history, the deeds of people, and the authenticity of books. Very little needs to be used in historical materialism. "The so-called historical materialists always insist that historical research should be conducted under the theoretical guidance of real politics as the highest orientation. The same "theory" has very different interests, which is why Fan Wenlan called for "rejection of "adherence to academic independence" The "disciples of Hu Shih" started a war that "academic service serves politics". Finally, we can also think that both sides also have their own opinions on the issue of what is the ultimate goal of historical research. "What is the use of history?" Bloch, the master of the French Annales School at that time, was shocked by this childish question. Probably everyone who is buried in old papers cannot avoid this question. "Use" has rich meanings, if it is only defined as "use" in a practical sense "The attitude of people in the historical school is that history can be "useful", but historians should not seek "use". For example, Gu Jiegang firmly believes: "Learning can certainly be applied, but application is only a natural result of learning. , rather than for the purpose of learning." People in the historical materialism school believe that history must have "use" and historians should actively seek "use". Hu Sheng specifically gave an example to criticize Fu Sinian, because In 1932, Fu wrote an article "Records on the Mother of Ming Chengzu" and sparked heated discussions in the academic circles. Hu Shengnai asked: "Who is the biological mother of Ming Chengzu? What is the significance of this question? This is something Fu Sinian himself cannot say. ". Now it seems that who is the biological mother of Ming Chengzu is indeed a trivial question, but whether it is really meaningless is still debatable. Just imagine, if all the minor issues related to this are clarified, people will be more interested in Ming Ming. Will we have a deeper understanding of the politics of the court and even the Ming Dynasty?
Through reviewing the dispute between the two paths in historical science, we finally understand that no matter what the circumstances, we have gone through a detour. Familiarizing and reviewing historical materials are the first and fundamental tasks. Therefore, Mr. Xie Yong proposed that contemporary Chinese historiography should return to Fu Sinian’s tradition. This view is reasonable and reasonable. , but compared with the development of Western history, we don’t seem to be so confident. After the Ranke school in the West, there are so-called critical historical philosophy and the Annales school, such as Spengler, Toynbee, Braudel and other masters. It is not an abandonment of the Ranke school, which is characterized by empirical history. If the only correct way of historical research is Fu Sinian's tradition, we will probably come to this conclusion, whether it is Spengler's "The Decline of the West" or Toynbee. Neither "Historical Research" nor "Historical Research" is a valuable work. Isn't this absurd? In addition, the Chinese people's practical rationality has always been developed, and the characteristics of Chinese people's thinking and scholarship are "not speculative, but high on understanding, light on logic, and heavy on experience." ”, so although it is important to “return to Fusnian” in historical research, shouldn’t we also pay attention to studying and absorbing the amazing and profound power of German abstract speculation? Russian intellectuals once said: “My heart is hurt by human suffering. " Should a researcher of history also have this kind of world perspective and human consciousness? Another point is that emphasizing "returning to Fu Sinian" seems to ignore the differences in scholars' talents and temperaments. In fact, as long as there is no interference from real politics, why not Let a few people who have no interest in delving into historical data make high-minded remarks? You might as well laugh it off, but sometimes there may be a flash of inspiration.
For example, those sensational masterpieces of the 1980s are often ridiculed as "empty and sparse". However, as long as there are a few words in a pile of "empty and sparse theories" to inspire you to think deeply, isn't that enough?