Going to Washington for a meeting requires a five-hour flight. The journey is long and boring. I always bring something to read, but my professional reading material is really boring, so I picked Wang Fansen. I read "Fu Ssu nian: A life in Chinese History and Politics" on the road and kept reading until the plane landed at Dulles International Airport. After covering up the paper, I found that I had gained a lot more understanding of Brother Fansen, and I also admired the knowledge displayed in this book. More than ten years ago, in 1992, I wrote an article with Brother Luo Zhitian, who was a doctoral student at Princeton University at the time, for Brother Fansen's other two books, namely "The Thoughts of Zhang Taiyan" and "The Rise of the Ancient History Movement". A small book review was published in the "Reading" magazine at that time. At that time, we all felt that Brother Fansen had excellent knowledge and skills, and those two books were indeed extraordinary. Time flies, more than ten years have passed. Brother Fansen was not only elected as an academician of Academia Sinica, but also became the director of the Institute of History and Linguistics. Brother Shida was transferred from a professor at Sichuan University to a professor at Peking University. Because of my professional relationship, I became farther and farther away from history. Usually, at most, I can only choose some history books written by acquaintances to read leisurely to relax my tension. However, after reading this English book by Brother Fansen, I still couldn’t help but write some This is a layman’s impression. 1. As a student leader of the May 4th Movement, a historian, a political and social commentator, and an academic organizer, Fu Sinian may be one of the most colorful and influential figures in Chinese thought and academia in the 20th century. (5 pages). There have been many works on Fu Sinian, but the ones I have seen are not satisfactory. Not only is my knowledge low, but my understanding of Fu Sinian's "reconstruction of ancient history" is shallow, and my estimation of Fu Sinian's impact on modern Chinese scholarship is also insufficient. I don’t have a deep understanding of Fu Sinian’s political sentiments and national consciousness, and there are even fewer studies like Fan Sen, which has a large amount of data. When Brother Fansen reconstructed Fu's life history, he relied on various versions of Fu Sinian's collected works (such as the 5 volumes of "The Collection of Mr. Fu Mengzhen" published by National Taiwan University in 1952; the 1967 Wenxing Bookstore, which added The "Selected Works of Fu Sinian" (10 volumes) with 43 essays; the "Complete Works of Fu Sinian" (7 volumes) with a preface written by Yu Dacai in 1980 and 9 additional articles), as well as various newly discovered Fu Sinian texts, private interviews and various commemorative articles , what needs to be pointed out in particular is that he can use the Fu Sinian archives (referred to as "Fu archives") stored in the Institute of History and Philology of Academia Sinica, which contain more than 4,000 items in five cabinets. I noticed a detail. Because of the proximity to the water tower, Fansen could directly read Wang Guowei's "Guan Tang Ji Lin" and "Ancient History Bian" collected by Fu Sinian. From Fu's annotations in the blank spaces of the book, we can see Fu's comments on Wang Guowei and Gu Jiegang’s feelings (page 108, note on page 115), and the use of these materials not only makes this work the most informative and reliable biography of Fu Sinian’s life, but also makes this work the most profound academic exploration of Fu Sinian. There is no doubt that when studying Fu Sinian, one should first discuss his views on "reconstruction of ancient history" because the era when Fu Sinian entered the modern Chinese academic world was precisely the era of great debates about ancient history. The ancient history debate movement at that time made Gu Jiegang's suspicion of ancient history become mainstream. Even Fu Sinian, who had previously lived abroad, had supported the ancient history debate movement and was envious of Gu's reputation as a "king" in the field of history. According to Xu Xusheng's description, this was a big trend in the 1920s. Except for those who believe in ancient history, there are very few history departments left in various universities in China. Some people are even so fierce that they believe that history was only believed in after Emperor Ping of the Han Dynasty, and that everything before was forged. However, not long after Fu Sinian returned to China, he became a critic of Gu Jiegang's historical concept. Brother Fan Sen mentioned in the book (page 124) that Fu once wrote a short story to satirize his friends Gu Jiegang and Qian Xuantong. Pointed out: "One of Fu's most important contributions is that he reopened the study of ancient history." He worked hard to save ancient history from the trend of ancient history debate and suspicion, such as "Zuo Zhuan", "Guoyu", "Guoyu" and "Zuo Zhuan". "Zhou Li" and so on. When he lectured students at Sun Yat-sen University, he pointed out that the word "forgery" does not always apply to the contradictions found in ancient historical materials. Confucian scholars in the Han Dynasty, especially Liu Xiang and Liu Xin's father and son, were in the compilation process. There may be errors in the literature, but they are not intentionally "falsified". Brother Fan Sen said in the book, "It was Gu Jiegang who knocked down the old building of ancient history, but it was Fu Sinian who used broken bricks to rebuild ancient history" (page 99). Getting out of the trend of doubting antiquity and reconstructing ancient history does not mean restoring the traditional view of ancient history. The image of ancient history reconstructed by Fu Sinian is very different from the traditional one. Fan Sen specifically pointed out that readers should note that Fu is re-saving In ancient history, as an academic leader, he has made quite meaningful initiatives and discussions on history, origin and civilization. Brother Fansen pointed out that one of Fu Sinian’s important measures on ancient history is to prove ancient Chinese civilization and history through modern archaeological excavations. Few people connect China's glorious archaeological excavations with Fu's vision and leadership, and few mention that almost all the leading figures in the archaeological community later, including Xia Nai, were trained by the Institute of Historical Philology. In fact, the importance of Fu can be seen from a small incident. He appointed Li Ji to replace Dong Zuobin to lead the Anyang excavation. This was an important decision.

If we say that Dong Zuobin, who is good at the study of ancient characters but not necessarily proficient in modern archeology, is still operating in the consciousness of "digging for treasures", that is, "epigraphy" and "digging for antiques", he does not know that the significance of archaeological stratification goes far beyond the number of oracle bones. , then, the Anyang excavation led by archaeologist Li Ji not only confirmed the reliability of the Yin Dynasty oracle bones, but also confirmed that the Yin Shang Dynasty had entered the Bronze Age, and also refuted the theory of the Western origin of Chinese civilization. As we all know, this theory of the Western origin of Chinese civilization has been accepted by Zhang Taiyan and Liu Shipei since Terrien de Lacouperie. Like the concept of ancient history, it has formed the same understanding of ancient Chinese civilization and The collapse of ancient Chinese history. Brother Fansen pointed out that an important statement made by Fu Sinian on ancient history was to reconstruct the pluralism of the origin of Chinese culture based on the "Yi-Xia East-West Theory". Of course, Gu Jiegang was the first scholar to doubt the linear inheritance of three generations, but Fan Sen noticed that although he inspired Fu Sinian to decompose the original monoyuan ancient history theory into multiple processes, Fu Sinian also supported ancient history in the 1920s. movement, but he had already changed his views in the 1930s. Brother Fansen once saw a notebook of Fu, which contained notes titled "The Two Systems of Yu and Xia", which may be the draft outline of the later famous "Yixia Theory of East and West". He said that the difference between Fu and Gu Jiegang is that " Gu Jiegang knocked down the old building, but Fu Sinian used broken bricks to rebuild pluralism” (page 99). Fu Sinian proposed that the three generations were not vertically linear, but spread horizontally. In ancient times, there were always two ethnic groups who often fought. Shun was the leader of the eastern tribe, and Yu was the leader of the western tribe. He believed that culture spread from east to west. . At the same time, he also disintegrated the "historical progress" theory of Yin's corruption and Zhou's sanctity. This discussion of Yin and Zhou civilization is not only the statement of ancient orthodox historians, but also the view of modern historians since Wang Guowei. Fu, however, spoke highly of the Yin and Shang civilization in the East. This "cultural diversity theory" was proposed by Meng Wentong, who was deeply influenced by Liao Ping in 1927 (please refer to his "Zhen Wei of Ancient History"). However, Meng Wentong's writings did not have much impact, mainly because he relied entirely on Written materials were later studied by Fu Sinian in 1934 through archaeological excavations and written materials, and perhaps also by Xu Xusheng's research through myths and legends in 1943 (please refer to his "Legendary Era of Ancient Chinese History" about Huaxia, Dongyi, and Miao Man insights), truly reestablished new insights into the origins of diverse ancient history. "The interesting coincidence of Meng (Wentong), Fu (Sinian) and Xu (Xusheng) is that they are all responding to the ancient history debate. They all regard non-official history materials as more valuable than official history. This A pair of reversal of positions in the evaluation of historical materials helped break the deadlock in ancient history research." However, Brother Fansen also carefully pointed out that on the one hand, Fu Sinian's experience of studying in Europe may have had a profound impact on him, because Europe is a place with many Composed of ethnic groups (pages 105-106), Fu’s formula is that “history is the product of ethnicity and geography” (page 106). On the other hand, Fu is very stubborn about the idea that Chinese culture originated in Shandong. “This kind of effort It seems to stem in part from his romantic feelings for his native Shandong, but the rigor of Fu's method and his persistence in seeking proof make his theory transcend personal emotional content and sincerity." So he is not just like Meng Wentong and Xu Xusheng, He completes his hypothesis only through mutual corroboration of historical data. In addition to the comprehensive use of archaeological excavations and written materials, his understanding of the local cultural traditions of the East and his feelings about European history make him different from the first two. Brother Fansen’s comparison is quite original. Through his comparison of Meng Wentong (1927), Fu Sinian (1934), and Xu Xusheng (1943), we can clearly see that Fu Sinian’s statement that two tribal groups often fought against each other in ancient times , directly contradicts the legend of the harmonious inheritance of three generations, shatters the sacred genealogy of the so-called "Sixteen-Character Heart Biography", and also changes the customary saying that civilization moves from west to east, pointing out that culture moves from east to west. Let us understand why Fu Sinian has the greatest influence. Leading archaeological excavations and proposing the Yi-Xia east-west theory may be Fu Sinian's important contribution to reconstructing ancient history. Xu Xusheng, Wang Xiantang and Lattimore were all influenced by him. The three archaeologists who worked with Fu Sinian, Li Ji, Xia Nai and Gao Quxun also always insisted that Longshan Culture had its independent origin. Although Zhang Guangzhi had tended to be monistic in his early years because Longshan Culture was superior to Yangshao Culture, he also gave up on Chinese civilization in the fourth edition of "Archaeology of Ancient China" in 1986. Monism of origins. However, this important contribution has been forgotten intentionally or unintentionally. Although Anyang archeology was directly led by Fu Sinian, and the publication of "Chengziya" (1934) led by Fu Sinian was once recognized by Xia Nai as the most important event in Chinese archeology. However, at the end of the "Cultural Revolution", Xia Nai talked about Chinese archeology and the Anyang excavations. Fu Sinian's name was not mentioned. In 1987, Pang Zhenhao wrote "History of the Ancient Dongyi Kingdom", which clearly used Fu Sinian's views on Dongyi, but did not give Fu Sinian even a little credit (page 7). 2. The revolution in modern Chinese history began with Gu Jiegang and was completed by Fu Sinian. In other words, it is "from destruction to reconstruction." Brother Fansen pointed out very early in "The Rise of the Ancient History Movement" that this process was the gradual formation history of modern Chinese scholarship. In this book, he uses the archival materials at his disposal to describe for us the process from alliance to enmity between Gu Jiegang and Fu Sinian, because this process is not just a personal grudge, but a reflection of the changes in the Chinese historical scholarship of that era.

In 1986, Liu Qi once believed in "Study of Mr. Gu Jiegang" that the bad relationship between Fu and Gu was because Gu Jiegang published a letter from Fu Sinian without his consent. In this letter, Fu Sinian said that Gu was " History is king." Of course, things are not that simple. According to the archives preserved by Shi Yu, Brother Fan Sen has cleaned up this process in his book. Of course, Fu is a very competitive scholar. In his letter to Hu Shi, he did hint that something was wrong. I would like to be impressed by Gu's prestige in history, but what should be more noted is that his concept of ancient history is indeed different from Gu. Brother Fansen saw that Fu had compared Gu's views in the blank spaces of the "Ancient History Bian" he had saved. Criticism, this different concept of ancient history caused him and Gu to part ways and find another way in the study of ancient history. Brother Fansen also noticed that Fu Sinian’s notes and drafts about the fifth class knight in 1926 preserved in the archives contained some comments on the European aristocracy. From the traces of observation, it is obvious that Fu Sinian, who has studied abroad, and Gu Jiegang, who has not gone abroad, are quite different. Perhaps it was this experience that finally made them establish their own flags. Unlike Gu Jiegang who gradually "turned to the folk", starting from 1937, Fu Sinian began to "turn to the classics" and explore the origin of Confucian moral philosophy, because this is the beginning of Chinese humanistic thought and the source of Confucian moral philosophy. Brother Fan Sen pointed out in his book that Dialectics of Ancient Teachings of Life and Ming is not only an ideal combination of historical and philosophical methods, but also contains Fu Sinian's realistic concerns in the seemingly rigorous knowledge. Some Fu Sinian researchers have completely ignored its significance. In fact, if one notices that the English title of "The New Wave" compiled by Fu in 1919, the May 4th era, is The Renaissance, and notices the "Science and Outlook on Life Debate" in 1923, one can find that Fu's academic research implicitly realistic meaning. As early as 1928, Fu believed that "benevolence and righteousness" are not innate but acquired, so he always praised Xunzi more than he agreed with Mencius. Fu strongly disagreed with Confucian scholars since the Song Dynasty inheriting and carrying forward Mencius' theory of mind. His disdain for New Confucianism, that is, Neo-Confucianism, can be seen in the letters written to Fu by He Changqun and Fu's student Sun Cizhou. It is said that Lao Gan once mentioned that the "Collected Journal of the Institute of Historical Philology" chaired by Fu never published anything related to New Confucianism. something. Like Ruan Yuan's "Ancient Teachings on Life and Life", he tried to conduct a historical investigation of its origins. However, Brother Fansen compared the research of Ruan Yuan and Fu Sinian, and pointed out that the difference between Fu and Ruan is that Fu used archaeological and bronze evidence, while Ruan only used the materials of ancient written texts, and Ruan Yuan only pointed out the relationship between "nature" and "nature". "Ming" does not have a mysterious meaning, and Fu believes that these two words did not appear in the Western Zhou Dynasty books at all. Although the current meaning of these two words may have appeared in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, it was not until the Han Dynasty that "Ling" and "生" It was not replaced by "ming" and "xing". It was the pre-Qin translators of the Five Classics who copied these words according to their later meanings. This was Fu's major contribution to deethicalizing the ancient sages' theories. At that time, Li Ji, Dong Zuobin, and Xu Zhongshu, who were exposed to archeology and oracle bones, all pointed out that many ethical thoughts never appeared in the Yin and Shang era. Words like "heart" and "xing" only appear in the middle of the week. These statements can obviously help Fu Yuan go further and put these ethical thoughts of saints back into history. Brother Fansen also saw Fu's unethical tendency in several unpublished manuscripts of Fu Sinian. He also used Zhang Zhengxang's letter to Fu to illustrate Fu Sinian's determination to "demystify". Zhang pointed out in the letter that his research on bronze inscriptions supports Fu's idea that the word "ming" does not have any special mysterious meaning in bronze inscriptions. Fu also pointed out that although Confucians, especially New Confucians, have always opposed "sheng", he found that in literature and inscriptions, "xing" is always "sheng" and does not have any moral and ethical connotation. The original meaning of "ling" does not mean "belonging", and the word "人" does not mean "people" in a broad sense. As for many ancient rituals, they originated from the rituals of the totem tribes of the early people, but these rituals were later idealized in the Spring and Autumn Period. For example, "There are things and rules" in the "Book of Songs", in which the word "wu" may refer to Sexual totems, once these ethical thoughts in the name of saints are "demystified" and returned to their true colors, perhaps people will be able to see their historical significance more clearly (see Chapter 4). This textual research on the ancient teachings on life has attracted the attention of many people. For example, Fan Sen noticed in his book "Chen Yuan's Correspondence Collection" that there is a letter from Chen Yuan to his son. In the letter, Chen Yuan once said, after reading "Diagnosis of Ancient Proverbs on Life and Life", I realized that my knowledge was lagging behind (note on page 126). Third, Fu Sinian once said that he "cannot be too far away from academia, nor can he stay in academia for too long." This may be due to the historical memory of the May Fourth Movement and China's social reality. Brother Fansen quoted this sentence and pointed out that Fu Sinian was alienated from academia. As a scholar who emerged from the May 4th Movement, Fu Sinian could never forget the politics around him and the reality of China. This was the reason why he finally embarked on the political path. The fifth chapter of the book, "The Burden of the May Fourth Mentality," discusses his writing of the "Outline of Northeastern History" for the Anti-Japanese War, and also discusses the entanglement between his deep-seated nationalism and modern anti-traditional trends, as well as the peril of the nation. Amidst the need for cultural identity, Fu is an enterprising person and a person with social concerns. He cannot be limited to the purely academic world of the academy. Indeed, after Fu Sinian joined politics in 1942, he “never published any serious academic research.” However, he was involved in that period of modern Chinese politics.

He was a critic of the government's ills. He also quelled the student riots in Kunming. When he served as acting president of Peking University and president of National Taiwan University, his harsh measures against traitors or rebels all reflected the high degree of ambition of this scholar known as "Fu Dapao" Political fervor and stern political ethics. Brother Fansen cites a lot of information in his book, recording Fu Sinian's various aspects outside of academic research. To give an interesting example, the book records that Fu Sinian, Huang Yanpei and other representatives of the National Political Participation Association visited Yan'an in July 1945. On July 1, Fu Sinian and Mao Zedong, two rising trendsetters during the May Fourth era, talked all night long in a cave dwelling. . Fu Sinian said that Mao was a Song Jiang-type figure, a great rebel, like Liu Bang and Xiang Yu, while he was just a small rebel, like Chen Sheng and Wu Guang. Mao was overjoyed when he heard this and wrote a Tang Dynasty Zhang Jie poem "Liu Xiang was originally Not Reading" was given to Fu Sinian. The book laments, "The two May Fourth youths chose different paths. One became a scholar, and the other chose not to study. This difference was reflected three years later, when Mao wrote in his "Abandon Illusions, Prepare for Struggle" This was finally revealed when Fu Sinian was declared a war criminal” (page 171). However, this does not mean that Fu will withdraw from the academic stage. As far as my reading experience is concerned, the most exciting part of this book, and probably the one that most Fu Sinian researchers have failed to pay attention to, is the story about Fu Sinian and the Institute of History and Language, Peking University and National Taiwan University. People can criticize Fu for being too mundane and involved in politics in the second half of his life, but for a scholar who had a deep connection with the May Fourth Movement when he first came out, it would be difficult for him to just hide in his "ivory tower." In the preface, Brother Fansen mentioned that he tried to discuss the topic of Fu Sinian in two larger contexts of modern Chinese intellectual history. One was to place Fu Sinian in the early rise of cultural iconoclasm during the May 4th Movement. Compared with the discussion in the background of subsequent changes, the second is to observe Fu Sinian in the success and setbacks of building China's academic society (page 8). In this regard, Fu Sinian and Chen Yinke are different after all. 4. The last thing to talk about is data. As mentioned earlier, Brother Fansen's collection and use of Fu Sinian's information made this book the most authoritative and credible biography of Fu Sinian. Brother Fansen not only has access to Fu Sinian's various files at the Institute of History and Language, but also has access to letters and notes that were previously unpublished. For example, he has read through thousands of Fu's letters, so that he can have a deep understanding of Fu's life history and contacts; another example is that there are no letters between him and left-wing historians in a large number of archives, so it seems that he can We can see the difference between his tendency to advocate "historical materials are historiography" in the historical circle and left-wing historiography's "emphasis on the need for history to serve reality"; for another example, because only one letter mentions He Bingsong and only two letters mention Qian Mu, People can also see the distance between him and his academic position. Therefore, readers must not ignore the large number of footnotes, which is precisely a major feature of Wang's book. I am really worried that future Chinese translations will delete or simplify these footnotes. In fact, these footnotes are often no worse than the main text, and some footnotes are almost It's just a small story or a small research, and sometimes it may be an important historical clue or an important supplementary argument. By the way, let me add some sentiments. Fu Sinian was a man with high vision. As the leader and symbol of modern Chinese history, he set a standard for the historical field of that era, and thus achieved the progress of the historical field of that era. We usually believe that learning requires vision, learning requires foundation, and learning requires a broad mind. Fu Sinian once commented on Zhang Gaowen that he was first-rate in everything, but not the first person. Fu Sinian has a very high vision, but what is even more rare is that Fu Sinian has both a high vision, a solid foundation in skills, and a big heart. In the academic world, some scholars are like swordsmen, who may be masters when fighting alone, but some scholars are like leaders, just like General Han Xin. The more the merrier. In modern Chinese academic circles, there are many of the former, but not many of the latter. Fu Sinian He can be regarded as a person who is good at collective work. Today we often mention Fu Sinian's "The Purpose of the Work of the Institute of History and Language", his famous saying "When you go up to the poor blue sky and fall into the underworld, you have to use your hands and feet to find something", and mention his stance on national history and his discussions on "Luxury Studies" , however, if there are any major developments in Chinese history in the first half of the 20th century, these developments are almost all related to Fu. In the chapter "Shaping New Historiography" in Fansen's book, he uses three examples to prove Fu Sinian's Foresight, namely the archaeological excavation of Anyang, the acquisition of Ming and Qing Dynasty archives, and the insistence on independence and professionalism in the history discipline. Because of this, after his death, colleagues from the Institute of History and Language wrote in their elegiac couplet to him: "For twenty-two years, he had far-sightedness, foresight, foresight, and academic foundation. He could bear to watch for a moment; a world-famous genius for five hundred years, Hongzhong Outside, the country is like this, and it is so painful that my soul is awakened." While hiding the volume, the only regret I feel is that Fan Sen’s book was written in English and published in Cambridge, so it may be difficult for mainland academic circles to read it for a while.

Wang Fan Shen, Fu Ssu Nien: History and Politics in Modern China, Cambridge University Press, 2000 (This article is compiled by Mr. Ge Zhaoguang based on the notes of his late brother Ge Xiaojia from 2005 to 2009) Original publication "Book City" Issue 4, 2010