Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149

Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity: The Spread and Influence of Kotoku Shusui’s On the Obliteration of Christ in China

Xuejun ZHENG School of Government Nanjing University 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing, 210023, P. R. China [email protected]

Abstact: Owing to Zhu Zhixin’s introduction and Liu Wendian’s translation, Japanese anarchist Kotoku Shusui’s On the Obliteration of Christ came to have a great impact on China’s Anti-Christian Movement following the . What these three texts oppose is not only Christian authority, but also political power. In a continuous line, these writings lay the basic framework for Chinese anti-Christian speech in the 1920s, as the combination of scientism and nationalism began to shape people’s perception of Christianity. Keywords: Kotoku Shusui, Christianity, Liu Wendian, Zhu Zhixin, scientism, nationalism

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1911, the posthumous work of Japanese anarchist Kotoku Shusui (1871-1911), On the Obliteration of Christ, was published (Kotoku, 1911), and reprinted seven times in a single month. It has since been reprinted many more times. The book argues that the existence of Christ has neither historical basis nor moral value, so Christ should simply be erased. There are many bold statements to be found in the book, such as: “Christ is a fictional historical figure”; “the worship of the cross is born out of ancient genital worship”, and more. These strong statements have been a cause for concern and have led to heated discussion. By the 1920s, a movement based on scientific rationality and the academic study and criticism of Christianity had emerged in China. Therefore, the views of Kotoku Shusui became widely prevalent, which greatly influenced the Anti-Christian Movement in China. As people said at the time: “Of all the articles of the Anti-Christian Movement, the most attention-grabbing is Kotoku Shusui’s On the Obliteration of Christ. Because other articles just sing the same old tunes: Christianity is superstition! It is against science! It is the pioneer of imperialism! It is in strong support of European and American

© 2019 Xuejun ZHENG - https://doi.org/10.3726/CUL022019.0009 - The online edition of this publication is available open access. Except where otherwise noted, content can be used under the terms of the Creative 135 Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). For details go to http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/ Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity… capitalists! It is a tool of cultural aggression! ...The great suspicion raised by Kotoku Shusui has never been studied by our intellectuals and scholars; so I read the translation of Lidiaopi (丩䈇θ⤮ᕊ⯁ ) with a burst of madness, thinking that the root of Christianity can be eradicated and the Anti-Christian Movement can soon meet with success.” (Miao, 1925: 60- 61) It is worth noting that Kotoku Shusui’s intention is not just to obliterate Christ, but to criticize all authority similar to religious idols by attacking religious authority with a strong criticism of reality, including Japan’s Mikado system. So how did such an anti-Christian book, rooted in Japanese society and culture, gain popularity in China, and how could it have such a significant social impact on China’s Anti-Christian Movement? Why did the translator choose this book, and is the translation faithful to the original text? What kind of social reality is reflected in the wide reach of this book in China? These are the questions I will explore in this article.

II. LIDIAOPI’S TRANSLATION OF On the Obliteration of Christ

In 1924, more than ten years after the publication of Kotoku Shusui’s On the Obliteration of Christ, Press launched a Chinese version with the translator simply named as Lidiaopi. While studying the contents of the book, people were also curious about the translator’s identity and even questioned the anonymity: “A funnyman at Peking University who is known as Lidiaopi... wants to do a speculative business”(Wang, 1925: 1), “If his purpose is legitimate; then why should he be anonymous? If Kotoku Shusui’s book is valuable, then why is he anonymous?” (Zhang, 1925: 10) Critics failed to identify the translator’s true identity. Recently, Li Changyin discovered relevant information in Qian Xuantong’s diary and Zhou Zuoren’s memoirs, and argued that the translator of On the Obliteration of Christ was Liu Wendian, a professor at Peking University at the time (Li, 2016: 222). It is worth noting that Liu never mentioned On the Obliteration of Christ, and The Complete Collection of Liu’s Classics does not include this translation. So, by considering his life experiences, is it possible to conclude that he translated On the Obliteration of Christ? Liu Wendian (1891-1958), styled himself Shuya and was born in Hefei, Anhui Province. Early on, under the influence of Liu Shipei, he focused on ancient philosophy and collation, and followed Liu Shipei to study in

136 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149

Japan at the end of 1908 (Liu, 2008: 11-20; Liu, 2016: 203-219). During his time in Japan, Liu conducted comprehensive and in-depth study of philosophical works, and some major changes took place in his thinking. He learned about the value of modern science and decided to establish and develop scientific beliefs (Liu, 2008: 20). Fueled by this belief, he wrote an article attacking popular religious associations, writing about the Tongshan Society that “the vicious effect of its disintegration of society is ten times as bad as the Way of the Five Pecks of Rice in the Han Dynasty and the White Lotus in the Song Dynasty. It is truly the hidden danger of the country and the world’s great concern.” (Liu, 2008: 24-25) In his view, “people turn to the ghost,” out of despair and frustration with society, but this is actually self-defeating: “It is so harmful that it can hinder the progress of science and degrad the national spirit.” (Liu, 2008: 107) It should be noted that Liu’s rational views cannot be attributed solely to the influence of Western thought, because Liu was not convinced of ghosts and gods and he was already critical of religion before he started studying Western philosophy. (Liu, 2008: 17) This may be related to the traditional education Liu received. While studying Western philosophy, Liu also actively translated a number of related works. Thanks to his early educational experience, Liu had an excellent command of Chinese written language and was proficient in a number of foreign languages, so his work of translation was very impressive. Jiang Baili declared him “the genius of translating books.” Hu Shih also praised him for being “second to none”. Liu himself was confident enough to say: “That I do not translate books is a misfortune to society.”1 He especially praised the work of Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) because “we can do nothing but introduce the monism of materialism to eradicate the root causes of China.” Haeckel, a spokesman of German Darwinism, established a philosophy of monism on the basis of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Several translations of his works had been published since the end of the , and his works became a key source text of Chinese ideology during the New Culture Movement (Ouyang, 2009: 95-109). Liu’s translation of The Wonders of Life and The Riddle of the Universe played a very important role in promoting Haeckel’s thought to Chinese society. When might Liu have read On the Obliteration of Christ? As mentioned above, Liu followed his teacher Liu Shipei to Japan at the end of 1908, and Liu Shipei together with Zhang Taiyan, Zhang Ji and others were close to

137 Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity…

Kotoku Shusui and deeply influenced by anarchism. Therefore, Liu was possibly introduced to Kotoku Shusui through Liu Shipei. Before Liu’s return in October 1911, On the Obliteration of Christ had already been published in Japan, and he might have already read it at that time. Whether questioning religion or admiring science and reason, Liu’s thought had close ties to the ideas in On the Obliteration of Christ, so it is not impossible to imagine him as the translator of Kotoku Shusui’s work. But is the translation faithful? Whether a translator “exaggerates” or seeks to promote “a personal intention” in their translation, “is always a question”. (Zhang, 1925: 8-9) Liu’s translated version referred to the structure of the original book in the chapter outline. The book included twelve chapters, and no chapter or paragraph was omitted in the translation except for the subtitles of each chapter in the original. The content is also loyal to the original text: Kotoku Shusui was good at using parallelism, antitheses, and rhetorical questions to strengthen his argument. Liu retained these features in his translation. In addition, in order to help Chinese readers fully understand the meaning of the original work, Liu either drew on a corresponding Chinese context, or summarized his views when encountering and translating Japanese idioms. He expressed his views by adding notes to elaborate on any complexities and ambiguities. There are nine “Translator’s Notes” in the book, of which five are explanations, two additional text sources, and two errata. However, Liu’s translation is not perfect. There is an error in the translation, where the original book quotes the sentence “Jehovah is Salvation” from the Bible accompanied by a Japanese translation (Kotoku, 1911: 139). Liu mistakably renders salvation as “to be saved” and translates it as “Jehovah is saved.” (Kotoku, 1924: 108) This error, which may be the result of a technical error, does not affect the understanding of the full text. Moreover, such mistakes are extremely rare in the text. Upon further analysis, however, Liu’s translation exaggerates the emotional tenor of the original. For example, Chapter Eight recounts Robert Taylor’s comments on Christians plagiarizing Greek and Roman thought (Kotoku, 1911: 94), describing it as “an uncritical acceptance” (Kotoku, 1924: 73). He adds the phrase “by every possible means” (Kotoku, 1924: 92) in Chapter Ten to describe what is done at the love feast (Kotoku, 1911: 118). Liu added extra words not found in the original text in these two cases, and amplified the emotions of the original text,

138 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149 which is not advisable from the perspective of literary translation. But at the same time, it does reflect the translator’s own perception of Christianity. And it should be noted that this is rare on the whole. In addition, the Christian Zhang Shizhang questioned the translation’s notes about proper nouns: “You see, he adds notes for unnecessary or very common nouns, but often ignores notes for very important names, places or books.” (Zhang, 1925: 9) I have compared several points mentioned by Zhang Shizhang. Compared with the original work, the translation retains what is written in English in the original. When the original is marked with Japanese Katakana, the translation either renders this in English or transliterates into Chinese. Determining which method to choose depends on the translator’s knowledge of specific nouns. In translating the Japanese scholar Oka Asajiro’s The Theory of Evolution, Liu discussed his way of dealing with such translations, and explained that he had to add the original English names for those proper nouns he knew, because in the book only the Japanese Katakana was provided. (Liu, 2013b: 544) Therefore, it may be reasonable to conclude that when it came to the proper nouns in Kotoku Shusui’s work, Liu marked out what he knew, and failed to mark the words unknown to him. Considering the limited exchange of information at that time, however, Zhang Shizhang’s questioning of the translation of these proper nouns may be too critical. The publication of the Chinese translation of On the Obliteration of Christ undoubtedly came to gain great significance. In terms of the quality of the translation, using a faithful translation strategy and popular and elegant phrasing enabled the translation to precisely convey the thoughts and attitudes of the original, demonstrating the translator’s superb translation skills. In terms of sales, the book was sold only through Peking University Press at first (Yang, 1925: 86), growing in popularity in 1924-1925 (Zhao, 1927: 138). In 1926, the book became available in regular bookstores selling New Culture books and newspapers (Yang, 1926: 129), and soon “reached every intellectual in China.” (Anonymous, 1925a: 29; 1925b: 4) Opinions are divided about the book’s ideas, but as we can see, different from previous anti-religious writings, the book raised many questions about theology, history, and philosophy offering clear and well-founded viewpoints, so it is no wonder that it caused a stir at that time. While Kotoku Shusui’s anti-religious viewpoints were very novel, they were not entirely unheard of among China’s intellectual circles. As early as five years before the publication of the Chinese translation, someone

139 Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity… calling himself “the Farmer” introduced Kotoku Shusui’s views on Christianity. The article, however, failed to engender much discussion at the time, provoking only a single rebuttal (Zhang, 1930: 12-16). Instead, another work, “What is Jesus”, published at the same time, attracted a lot of attention and even laid the foundation for the spread of On the Obliteration of Christ in China.

III. ZHU ZHIXIN’S “What is Jesus”

Zhu Zhixin (1885-1920), who styled himself Dafu, was a modern Chinese revolutionary and theorist, born in Panyu, Guangdong Province. He studied in Japan in 1904, met Sun Yat-sen and other revolutionaries, and joined the Chinese Alliance the following year. During his studies in Japan, he actively participated in debates with bourgeois reformers, published many political articles, and partially translated the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. He was thus the first person to introduce Marx’s theory of class struggle and surplus value to Chinese readers. After returning to China in 1907, he first taught in school, was actively engaged in revolutionary propaganda work, and then followed Sun Yat-sen engaging in military operations as Sun’s main assistant. Moreover, he was active in theoretical propaganda work (Zhu, 2013: 3). From 1905 to 1920, Zhu published numerous works of great significance, and “What is Jesus” (hereafter referred to as Jesus), published on Christmas Day in 1919, was one of them.2 In addition to its “Conclusion”, Jesus consists of five chapters: “Jesus of History,” “Jesus in the Bible,” “Jesus for Protestants,” “Jesus for New Idealistic Philosophers,” and “Jesus for Tolstoy.” At first glance the chapters seem to be only loosely connected, but are upon closer inspection intricately linked through the work’s step-by-step advancement. It argues that the influence of Jesus in history is limited, and that New Idealistic philosophers and Tolstoy merely speak about Jesus to promote their own thoughts. Therefore, the basis of this work’s final argument lies in Jesus in Catholicism and Protestantism. In “Jesus of History”, Zhu Zhixin selected several events from Jesus’s birth to his death, and refuted each one by one, including the immaculate conception; the Twelve Apostles; Judas’s betrayal of Jesus, and more. Zhu mainly references two other books in this work, Haeckel’s The Riddle of the Universe and Kotoku Shusui’s On the Obliteration of Christ, which may reflect

140 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149 his own ideological tendencies. As mentioned above, Haeckel’s “philosophy of monism” was very popular among Chinese intellectuals. At the time The Riddle of the Universe had been translated a number of times by different translators, but Zhu used Ma Junwu’s version as reference. Zhu also admired Kotoku Shusui as he cited his views—even the opening passage of Jesus is similar to On the Obliteration of Christ (Kotoku, 1911: 1). However, Zhu did not agree with Kotoku Shusui completely. He argued that the relationship between the Cross and genital worship was not totally correct. Although Zhu favored science and reason like Kotoku Shusui, and sought to dispel myth and eliminate the divinity of Jesus by interpreting Jesus as an ordinary person with “no great power”, he did not deny Jesus’s historical existence. Chapter Two focuses on “Jesus in the Bible”, “because it is not the Jesus of history who can exert influence on society, but the Jesus in the Bible”. Zhu Zhixin first confirmed that there were valuable ideas to be found in the Bible, “for example, equality and fraternity”, then adding, “but the Christianity at that time was really selfish, savage and vengeful and lost the true benefits of Christianity. (The above-mentioned benefits are precepts that have been passed down from ancient times and have nothing to do with Christianity.)”3 In Zhu’s view, despite the value of certain Christian doctrines, these doctrines were not unique to Christianity or Jesus. Moreover, Christianity did not implement these valuable creeds. So, what is the meaning of these doctrines? Rather for Zhu Zhixin, the invaluable doctrines, such as the two examples given later, proved “the ridiculous personality of self-interested thieves.” Furthermore, the history of Catholicism in Europe and especially the cruel methods used for dealing with pagans further confirmed the “vengeful exclusivity” of Christianity. This applies to Jesus in Catholicism, so what about Jesus in Protestantism? Zhu Zhixin praised Martin Luther’s courage during the Reformation, but he did not dare to simply affirm the achievements of the Reformation. “It’s good of Protestants to criticize Catholics’ punishment for dissidents, but didn’t Protestants do the same to their dissidents?” There was no essential difference between Protestantism and Catholicism in dealing with dissidents because “freedom and equality were official rhetorical terms for both Catholicism and Protestantism”. They both believed that “a slave should be burned, and a man should be killed”, “Could there be any morality?” And this “inherent attribute” of self- interest, cruelty and revenge was not only reflected in Catholicism and

141 Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity…

Protestantism, but also in the treatment of “dissidents,” that is, “our non- Christian nation in the East,” by “European careerists”. Note that the relationship between Christianity and the domestic and international political situation are linked, and religious issues have risen to national level with words “we”, “Eastern” and “non” denoting obvious nationalist tendencies. In the last sentence of Chapter Two, Zhu Zhixin writes: “We talk to him by using freedom, equality and fraternity, how boring it is.” Perhaps this also suggests that a dialogue with Europe should be carried out differently and that the past practice of “freedom, equality and fraternity” should be abandoned. Chapter Two and Chapter Three are entitled “Jesus in the Bible” and “Jesus for Protestants” respectively, but are actually aimed at the Church. In these two chapters, Zhu attacked Christianity from the perspective of history and morality. Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary man, and Christianity, which deified Jesus, was self-interested and cruel. Such a religion is obviously not worthy of trust. Attacks on doctrine and church history are the deadliest and most difficult to refute in Christianity, especially its indisputable history of persecuting pagans. Jesus was not only pulled down from the altar, but also shown to not possess basic personality traits. The sanctity of Jesus (and with him, Christianity) was thus further dissolved. The final two chapters discuss neo-idealism and Tolstoy’s non- resistance. The neo-idealism of German philosopher Rudolf Eucken (1846-1926) rethinks rationalism at the end of the nineteenth century and focuses on spiritual life. The philosophy of life, represented by Eucken and French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941), reflects the rise of irrationalism after World War I. Zhu Zhixin said that nobody had introduced the theory of Eucken yet, but in fact, his thought had been briefly introduced in Eastern Miscellany as early as 1903. It was after the First World War, when Liang Qichao and others returned from abroad, that the thoughts of Eucken and Bergson were introduced in China and gained widespread attention (Zheng, 2008: 82-106). It is clear that Zhu Zhixin was very sensitive to society’s ideological movements at the time. By contrast, Tolstoy’s (1828-1910) non-resistance was better known to the Chinese people. Tolstoy opposed all forms of government and violence, promoted anarchism in Christianity, and tried to defeat the evils of society through promoting religious groups. In Zhu’s view, the new idealists, represented by Eucken, portrayed Jesus as a “lively and free-spirited

142 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149 personality who has a clean conscience,” and they incorporated ideas of new idealism into Christianity to spread their neo-idealism. While Tolstoy seemed to “worship Jesus”, he actually kidnapped and forced Jesus to express his own thought. Thus was Jesus nothing more than a “tool of non-resistance”. It should be emphasized that Zhu was concerned that the prevalence of these two trends would lead people to worship Christianity, rather than being opposed to an emphasis on spiritual life (Zhu, 2013: 852- 853). Therefore, his final two chapters are mainly written in response to these two trends. For this reason, in subsequent discussions of Christianity, the content of these two chapters is usually ignored. Thus, according to Zhu Zhixin, the influence of “Jesus in History” is limited, and for neo-idealism and Tolstoy Jesus is simply used to express their own views. Thus, at the end of his work, Zhu Zhixin focuses on how Catholicism and Protestantism portray Jesus: “Jesus is a dishonest, mean, self-interested, bad-tempered and vengeful idol.” If we compare the writing of Jesus to a journey, then Jesus is God at the very start; at the end of Chapter One, he becomes a man; when it comes to Chapter Three, he becomes a self-interested and vengeful man. Finally, he borders on disappearing with no existence. Zhu Zhixin argued in Jesus from the perspectives of history, science and morality, including many ideological theories from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century and across the European continent to the Soviet Union and even to Japan, which fully embodied the blending and collision of various ideas during the New Culture Movement. It is these theories, drawn from different times and places, that constituted the rational basis of Jesus, and contributed to presenting a sharper criticism of Christianity than ever (Xie, 1925: 27). It should be noted that these theories can only explain how this work came to be written, but do not explain why the author abandoned theories of Eucken and selected those of Haeckel and Kotoku Shusui from among many other theories. Furthermore, nor do these explain why the author wanted to explore the identity of Jesus rather than other religious figures. To understand the underlying intention of the text, it is thus necessary to further examine the author’s background and thought.

IV. CHRISTIANITY AS A REAL THREAT

In the New Culture Movement, democracy and science became the

143 Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity… criteria of value for a new generation of intellectuals, and religious issues were even more deeply challenged by science. “To support science, we have to oppose old art and old religion.” (Chen, 1910: 10-11) Religion is the opposite of science. In Zhu Zhixin’s view, science can be questioned and discussed as a body of knowledge and learned as skills for human inventions and practices (Zhu, 2013: 382). As a spiritual attitude, science “focuses on methods and organization” and includes “no fraud and no absurdity.” (Zhu, 2013: 852-853) In contrast, religious creeds do not stand up to scrutiny because they can be both fraudulent and absurd. They do not belong to science, and could even hinder scientific development and societal progress. Zhu Zhixin was undoubtedly a staunch supporter of science, and he reminded students to be wary of “the temptation of religion,” and stressed that “now, the greatest temptation is Christianity.” Zhu reckoned that Chinese people did not truly believe in religion, but merely wanted to be promoted to higher positions. They viewed following Christianity as a heavenly blessing. In the past, anti-Christian rhetoric was often based on Confucianism. However, older criticisms of Christianity faded as Confucianism was dissolved. Thus Zhu feared that it would lead to the exclusive worship of Christ, which would not benefit social reform. Zhu’s concern about religion was linked to his concern with the fate of the country and social reform, and he worried that the erosion of religion and spirituality would undermine the determination and future of reform. For a while, he therefore regarded Christianity as a merely potential threat without expressing strong anti-Christian sentiments. He wrote that the harm of Christianity “is hard to say”, because “except for some schools that were deeply poisoned in Guangdong province, almost no one else was poisoned by religion.” In his writings, Christianity was only one of many religions without links to “European careerists”. Nor did it mention the difference between “non-Christianity” and “Christianity” (Zhu, 2013: 882-884). However, Zhu’s attitude towards Christianity changed significantly around the publication of Jesus. In June 1920, Zhu wrote an article in Construction to introduce readers to two “science-oriented” journals, Learning Arts and Conscious Monthly respectively, and praised Luo Qiyuan’s article in Conscious Monthly, saying that it “gets rid of all concerns to make reasonable claims beyond all deception.” (Zhu, 2013: 852-853) This introductory article, which focused heavily on Christianity, helps to further

144 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149 shed light on the social ecology of the time. The first point relates to the National Salvation of Christianity. In 1918, the Christian Xu Qian took the lead in proposing Christianity’s ability to save the nation, followed by the successive establishment of the Association of the National Salvation of Christianity in Guangzhou, Beijing, Nanjing, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Shanghai and other major cities, with the aim of promoting church reform, breaking with national boundaries, and finally realizing “the unity of the world’s religions” and heavenism (Xu, 1921: 222-224). Although the promise of salvation in Christianity held practical significance for the reform of the church, it was inherently embedded in political debates, specifically the unification of politics and religion. In Luo Qiyuan’s view, Christians were neither qualified nor able to undertake the task of saving the country: “The worst thing about the church is that it is in cahoots with the government... Recently, the politicians, who, with despicable selfishness, flaunt the banner of Christ’s salvation to confuse the masses, want to put religion into politics as a furnace and give us a taste of medieval European religion... The phrase ‘Christ’s Salvation of the Nation’ is already very surprising. What is the connection between Christianity and the Salvation of the Nation? How does Salvation relate to Christ? Are there only Christians who want to save the country? Or is it only Christians who can save the country?” (Luo, 1920: 13) The next point relates to the development of Christianity, as its rapid growth raised particular concerns: “All prestigious schools presided over by the church forced people to read the Bible and join Christianity, how worrying it is!” It seemed to most intellectuals that “reading the Bible and joining Christianity” was a form of spiritual poisoning, as mentioned by Zhu Zhixin, and a major hidden danger. Lastly, in regards to Christianity’s missionary intentions, the freedom of mission obtained through unequal treaties made Christianity involved in international politics from the start of its entry into China, on which its development had become stranded. Luo Qiyuan also mentioned folk religion organizations, such as the Parapsychological Society. At the time, various folk religion groups continuously appeared, such as the Tongshan Society, Wushan Society, and more. Zhu Zhixin was very dissatisfied with this phenomenon, calling it “the plague of religion” (Zhu, 2013: 852-853). He believed that these organizations and the failures of a series of reforms and revolutionary movements since the late Qing Dynasty and beginning of the Republic of

145 Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity…

China, increasingly highlighted the importance of “reforms starting from the ideological level”. (Zhu, 2013: 641) For this reason Zhu Zhixin chose the nineteenth century Haeckel over the twentieth century Eucken. He believed Eucken’s and others’ emphasis on intuition and spiritual life should be considered “mysticism”. (Zhu, 1919: 840) Similarly, Liu Wendian also strongly criticized people’s fascination with religion and superstition, and advocated for increased scientific knowledge: “Today’s Chinese ideology is similar to that of Europe’s Middle Ages. There is no symptomatic medicine except for the monism of materialism.” Liu Wendian believed that neither Eucken’s Geistesleben and Bergson’s L'evolution créatrice could save China’s ideological world, so he chose to translate Haeckel’s The Riddle of the Universe and The Wonders of Life (Liu, 1919: 107-120) . Simply put, when Jesus was published on Christmas Day 1919, Christianity was no longer a potential threat in Zhu Zhixin’s view, and its “inherent attributes” had turned into a reality in the way that “European careerists” treat “our non-Christian nation in the East”. Taking the historical context into account, it becomes clear that Zhu Zhixin’s remarks were in fact an expression of dissatisfaction with the Paris Peace Conference. Although the Paris Peace Conference was only a diplomatic event, as the May Fourth Movement highlights, it led fellow Chinese countrymen to understand the difference between “we” and “they”, which greatly stimulated the growth of nationalist sentiment. In this regard, the discussion of Christianity in Jesus seems to be at the academic level, but it also points to a strong sense of what was going on in the real world of politics and international affairs. Although the New Culture Movement was about culture, it was aimed at the country and the nation. At that time, most works, including Jesus, still did not deviate from the modern Chinese main responsibility of resisting foreign aggression and the pursuit of prosperity. Thus, scientism and nationalism jointly contributed to the birth of Jesus, the former providing ideological weapons, the latter inspiring writing that profoundly conveyed the deep-felt concern with the fate of the country and the nation.

V. CONCLUSION

The three texts Kotoku Shusui’s On the Obliteration of Christ, Zhu Zhixin’s “What is Jesus”, and Liu Wendian’s translation of On the

146 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149

Obliteration of Christ are not just about Christianity: Kotoku Shusui criticized any authority that shackles people by criticizing Christianity, and ultimately pointed the finger at the Japanese Mikado system. However, Zhu Zhixin and Liu Wendian thought Christianity had other meanings. In the face of the ideological chaos that had reigned since the end of Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China, many intellectuals thought it necessary to introduce Western science (the philosophy of monism) to transform people’s thinking. This in turn meant religion faced challenges raised by science. As the fastest-growing religion at the time, Christianity particularly caused concern among people. On the other hand, since the Paris Peace Conference, national sentiment in China continued to increase. In such circumstances, Christianity was more and more seen as a “foreign” religion. The two Chinese texts, both born in this context, were supported by numerous Western theories, but also conveyed a strong sense of reality, and did not deviate from the modern Chinese main responsibility of resistance to foreign aggression and the pursuit of prosperity. Therefore, they are both texts of anti-Christian authority and opposition to political power. Perhaps this is why these two texts would continue to play a role in later political movements opposing capitalism and imperialism. Subsequent anti-religious remarks were based on the basic framework laid down by these two texts. The evolution of their ideas about scientism and nationalism continued to shape people’s perception of Christianity.

Notes

Grammatically proofread by Stephen Roddy, University of San Francisco.

1 In his letters to Hu Shih, Liu Wendian mentioned many times that because of his limited wages, he had to do extra translation work to make a living. See Liu Wendian, Liu Wendian Quanji ࡎᮽޮޞ䳼 (3), p. 828. 2 Zhu Zhixin’s article “What is Jesus” can be found in collections of his articles and anti-religious pamphlets at that time. When it comes to where the article first appeared, however, there seems to be varied opinions. Till now, I haven’t found the original source of this article. Here I use the material from Zhu Zhixin Ji for reference, see .Zhu Zhixin, Zhu Zhixin Ji ᵧᢝؗ䳼, pp. 3-6 3 Kotoku Shusui expressed the same idea in his book, see Kotoku Shusui, Kirisuto Massatsu Ron ะ⶙ᣯ⇰䄌, pp. 113-116.

147 Xuejun ZHENG / Scientism, Nationalism, and Christianity…

References

,Anonymous. “Ping Jidu Mosha Lun 䇺ะ⶙ᣯᵶ䇰,” in Shizhao Yuebao ᰬݼᴾᣛ 20(7), 1925a: 29. ——. “Ping Jidu Mosha Lun: Wei Jidujiao Bianhu de Zhuzuo 䇺ะ⶙ᣯᵶ䇰φ .Ѱะ⶙ᮏ䗟ᣚⲺ㪍֒,” in Guangji Yikan ᒵ⎄ॱࡀ, 2(6), 1925b: 4 ——. “Sheping: Jidutu Jiuguohui ⽴䇺φะ⶙ᗈᮇളՐ,” in Xinghua ު঄, 17(3), 1920: 31-32. Chen, Duxiu. “Benzhi Zui’an zhi Dabian Shu ᵢᘍ㖠Ṿҁㆊ䗟Ҝ,” in Xin Qingnian ᯦䶈ᒪ, 6(1), 1919: 11-13. Kotoku, Shusui. Kirisuto Massatsu Ron ะ⶙ᣯ⇰䄌. Tokyo: Heigo Shuppansha, 1911. Kotoku, Shusui. Jidu Mosha Lun ะ⶙ᣯᵶ䇰, translated by Lidiaopi, Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanbu, 1924. Li, Changyin. “Xingde Qiushui Jidu Mosha Lun zai Jindai Zhongguo de Chuanbo he Yingxiang ᒮᗭ、≪Ʌะ⶙ᣯᵶ䇰Ɇ൞䘇ԙѣളⲺՖ᫣ૂᖧଃ,” in Zhongnan Daxue Xuebao ѣ঍ཝᆜᆜᣛ, 22(1), 2016: 220-225. Liu, Pingzhang, “Wo de Fuqin Liu Wendian ᡇⲺ⡬Өࡎᮽޮ,” in Yi Shuya Xiansheng: Ji Liu Wendian Xiansheng Zhijiao Yunda Shiwuzai Wangshi ᗼਊ䳻ݾ⭕φ䇦ࡎ ᮽޮݾ⭕ᢝᮏӇཝॷӊ䖳ᖶӁ, Ed. Lei Wenbin. Kunming: Yunnan Daxue Chubanshe, 2016. Liu, Shuya. “Lingyi Lun ⚫ᔸ䇰,” in Xin Qingnian ᯦䶈ᒪ, 6(2), 1919: 107-120. Liu, Wendian. Liu Wendian Quanji ࡎᮽޮޞ䳼(3). Hefei: Anhui Daxue Chubanshe, 2013a. Liu, Wendian. Liu Wendian Quanji ࡎᮽޮޞ䳼(4). Hefei: Anhui Daxue Chubanshe, 2013b. Liu, Wendian. Liu Wendian Shiwen Cungao ࡎᮽޮ䈍ᮽᆎふ, Eds. Zhu Weiqi and Liu Xingyu. Hefei: Huangshan Shushe, 2008. Luo, Qiyuan. “Kexue de Zongjiao Piping 〇ᆜⲺᇍᮏ᢯䇺,” in Zijue Yuekan 㠠㿿ᴾ ࡀ, 1(3), 1920: 1-14. Miao, Qiusheng. “Piping Ping Jidu Mosha Lun ᢯䇺Ʌ䇺ะ⶙ᣯᵶ䇰Ɇ,” in Zhonghua Jidujiao Wenshe Yuekan ѣ঄ะ⶙ᮏᮽ⽴ᴾࡀ, 1(1), 1925: 60-61. Ouyang, Junxi. Lishi yu Sixiang: Zhongguo Xiandaishi shang de Wusi Yundong ়ਨфᙓ ᜩφѣള⧦ԙਨрⲺӊ഑䘆ࣞ. Fuzhou: Fujian Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 2009. Wang, Zhixin. “Fakan de Suoyiran ਇࡀⲺᡶԛ❬.” Ping Jidu Mosha Lun 䇺ะ⶙ᣯ ᵶ䇰, Ed. Shen Sizhuang, et al. Yili Yinshua Gongsi, 1925. Xie, Fuya. “Bense Jiaohui Wenti yu Jidujiao zai Zhongguo zhi Qiantu ᵢ㢨ᮏՐ䰤从 фะ⶙ᮏ൞ѣളҁࢃ䙊,” Wenshe Yuekan ᮽ⽴ᴾࡀ, 1(4), 1925: 27-31. Xu, Qian. “Jidujiao Jiuguohui Jilue ะ⶙ᮏᮇളՐ㓠⮛,” in Zhonghua Jidujiaohui Nianjian ѣ঄ะ⶙ᮏՐᒪ䢪, (6), 1921: 222-224.

148 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 135-149

Yang, Xianjiang. “Da Fengtian Tienan Jun ㆊཿཟ䫷⭭ੑ,” in Xuesheng Zazhi ᆜ⭕ ᵸᘍ, 12(9), 1925: 86. Yang, Xianjiang. “Da Weng Yanyi Jun ㆊ㗷ᔬѿੑ,” in Xuesheng Zazhi ᆜ⭕ᵸᘍ, 13(6), 1926: 129. Zhang, Shizhang. “Wo duiyu Li yi Jidu Mosha Lun de Piping ᡇሯӄ⤮䈇Ʌะ⶙ᣯᵶ 䇰ɆⲺ᢯䇺,” in Ping Jidu Mosha Lun 䇺ะ⶙ᣯᵶ䇰, Eds. Shen Sizhuang, et al. Yili Yinshua Gongsi, 1925. Zhang, Yijing. *XDQ\X=KX=KL[LQ´

149