The Dream of a Chinese Renaissance: from the Late Qing “Revival of Ancient Studies” to the Republican “New Tide”

CHAPTER 3 The Dream of a Chinese Renaissance: From the Late Qing “Revival of Ancient Studies” to the Republican “New Tide”

On 15 February 1922, Philippe de Vargas, a theology and history professor at Yanjing University, presented a paper entitled “Some Aspects of the Chinese Renaissance” at a “literary friendship society” meeting attended mostly by Westerner expatriates. Hu Shi 胡适 (1891–1962) and Ding Wenjiang also attended the meeting and participated in the discussion. According to Hu’s diary, Ding expressed the opinion that “the term ‘Chinese Renaissance,’ as used by Liang Qichao, should only be applied to Han Learning during the Qing dynasty and not the recent movement for a revolution in literature.” Hu Shi “opposed this comment in favor of the presenter.” Part of the reason for Hu’s support of de Vargas’ argument was that he had helped de Vargas write the essay. Both before and after the literary society meeting, Hu recorded in his diary that de Vargas visited him to discuss the “New Movement” or “the movement for a revolution in literature.” Hu Shi also agreed with de Vargas because Ding Wenjiang had mentioned Liang Qichao, who was paying attention to Hu Shi’s work, but who had also challenged Hu’s ideas about the history of philosophy.1 After World War I, Ding Wenjiang accompanied Liang Qichao on his tour of Europe. Ding and Liang were close friends, but at the literary society meeting Ding supported Liang’s ideas not because of their personal relationship, but because the topic involved the Republican-era scholarly debate over Han and Song Learning.2 During the well-known “Debate over Science and the

1 Hu Shi 胡适, Hu Shi de riji 胡适的日记 (The diary of Hu Shi) (9 February and 7 March 1922) (Zhonghua shuju, 1986), 263, 280. 2 Translator’s Note: Han Learning (hanxue 汉学) was a school of classical philology that arose during the eighteenth century as its adherents searched for the meaning of the original Chinese classics through close textual exegesis. Known as “evidential scholarship” (kaozheng 考证), Han Learning also developed as a reaction against the introspective methods of moral cultivation and metaphysical speculation of Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism represented by Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1107) and Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200). Their philosophy was known in the early nineteenth century by the name Cheng-Zhu Daoxue (程朱道学) or Song Learning (宋学), and was also the orthodox, government-supported interpretation of the classics tested on the civil service examinations.

Philosophy of Life (Metaphysics)” in 1923, Ding Wenjiang sharply criticized Song Learning and endorsed Han Learning for its “scientific methods.”3 In this respect, Hu Shi and Ding Wenjiang were in agreement. At the time, however, Hu was dissatisfied with Liang Qichao’s work. He opined, “Liang’s opinions about Qing scholarship are unclear. He previously attacked Han Learning in the “Personal Virtues” (Lun side 论私德) chapter of his On the New Citizen (Xinmin shuo 新民说), but when Liang edited his work into a collection, he did not delete this essay, but instead removed Chapter 8 entitled “General Tendencies in the Development of Chinese Thought” (Zhongguo xueshu sixiang bianqian zhi da shi 中国学术思想变迁之大势). Recently, because we emphasized the importance of Han Learning, Liang bragged about his own insight by quoting the essay he had deleted.”4 The Chapter 8 to which Hu Shi referred was the final chapter of Liang Qichao’s work on Qing intellectual history. In early 1902, Liang Qichao penned the essay “General Tendencies in the Development of Chinese Thought,” in which he discussed a plan to divide Chinese intellectual history into “Seven Ages: 1, the Embryonic Age, the pre-Spring and Autumn period; 2, The Age of Full Bloom, the late Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods; 3, The Age of Confucian Unification, the two Han dynasties; 4, The Daoist Age, the Wei-Jin period; 5, The Buddhist Age, the Northern and Southern dynasties; 6, The Age of Confucian-Buddhist Synthesis, the Song, Yuan, and Ming; 7, The Age of Backwardness, the last 250 years; 8, The Age of Revival, the present.” In fact, Liang stopped writing after finishing the fifth chapter. More than a year later, when Liang returned from a trip to America, he picked up the essay again, but deleted the “Age of Confucian-Buddhist Synthesis, the Song, Yuan, and Ming” and skipped straight to Qing thought. He also changed the title of that chapter to “Scholarship in the Modern Age (from the Ming Fall to the Present),” which seemed to include his original chapters 7 and 8. This was not simply a reorganization of chapters. Many of Liang’s ideas had undergone sig- nificant transformation (he had publically acknowledged such changes, which have been discussed by other scholars) as had his ideas about Qing scholarship. Not only was his new title more neutral, but he also discussed the decline

3 Luo Zhitian 罗志田, “Cong kexue yu rensheng guan zhi zheng kan hou wusi guannian de fansi” 从科学与人生观之争看后五四时期对五四观念的反思 (A review of the post- May Fourth debate on science and the philosophy of life), Lishi yanjiu 历史研究 (Historical research) 3 (1999). 4 Hu, Hu Shi de riji (15 February 1922), 267–68.