Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
When in 1931 the late Arthur W. Hummel published his annotated translation of Gu Jiegang's Preface to the Gushi-bian, only the first two volumes of this opus magnum in modern Chinese historiography had appeared. Yet, Hummel recognized the nascent work as “an admirable introduction to the technique and temper of Chinese scholarship” of the post-May-Fourth “Chinese Renaissance” era, and its then youthful editor as an historian who, although he had never studied abroad or with a western teacher, was able to conduct such a large-scale disputation on ancient Chinese history “in the most rigorous scientific manner” owing to his “firm grasp of the best traditions of native scholarship, together with what he had learned of western methods.” Most of the leaders of the “New Culture Movement” (yet another name for the intellectual tide around May Fourth) subsequently contributed to the Gushi-bian, the spiritus rector of which Gu remained, although he had to ask colleagues for help with the editing.
1. Hummel, Arthur W., The Autobiography of a Chinese Historian (Leyden: Brill, 1931)Google Scholar [hereafter ACH]; Jiegang, Gu et al. , eds., Gushi-bian (Critical Discussions of Ancient History), 7 Vols. (Beijing and Shanghai: Pushe and Kaiming Publishers, 1926–1941)Google Scholar [hereafter GSE].
2. Hummel, , “Introduction” in ACH, p. V.Google Scholar
3. Hummel, , “What Chinese historians are doing in their own history” in The American Historical Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, (07 1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; here quoted from GSB, Vol. 2 (1930), p. 428.Google Scholar
4. Boorman, Howard L., ed., and Howard, R. C., ass. ed., Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, 4 Vols. (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1968)Google Scholar. The entry on Gu Jiegang mistakenly gives 1895 (instead of 1893) as the year of his birth.
5. Schneider, Laurence A., “From textual criticism to social criticism: the historiography of Ku Chieh-lcang” in The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4 (08 1969), pp. 771–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Schneider, L. A., Ku Chieh-kang and China's New History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971)Google Scholar [hereafter KCK].
7. KCK, p. 308Google Scholar; p. 309, note 7. This was confirmed by Prof. Gu in a personal communication on 29 February 1980. After 1977, Gu resumed publication of his works; cf. Selected Bibliography attached to this paper.
8. e.g. Gu, 's “Stratification Theorem” (cf. GSB, Vol. 1, pp. 59–66)Google Scholar viewing traditions from Chinese antiquity such as that of the Sage Kings as historical fiction fabricated as late as Zhanguo- or even Han-times, made to appear the more detailed and reaching farther back into a more and more distant past the later they were introduced; also Fu Sinian's and Yang Kuan's additional theses of the diversification of ancient myths and legends (cf. Kuan, Yang, “Zhongguo shang-gushi daolun” (Introduction to China's ancient history) in GSB 7, Pt. 1, pp. 65–318Google Scholar; Gu's attempt to smash what he called the “Four idols of orthodox Confucianist monism,” viz. the ethnocentric view of Chinese socio-ethical traditions as well as the ethnos itself having originated from consistent Han roots (cf. Gu's Preface to Genze, Lo, ed., GSB 4 (1933), particularly pp. 12–13Google Scholar); also an irreverent “dethronement” of Confucian classics such as the Book of Changes and the Book of Odes (cf. GSB 3 (1931))Google Scholar, i.e. a scholarly approach to such texts as historical source material.
9. Cf. Levenson, J. R., “‘History’ and ‘Value’: the tensions of intellectual choice in modern China” in Wright, Arthur F., ed., Studies in Chinese Thought (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 146–94.Google Scholar
10. Jiegang, Gu, “Gu-xu” in GSB, Vol. 4 (1933), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
11. See Selected Bibliography, infra, item (e) (1978), p. 56.Google Scholar
12. These traditions had first budded in Han and Song times and reached a certain prime with “Han learning” in the early Qing, although Gu Jiegang's favourite “Antiquity doubters” Yao Jiheng (1674–1715?), Zhang Xuecheng (1738–1801), and Cui Shu (1740–1816) did not belong to any school. Yigu and kaoju were among the supporting ideas of the “Renaissance” in the 1920s, and consequently of the GSB school. These scholarly traditions were supposed by many to have come to an end during the Cultural Revolution, but are now discussed again.
13. Cf. Metzger, Thomas A., Escape from Predicament (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; and “Review symposium: Thomas A. Metzger's Escape from Predicament” in The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (02 1980), pp. 237–90.Google Scholar
14. Incoherently quoted motto of L. A. Schneider's recent book on Yuan, Qu, A Madman of Ch'u (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).Google Scholar
15. From September 1950 to 1953, Gu was honorary representative for Suchou at the Regional People's Representatives' Conference (Gejie renmin daibiao huiyi); in December 1954, he was hon. rep. at the PPCC (Renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi); in July 1956 he became a member of the Board of the Chinese Committee for the Promotion of Democracy (Zhongguo minzhu cujin hui).
16. KCK, p. 308Google Scholar; Schneider quotes Kahn/Feuerwerker who assumed that Gu miraculously escaped this fate. Apart from the boards mentioned in note 15, Gu was appointed consultant to the Jiangsu Provincial and Suchou Municipal Boards for the Maintenance of Cultural Assets (Jiangsu-sheng wenwu guanli weiyuan-hui; Suchou-shi wenwu baoguan weiyuan-hui) in August 1954 and February 1955 respectively.
17. KCK, pp. 311–12.Google Scholar
18. Ibid. pp. 308–12.
19. Personal communication, corroborated by entries in Gu's unpublished diary of 6 March 1923 and 31 March 1924.
20. Jiegang, Gu, “Cong wo ziji kan Hu Shi” (My personal view of Hu Shi) in Tagongbao, 16 12 1951, p. 5.Google Scholar
21. See note 24 below, articles by Liang, (1955), p. 50Google Scholar, and Li, (1956), p. 76.Google Scholar
22. Jiegang, Gu, “Zai zhengxie-de erjie quanguo weiyuanhui diyici huiyi shang-de fayan” (Address delivered at the First Session of the Second All-Chinese PCC) in Renmin ribao, 25 12 1954.Google Scholar
23. For details of their quarrel see KCK, pp. 101–4Google Scholar. Lu depicted Gu as stammering “Niaotou xiansheng” (Mr Birdshead). Apart from being a pun on Gu's family name, this was also an allusion to Gu's lean, long-necked appearance and to the speech defect he had developed in childhood. Lu's ferocious caricature, anticipating patterns of Leftist rabble-rousing, smacks of personal jealousy and revenge.
24. Criticism and self-criticism of the “Gushi-bian-Clique,” or “Clique of antiquity-doubters” (Yigu-pai) was closely linked with the anti-Hu Shi campaign, thus beginning prior to the general “Rectification.” Some pertinent articles were: Tong Shuye, “Gushi-bian-pai-de jieji benzhi” (The class character of the GSB-clique) in Wen-shi-zhe, Vol. 3 (03 1952), pp. 32–34Google Scholar; Xiangkui, Yang, “Gushi-pian-pai-de xueshu-sixiang pipan”Google Scholar (Criticism of the academic thought of the GSB-clique), ibid. pp. 34–37; Shuye, Tong, “Pipan Hu Shi-de shiyan-zhuyi ‘kaoju-xue’” (Criticizing Hu Shi's pragmatist ‘Kaoju-research’) in Guanming ribao, 3 02 1955Google Scholar; Congjie, Liang, “Hu Shi bu-shi yanjiu lishi er-shi waiqu lishi” (Hu Shih does not research history but distorts history) in Lishi yanjiu, Vol. 3 (03 1955)Google Scholar; Jiuquan, Li, “Pipan Gushi-bian-pai-de yigu-lun”Google Scholar (Criticizing the Yigu theorem of the GSB-clique) in Zhongshan-taxue xuebao, Vol. 4 (10 1956), pp. 67–91Google Scholar; Ze, Wu and Yingguan, Yuan, “Gushi-bian-pai shixue-sixiang pipan” (Criticism of the historical thinking of the GSB-clique) in Lishi-jiaoxue wenti, Vol. 10 (10 1958), pp. 10–14Google Scholar; Ze, Wu, “‘Wu-si’ xian-hou ‘yigu’-sixiang-de fenxi he pipan” (Analysis and criticism of the ‘Yigu’-thinking before and after ‘May Fourth’)Google Scholar, ibid. 4 April 1959, pp. 19–24.
25. Personal communication. In his Preface to Shuye, Tong, Chunqiu Zuochuan yanjiu (Studies on the Zuo Commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals) (Shanghai: Renmin Publishing Co., 10 1980), p. 2Google Scholar, Gu also speaks cordially about his former assistant without the slightest hint of the campaign. Yang Xiangkui, former co-author with Gu of anieles in GSB, Vol. 7, who had been luckier than Tong in that he survived the Cultural Revolution, retracted his criticism of 1952 in his “Lüelan Wang Guowei-de gushi-yanjiu” (Outline of Wang Guowei's research on ancient history) in Shixue-shi celiao, Vol. 3 (07 1980), pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
26. Jiegang, Gu, ed., Gu-ji kaobian congkan (Anthology of Critical Studies on Ancient Documents) (Shanghai: Zhonghua Bookshop, 11 1955)Google Scholar, rev. ed. of Bianwei congkan (Anthology of Investigations into Spurious Documents) (Beiping: Pushe Co., 1928–1935). Preface pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
27. Ibid. p. 7. In fact, this is the only allusion to Marxism in the entire Preface.
28. Cf. articles by Tong, (1952), p. 33Google Scholar, and Wu, (1959), p. 24Google Scholar (see note 24, supra).
29. Jiegang, Gu, “Wo shi zenyang bianxie ‘Gushi-bian’ de” (How I edited the GSB), Pt. 2 on Zhongguo zhexue, Vol. 6, (05 1981), pp. 391–2Google Scholar. After Gu had published his Stratification Theorem hi the early 1920s and demonstrated that the Sage King Yü might be traced back to a mythical beast, orthodox Confucians were outraged. Chen Lifu, one of the two brothers who headed the Rightist “CC Clique” in the 1940s, never failed to amuse his audiences by asking, “Was it not Gu Jiegang who held that King Yü the Great was an insect?” In 1940, while exiled in Changdu, Gu was once visited by a Guomindang politician who, after some small talk, asked him if Yü's birthday could still be determined. Gu told him that although Yü was a myth, there existed a custom among the Qing nationality to celebrate the sixth day of the sixth Gunar) month as Yü's birthday, as local chronicles show. He had forgotten about this visit when, that year, the Guomindang Government declared the double-sixth “Engineer's Day,” with an article by Chen Lifu in the papers saying that the Great Yü had been China's first civil engineer (by virtue of his alleged flood-regulation), and, “now that Mr Gu Jiegang has settled his birthday,” this day should be celebrated as mentioned. Gu's colleague Miao Fanglin at Nanjing Central University, having read the papers too credulously, blamed Gu for his “vacillation,” his comment being repeated in the Communist campaign in the 1950s.
30. Jiegang, Gu, ed., Gu-ji kaobian congkan, Preface, p. 10Google Scholar. Unfortunately, this project did not materialize during Gu's lifetime.
31. Selected Bibliography below, item(e), 1978, p. 57.Google Scholar
32. Ibid. p. 55.
33. In 1979, Gu was appointed member of the Editorial Board of Hongloumeng xuekan; member of the Chinese Union of Artists and Cultural Workers (Zhongguo wenxue-yishu-jie lianhe-hui); vice-president of the Chinese Folklore Research Society (Zhongguo minjian-wenxue yanjiu-hui); consultant to the Chinese Historical Archives' Society (Zhongguo lishi-wenxian yanjiu-hui); member of the Board of the Chinese Historical Society (Zhongguo shixue-hui). In April 1980 he became consultant to the periodical Lishi dili (Historical Geography), and in summer 1980, Gu and Yu Pingbo (who had been harshly criticized in the 1950s for his interpretation of Hongloumeng) were invited as consultants to the Hongloumeng-Stody Association established after the Harbin Symposium on the novel (21–31 July 1980).
34. Jiegang, Gu, Letter to author of 6 09 1979.Google Scholar
35. Jiegang, Gu, “Wo shi zenyang bianxie ‘Gushi-bian’ de,” Pt. 2, p. 400.Google Scholar
