The original sponsors of Xue Heng separated in succession in 1923: Mei Guangdi stopped contributing to Xue Heng from 13; Liu Boming died in June 5438+01; Hu Xiansu went abroad in autumn. Wu Mi, on the other hand, has always been the staunchest core of Xue Heng. He has always regarded Xue Heng as his lifelong career, bearing all kinds of pressures from the new culture camp and relatives and friends, and trying to support it. Xue Heng has lasted for more than ten years, and it has no dependence on politics and economy. At the beginning of publication, Southeast University did not provide funds for it. After the article was published, Xue Heng's colleagues refused to accept official subsidies. The initial printing expenses are all paid by the backbone members. When the funding for later publication was tight, Wu Mi personally paid 100 yuan per issue.
The articles in Xue Heng magazine can be divided into four categories: articles criticizing the new culture and the new literature movement; Translation and introduction of new humanism; Special research on literature, history and philosophy; Old-style poetry and prose.
When Mei Guangdi, the leader of Xue Heng School, studied in the United States, he had a heated debate with Hu Shi on the issue of literary reform as a friend, and finally drove Hu Shi to Liangshan. Hu Shi became the banner of the New Culture Movement after returning to China. After returning to China, Mei Guangdi gathered like-minded people and founded Xue Heng as a position against the new culture and literature movement. To sum up, Mei Guangdi, who published these articles in Xue Heng, criticized the New Culture Movement mainly from the following aspects.
Regarding Chinese and Western cultures, Xue Heng School advocates the attitude of "just vision" and "no partiality, no partiality, no provocation and no following". Wu Mi said: "If we want to create a new culture in China today, we must take the essence of Chinese and Western civilizations and melt them." Taking this as a standard, they sharply criticized the new culture movement that was not radical. Mei Guangdi said: "The so-called scholars in China only stripped off their talents, but involved in foreign countries, only read books and newspapers, and did not delve into the true value of their masterpieces and factions." "Even hearsay" does not argue "whether it is true or not, only whether it is fashionable." Hu Xiansu thinks that there is no critical standard and sense of responsibility in this era, and most new culture advocates have only a little knowledge of Chinese and western cultures, so they just want to write at their own pace.
The greatest contribution of the May 4th New Culture Movement to civilian literature is the discovery of people, and it is an important goal of the New Culture Movement to give civilians equal cultural rights. Xue Heng School opposes this view in different ways, either emphasizing that culture belongs only to the social elite or denying the objective inequality of the old culture. Hu Xiansu said, "When human endowments are never equal" and "the essence of life is uneven", advocating cultural populism will make outstanding people unable to get adequate education, and a country will rest on its laurels. Mei Guangdi also said: "The progress of husband culture lies in the tireless sacrifice of a few smart people for mankind. If you listen to all the lazy people, what is the so-called progress? " However, Liu Pu said in "The Mistakes of Decomposing Literature into Nobles and Civilians" that there is only right and wrong in literature, and there is no distinction between nobles and civilians. It is sheer nonsense for the New Culture Movement to advocate the construction of "civilian literature". For traditional literature, vernacular Chinese is not only a change of language tools, but also a change of literary concepts. Xue Hengxue's criticism of vernacular Chinese closely revolves around these two points. Wu Mi believes that classical Chinese is a mature communication tool with a long history. He emphasized that "the writing system can't be changed", and further explained that "the writing system is gradually developed by years of habits and people's travels all over the country", "the font is fixed but the whole country is the same, the pronunciation is constantly changing, and all parties are different". Xue Heng School also thinks that classical Chinese is elegant, while vulgar spoken English can't be authentic. They claim that vernacular Chinese will destroy the beautiful form of China literature. The new culture movement of vernacular new poetry is based on the liberation of poetic style. Old-style poetry is the essence of China's traditional culture, and Xue Heng School will naturally spare no effort to maintain old poetry and oppose new poetry. Wu Mi starts with the external influence of new poetry and categorically denies the value of the existence of new poetry. He said, "China's vernacular poems are actually American free poems", which are no longer poems in the United States. In the aspect of opposing new poetry, Hu Xiansu's famous poem "Trial Collection Review" is the most acute. This paper makes a detailed analysis of the poems in the Trial Collection from seven aspects, and finally comes to the conclusion that "the value and utility of the Trial Collection are negative" and "on the surface, the difference between classical Chinese and vernacular Chinese is that vernacular poems are just vernacular, not poems". Hu Xiansu's thesis is rigorous in natural science, and he has many insights into the bias in the development of new poetry, but he lacks confidence and tolerance for new poetry. The new culture movement in literary evolution emphasizes that literature keeps pace with the times, and each era has its own literature, so it puts forward "people who don't imitate the ancients". As a botanist, Hu Xiansu said that "literary evolution" is "the harm of misunderstanding and misuse of science". Mei Guangdi, Wu, Yi Jun and others have written articles, denying the distinction between old and new literature and the concept of literary evolution. In the view of Xue Heng School, literary creation is the reference, absorption and inheritance of the previous generation of literature. Wu Mi said: "The article is imitated, and it is a great author in ancient and modern times. The childhood rate is effective for predecessors and follows the rules. At first, it was only similar in appearance, and later it was similar in spirit. Later, it gradually changed, and he was able to be unique. No one can't help imitating it. " Wu also believes that "literature cannot be self-sufficient in one book, but must adopt the method of a hundred schools of thought."
Supporters of Xue Heng's new cultural movement advocated "knocking down Confucius' shop", and the exclusive position of Confucianism ceased to exist, and hundred schools of thought rose. Scholars who are closely related prefer to talk about various schools. They are very famous and immersed in the atmosphere. "Xue Heng School has made a lot of discussions on Zhuzi, involving the origin of Zhuzi, their relationship, academic inheritance and its influence on later generations. Xue Heng's study of hundred schools of thought is a practice of cultural conservatism and a counterattack against the New Culture Movement.
When it comes to the origin of hundred schools of thought, Xue Heng School disagrees with Hu Shi's simple explanation of "the disadvantages of existing time" and thinks that "remote cause" and "time cause" should be considered at the same time. Miao Linfeng also cited the views of western scholars to look at this issue. "Philosophy of any era is the result of all civilizations and their mobile civilizations." The discussion touches on the ideological resources of various schools of thought and has a unique realm. Xue Heng School has a relatively fair view on the academic connection and inheritance of various schools. Although hundred schools of thought is "inseparable", on the whole, "what others have caused is positive and negative, positive is extremely poor, negative is conducive to collecting its profits, and positive progress is just equal." When discussing the relationship between Confucius and Laozi, Liu Yizhi asked Zhang Taiyan to admit his gaffes in a letter with the article "On the Mistakes of Scholars".
On the occasion of "many people are good at Mohism today", the Xue Heng School retorted that "people who discuss the country are all right-handed" and denounced Mencius for rejecting Mohism and being "right-handed". After carefully distinguishing the differences between Confucius and Mohism, Liu Yizhi declared: "Confucianism is based on nature, while Mohism says that universal love is not bad, and the observation of the world lacks analysis, while the rejection of people's non-universal love is not bad." However, Liu Yizhi did not completely deny Mozi's theory. In particular, he pointed out the significance of Mozi's "non-attack" and thought that the mistake of modern westerners was that "countries and individuals are different, Mozi tried to dominate the law of the jungle, but Mozi came early."
In the discussion of various schools by Xue Heng School, the most striking thing is the evaluation of Confucius. Although the Xue Heng School emphasized that each school had its own values and had a profound interaction with each other, it did not prevent them from giving Confucius the highest evaluation. They opposed the blind criticism of Confucius, strongly advocated the restoration of Confucius' historical position, and emphasized that Confucius was a master of China's ancient culture and should be scientifically evaluated. Wu Mi and others emphasized that the humanistic spirit contained in Confucianism can be a good medicine to cure the material and spiritual ills in today's world. They are very concerned about the possible value of Confucianism in China's future social development. When defending Confucius, they often give up their academic position and make some exaggerated conclusions, but if we can understand the emotional deviation, we can still find many reasonable factors in it.
Translation and Introduction of Humanism The Xue Heng School emphasizes the integration of new knowledge and the integration of Chinese and Western cultures, and their translation and introduction of Babbitt's humanism embodies such an ideal. Babbitt's humanism is a rebellion against pragmatism and behaviorism prevailing in the United States at that time. He stressed the need to seek spiritual resources and cultural norms from tradition and opposed all radical cultural and ideological revolutions. The main figures of Xue Heng School all accepted Babbitt's influence. Hu Xiansu was the first person who translated and introduced Babbitt's humanistic thought in China.
Xue Heng School is a cultural group active in the 1920s and 1930s, which had a great influence on the society at that time. However, because his cultural thought hovers between Europeanization and quintessence, and he is critical of the New Culture Movement, he is regarded as a conservative force and has been ignored for a long time. Between Europeanization and quintessence of China —— A Study of Xue Heng School's Cultural Thought explores several aspects of Xue Heng School's cultural thought.