You have to sort out the materials, and the facts will be clear. One point of materials will give you one point of goods, and ten points of materials will give you ten points of goods. You won't deliver the goods without materials. "
The so-called "historiography is the study of historical materials" is actually not an original idea. China's old historiography has always been like this, and there are Ranke and Ranke School influenced by it in the West. Frank's famous saying about historiography is that "the purpose is only to express the true feelings of history" and "the historical materials refer to something". But why does Xie Yong put forward the idea of "returning to Fu Sinian" in earnest now? What's the point? It turns out that once upon a time, whether historiography was a historical study was not a simple academic issue, but an important issue related to scholars' attitudes, positions, class attributes and "the dispute between the two roads of historical science."
In 1950s, there was a so-called "two-way struggle" in China's historiography circle, that is, the struggle of the materialist school claiming to be guided by Marxism. This struggle was uncovered with a report entitled "Learning by Doing" by Chen Boda, then Vice Minister of the Propaganda Department of the CPC. Chen said in his speech: "How much contribution have the bourgeois intellectuals in China made over the past decades? They have accumulated some information and become familiar with it. It is said that they are very knowledgeable, how big the problem is and how much they have contributed. If they are led by Marxism and the proletariat, their materials will be useful, otherwise what is the use? " Based on this, the history students of Sun Yat-sen University, Shandong University, Sichuan University and other institutions of higher learning criticized famous scholars such as Chen Yinque, Cen, Shuye Tong and Xu Zhongshu respectively. This criticism has been traced back to the "three big bosses" in the history circle before 1949-Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang and Fu Sinian. The weapons and contents of criticism are made by students of history department of Shandong University.
Thick ancient and thin today, on the light;
Marlene Simao never cared.
Newspapers and magazines as historical materials;
Fifty or sixty years later, a big capital.
Learning ancient history, words must be called two Chen;
Shi Guanyin is old, but Shi Fayuan is an old man.
As for modern history, Liang Rengong was the first to be promoted.
What is the use of theory? Historical materials are profound.
The meaning is clear, but the poem is unsightly. Compared with this, the analysis of scholars has some weight. Look at the articles of Fan Wenlan and Hu Sheng, the main figures of historical materialism school. Fan Wenlan's "Historical Research Must Be Rich in the Present and Thin in the Ancient Times" (see China Social Sciences Edition "Selected Papers on Fan Wenlan's History") was published in Chen Boda's report. There are three main points: it is a fine tradition of China's historiography to be rich in the present and thin in the ancient times; Making the past serve the present is the bourgeois style of study; It is a struggle between cherishing the present and cherishing the ancient. In his article, Fan accused the historians represented by Hu Shi of doing a lot of tedious textual research, which was "an attempt to make academics break away from revolutionary politics and become a dead thing without soul". Hu Sheng's long article "How to Make Social History Research a Science" (People's Edition "On Jujube") was published in 1956, with a relatively peaceful tone, in which he made a key criticism. He said: "Replacing history with historiography will not only undermine the scientific nature of historiography, but also lead the work of historiography astray. Whether it is "internal" or "external" historical materials, the purpose should be to provide a reliable basis for scientific understanding of history; If you do it in isolation from the scientific research of the whole history, you will lose your way and indulge in the ocean of history aimlessly. " Both students and scholars are dissatisfied with the historical data school. In their view, the historical data school only emphasizes the possession of information, examines historical facts, and refuses the guidance of theory (of course, it should be historical materialism), so it is impossible to go deep into the essence of historical phenomena to discover the relationship between various phenomena and their objective laws.
Looking back on this "struggle", we can now say that Fan Wenlan and others have no basis to criticize the historical school, because people of the historical school do not necessarily reject this theory. For example, Gu Jiegang commented on the relationship between textual research and historical view as early as 1940: "Historians are used to studying small problems and dare not focus on the overall situation ... if they don't participate. Therefore, any historical science that is not guided by historical philosophy has no home. " What's the difference between Gu's theory and Hu Sheng's quotation? Gu Jiegang also has a famous saying, which can be found in the preface of the fourth volume of his "Analysis of Ancient History": "Historical materialism is not the essence of taste, so it is not necessary to penetrate into any dish". In the 1950s, this sentence made Gu's critics very angry. In fact, doesn't Gu's Essence of Interest just affirm the role of historical materialism from another angle?
According to the normal logic, the historical school and the historical materialism school should not develop to the point where they can't coexist. Not only did Gu Jiegang and others clearly agree to use the historical view to guide historical research, but Fan Wenlan and Hu Sheng also affirmed the work of historians? Hu Sheng said categorically in the above article: "Many Chinese historians have inherited the work of Sinologists in Qing Dynasty, made use of all kinds of scientific knowledge and more sophisticated logical concepts in modern Europe and America, and made great achievements in textual research of historical materials. Now it seems that they have not done too much work, but too little. Their work achievements and work experience should not be erased, but should be accepted. Carry forward. " Nevertheless, the "route struggle" reminds our later readers of the seriousness of the past debate, otherwise Chen Yinque, who taught at Sun Yat-sen University, would not have angrily refused to give classes to students. So what is the essence of the difference between the two historians? The first is the existence of misreading, as Xie Yong analyzed: "The criticism of the historical school is to construct a hypothesis that the historical school has no theory. On this premise, the former is denied by the contradiction between historical materials and theory, and the contradiction between seeking truth and application. In fact, these problems do not exist. Because historical common sense tells us that there has never been any historical material without theory, and there has never been any historical material theory "; Secondly, I think it should be the difference in understanding the connotation of "theory" and "historical view". As mentioned above, the historical materialism school attaches great importance to the guiding role of theory, and the historical data school does not exclude it, but the historical data school opposes vulgarization of "theory" and regards it as historical materialism. For example, Gu Jiegang believes that "the study of ancient history, people's deeds and the authenticity of books hardly needs historical materialism." The so-called historical materialism school always insists that historical research should be carried out under the guidance of realistic politics. The same "theory" is quite different from its interests, so Fan Wenlan will call for a war against "Hu Shi's disciples" who insist on academic independence and refuse academic services for politics. Finally, we can think that both sides have their own views on what is the ultimate goal of historical research. At that time, Bloch, the master of the French yearbook school, was shocked by the child's question, and probably all those who were immersed in the pile of old papers could not avoid this question. The meaning of "use" is rich. If it is only defined as "use" in practical sense, the attitude of historical figures is that history can have "use", but historians should not seek "use". For example, Gu Jiegang firmly believes that "learning can. Not for the purpose of learning. " However, historical materialism believes that history must be used and historians should take the initiative to seek it. Hu Sheng especially cited an example to criticize, because Fu Zai 1932 wrote a question about Ming's biological mother, which triggered a heated discussion in academic circles. Hu Sheng asked, "Who is Ming Chengzu's biological mother?" Who is Ming's biological mother? It is really a trivial question, but whether it is really meaningless is still worth discussing. Imagine, if all the small problems related to this are understood, will people have a deeper understanding of the politics of the Ming Dynasty court and even the Ming Dynasty?
By reviewing the dispute between the two roads in historical science, we finally understand that after a detour, it is the primary and basic work to be familiar with and investigate historical materials. Therefore, Mr. Xie Yong put forward the traditional view that contemporary China historiography should return to Fu Sinian. This misunderstanding of the past is reasonable in any case, but compared with the development of western historiography, we can't seem so confident. There are so-called critical historical philosophies, such as Annales School, Bingler, Toynbee, Braudel, etc., which all sublate the hierarchical school characterized by empirical historiography. If the only correct way to study history is Fu Sinian's tradition, it is likely to come to the conclusion that Bingler's Decline of the West and Toynbee's Historical Research are not valuable works. Isn't that ridiculous? In addition, China people's practical rationality has always been developed, and China people's thinking and academic characteristics are inherently "not mysterious, understanding, ignoring logic and emphasizing experience". Therefore, although it is important to "return to Fu Sinian" in historical research, shouldn't we also pay attention to studying and absorbing the amazing and profound power of German abstract speculation? Russian intellectuals said, "My heart is hurt by human suffering." Should a historical researcher also have this kind of world vision and human consciousness? One more thing, the emphasis on "returning to Fu Sinian" seems to ignore the differences of scholars' endowments and temperament. In fact, as long as there is no real political interference, why not let a few people who are not interested in drilling historical materials speak loudly? It doesn't matter, you might as well laugh it off, but sometimes you may have an epiphany. For example, those sensational masterpieces in the 1980s are often ridiculed as "empty and sparse", but just a few words in a pile of "empty and sparse theories" can inspire you to think deeply. Isn't that enough?