【陜慶】從“六經皆史”到“古史皆經”——章太炎經史一包養網心得互釋的思惟史內涵

requestId:68518630ade7f7.99039374.

From “Six History All History All History All History All History” to “Ancient History All History All History” – Zhang Taiyan’s Thought on History Interaction

Author: Yuan Qing (Associate Professor of Chinese Department, Ningbo College of Humanities and Media)

Source: “History of Chinese Philosophy” No. 5, 2022

 

Abstract: The changes in history and historical interactions are in the long history. The “Six History All History” advocated by Zhang Xueyan, Zhang Taiyan and others are a part of historical problems since the Qing Dynasty. Zhang Taiyan’s inheritance and development of Zhang Xuecheng’s “Six History” statement, as well as the differences between modern literature and ancient literature on “things” are now on the grounds of inconsistency between history and history. Zhang Taiyan’s multiple historical interactions are not only to establish the position of the Sixth Century, but also to open up creative and exemplary to the era after the Sixth Century, but also to communicate the relationship between the dramatic changes and tradition at that time. This is Zhang Taiyan’s answer to the reactionary question.

Keywords: Zhang Taiyan; all six stories are history; historical interaction

 

The collapse of traditional science and the establishment of modern history are a fait accomplimentary facts of the modern transformation of China. This process is both due to the consequences and some people are responsible for the reasons. The historical origins and historical interrelations with long history, from Zhang Xueqing’s “Six History” in the middle of the Qing Dynasty, to Zhang Taiyan and others reiterated the “Six History” in the late Qing Dynasty, and are often regarded as a person who collapsed his studies on the level of naming and concepts, which gave the tradition and even life in crisis. This criticism firstly refers to the opposition between history and history with an after-the-sight, and uses the logical division between value and fact, and then ignores the connotation of “history” that Zhang Taiyan wants to establish. Finally, and the most basic thing is that he does not pay attention to the interaction between time and human affairs, but discusses this historical process in a calm way.

 

For this criticism, there is a need to recognise the long history of historical homogeneity and historical interdisciplinary traditions within academic history, and distinguish the different historical contexts of Zhang Xuezhen and Zhang Taiyan’s proposal that “Six Sessions are all history”, as well as the connotation of “history” discussed by Zhang Taiyan. When Zhang Taiyan discussed the historical relationship, he not only reiterated the expression “Six chapters are all history”, but also said “Ancient history is all history” when discussing ancient history, and when discussing newly built history, “History is new history”. These statements are connected before and after, presenting a complete logical link. In his article “History View of Zhang Taiyan”, Zhang Zhaojun gave a fair evaluation of Zhang Taiyan’s “Six History” that is sincere to Zhang Taiyan, but he believed that Zhang Taiyan’s creative “ancient history of writers, history is new history” “has advanced the position of history and is conducive to attacking the sacred position of learning.” [1] This article believes that there is a need to discuss this. Through a detailed analysis of Zhang Taiyan’s explanation of the five chapters, Jiang Mei detailed the sorting and development of the original intention, meaning and changes of Zhang Taiyan’s “Six Swords are All History”, presenting the changes in Zhang Taiyan’s historical thinking, especially pointing outZhang Taiyan reviewed the statement “Baobao.com’s evaluationSix chapters are all history” in 1930. [2]

 

This article believes that there is a need to deeply analyze this phenomenon from the perspective of thinking history. The condition is to re-address the relative academic division of the previous history of Zhang Taiyan in 1930 in the context of the cultural context. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize: in the historical remarks, history and history are not a condensational model that is opposite to each other, but gain new life through continuous reconciliation; “Six chapters are all history” does not “denied the value department of the reconciliation but only seized the factual department” [3], but reconstruct the value related to history; what can be asked is, what is the value of learning, how can the value of learning be extended, and can the value of learning be stored in the name of “王”?

 

1. Comparison of the name of education and academic problems since the Qing Dynasty

 

In modern transformation, traditional academic research was replaced by academic history research. Pi Sirui’s “History of Science”, Liu Shipei’s “History of Education and Science” and Honda Seiyuki’s “History of China” are representative researches in this period. In the study of history, the names of the study and academics themselves become the subjects to be assessed, and the names of the study and academics are also historically presented. In the view of traditional studies as a basis for worship and political and educational ethics, historicalization must be consistent with the study at a certain level. Zhou Yutong divided the “study”, “study” and “study history” in the 1960s of the 20th century, and the meaning of the “study” and “study” is to separate the era of “study” (after Emperor Hanwu defeated all schools of thought and respected Confucianism alone) and the era of explaining “study”. Therefore, in the long history after the establishment of “Zhu” was all called “Zhu” era.

 

It is worth mentioning that the long “study” era did not always be called “study”. On the contrary, the continuous “study” style of “study” is constantly named after the “study”. As for the Qing Dynasty, Yanwu’s “Science is Learning” and Zhangxue’s “Six History are Historical” are clear examples. [4] Although Yanwu and Zhang Xueqing are facing different times, their focus is not on the relationship between Taoist instruments and directors. These traditional models are similar to the relationship between contemporary advocacy and reconstruction of the facts highlighted during the study or new study and value. Even in the eyes of reconstruction scholars,The explanations that have been passed down in the Western Han area have already implied the separation of facts and values.

 

Although the separation of Tao/instrument and principles/industry is a long-standing problem in Chinese thinking, it is determined by the fact, value, ancient Chinese and modern Chinese studies, which started from Liao Ping. Faced with the conflict between the late Qing Dynasty and the ancient and modern Chinese language learning, Mo Mu assessed the two Han studies, and believed that the problems of modern Chinese language only started below the late Qing Dynasty, and the debate was fierce, and each held a door-to-door. There was no difference between modern Chinese language in the meaning of the late Qing Dynasty. [5] The main thing in Liao Ping’s literary studies is to divide the characteristics of the literature from the matter. In “Ten Discussions on the Age of He Yang”, he believed that Confucius’ restructuring was “to act, to add the king’s heart, to change, to see the system, and not to seek it with time.” “Year” has a “qun” current affairs, and all current affairs mentioned are a false loan and support. [6] In “Ancient Learning”, 博取 He said that the way he thought history was ancient was wrong, and history was not part of the modern and modern literature. Liao Ping strictly divided history to describe the stability and unchanging value meaning of the scriptures, as well as the plan that clearly determines the contradiction between ancient and modern times and the Chinese and Western countries. Huang Kaiguo listed Liao Ping’s historical division as follows: The first point is the cited above. “Year” is not a historical book, but a reliance on Confucius’ fantasy; the second is the law that passes on all things, and history has a transformation from simplicity to civilization; the third is the ancient and civilized in terms of emotion, and the more ancient and simple the history becomes; the fourth is the opposite of historical situation, and the similarity in quality, and the development of history is determined. [7] Liao Ping eliminated history (that is, historical reasons) from this theoretical consideration: first, the specificity and infinity of history are abstract and general in nature; secondly, the tables of ancient history are numerous, including her personal information, contact methods, the obsceneness of the cat and the superb creation of modern sages. As long as the two are separated, they can only be unable to be superb in their own way. In Liao Ping’s historical relevance discussion, 正 is first, and history is second. Zhang Taiyan’s historical statement is completely opposite. Zhang Taiyan believ