Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:26:39.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reappraisal of Neo-Confucianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Hellmut Wilhelm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As in all living scholarly traditions one can see in traditional Chinese historiography a wide range of divergent opinion as to what history is and how it should be written. On one point, however, all schools of Chinese historiography agree, and this is the clear awareness of the evaluative character of their trade. The historian of every school was an arbiter who, by passing judgment assessed the value of, and gave meaning to, events. This consciously evaluative character of Chinese historiography demanded self-reliance and courage on the part of the historian, who was not only the keeper of documents and the recorder of events; his assessments assumed normative status like the sentences of a judge.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 23 , September 1965 , pp. 122 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Wilhelm, H., “Der Sinn des Geschehens nach dem Buch der Wandlungen,” Eranos Jahrbuch 26, Zürich 1958, pp. 351–386Google Scholar, particularly p. 381 et seq., and “Chinesische Historiographie,” Gesellschaft und Staat in China, Hamburg 1960, pp. 137–142Google Scholar.

2 The term “Neo-Confucianism” has been used in a variety of interpretations in recent literature. For Carsun Chang, for instance, everything that happened in the intellectual field beginning with Han Yü, down to and including Ch'en Tu-hsiu, is Neo-Confucianism. In this paper I shall place particular emphasis on the Ch'eng-Chu school which, if not philosophically the most interesting, is politically the most important trend of thought during the later centuries of Imperial China.

3 See Neumann, Erich, The Origins and History of Consciousness (New York: Pantheon Books, 1954), pp. 360–381Google Scholar. “Balanced” societies is Neumann's term.

4 Ibid. pp. 381–394.

5 See Progoff, Ira, “The Dynamics of Hope and the Image of Utopia,” Eranos Jahrbuch 1963, Zürich 1964, pp. 89–145Google Scholar.

6 Wittfogel, K. A., Oriental Despotism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), p. 402Google Scholaret seq.

7 Mancall, Mark, “Soviet Historians and the Sino-Soviet Alliance,” Keep, John and Brisby, Liliana, ed., Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror (New York: Praeger, 1964), pp. 181–184Google Scholar.

8 “Che-hsueh shih yü cheng-chih,” Che-hsueh Yen-chiu (hereafter CHYC) (Philosophical Research), January 1955, pp. 70–83.

9 For similar arguments see Heng-shou, Chang, CHYC, 02 1956, pp. 18–40Google Scholar; many other contributions in CHYC and other journals of the time.

10 Ibid. January 1956, pp. 52–70.

11 Chinese translation in CHYC, April 1956, pp. 84–101.

12 See Pei-ching Ta-hsueh Hsueh-pao, Jen-wen K'o-hsueh (Science section of Peking University Journal), 02 1957, pp. 145–148Google Scholar; CHYC, January 1957, p. 135.

13 Ting-kuo, Sun, CHYC, 04 1957, pp. 1–8Google Scholar; Wu Chuan-ch'i, ibid. June 1957, pp. 18–37.

14 See Levenson, Joseph P., “The Place of Confucius in Communist China,” The China Quarterly, No. 12, 10–12 1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Report on the Heilungchiang discussions in CHYC, April 1963, p. 83.

16 See report in CHYC, January 1963, pp. 54–57.

17 Ching-fang, Li, Chou-I Che-hsueh chi ch'i Pien-cheng-fa Yinsu (Elements of the Philosophy of the Book of Changes and Its Dialectics)(Shantung: Jen-min Ch'u-pan She) (1961), Vol. 1Google Scholar; (1962), Vol. 2.

18 Ming, Wang, CHYC, 05 1962, pp. 59–68Google Scholar.

19 CHYC, January 1961, pp. 60–68.

20 See discussions in Hsueh-shu Yen-chiu, Canton at this period.

21 Yu, George T., “The 1962 and 1963 Sessions of the National People's Congress of Communist China,” Asian Survey, Vol. 4, No. 8, 08 1964, pp. 981–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Tung-feng, Chang, CHYC, pp. 61–85Google Scholar.

23 Chih, Feng, Wen-i-pao, 04 1964, pp. 14–17Google Scholar. “The foremost duty of the workers in the field of literature is to use historical materialism to explain the phenomena of history and to use the critical spirit of Marxism-Leninism when dealing with Chinese or foreign classical heritage.”

24 Wai-lu, Hou, Li-shih Yen-chiu (Historical Research), 01 1964, pp. 15–30Google Scholar. “We must firmly grasp the class character of philosophy as the most general principle of Marxism-Leninism.”

25 This, I assume, refers to the East-West philosophy meetings, organised by C. A. Moore.

26 Summarised from pp. 596–598 of Vol. 41 of Hou's, Chung-kuo Ssu-hsiang T'ung-shih, 1962 edGoogle Scholar.

27 For example, Tai-nien, Chang, CHYC, 01 1955, pp. 110–130Google Scholar and discussion; ibid. March 1955, pp. 142–148; April 1956, pp. 136–143. See also CHYC, February 1957, pp. 54–69; and Pei-ching Ta-hsueh Hsueh-pao, Jen-wen K'o-hsueh, March 1957, pp. 57–68.

28 CHYC, February 1957, pp. 62–63.

29 See review of Krivstov's, V. A. article on the T'ai-chi-t'u shuo in CHYC, 03 1959, p. 41Google Scholar. Tsai, Chang and Tun-i, Cho are already claimed as materialists in the History of Philosophy compiled by the Soviet Academy of Sciences (1957)Google Scholar; a report on the treatment of Chinese philosophy in this book asserts that the Soviet scholars followed closely the evaluations of their Chinese colleagues such as Hou Wai-lu, Kuo Mo-jo, Feng Yu-lan, etc. See CHYC, April 1957, pp. 110–116.

30 In another place the conspirators are Legge, Abel Remusat, Forke and Wilhelm.

31 Wai-lu, Hou, Chung-kuo Ssu-hsiang T'ung-shih. (A General History of Chinese Thought) (Peking: San-lien, 1962)Google Scholar. Neo-Confucianism is treated in two parts of Vol. 4. In the following I assume a rather polemical attitude towards Hou's interpretative methods and results. This, however, should not becloud the fact that Hou's compendium is of great value, that the factual evidence presented is rich and on the whole judiciously chosen, and particularly that he does not try, as many others do, to shun issues even if they are inconvenient.

32 Chen-yü, Lü, Chung-kuo Cheng-chih Ssu-hsiang Shih (A History of Chinese Thought) (Pekin: Jen-min Ch'u-pan She, 1962)Google Scholar. Originally written in 1937, then frequently revised.

33 Yung-kuo, Yang, Chien-ming Chung-kuo Ssu-hsiang Shih (A Short History of Chinese Thought) (Peking: Hsin Hua, 1962)Google Scholar.

34 Chung-kuo Che-hsueh-shlh Tzu-liao Hsuan-chi (Reader in the History of Chinese Philosophy) (Peking: Chung Hua, 1962)Google Scholar. Neo-Confucianism is covered in the fourth volume.

35 Hou, pp. 497–509. The Academy Reader follows this guilt-by-association pattern rather closely.

36 The absence of Ou-yang Hsiu is puzzling. The Academy Reader does not deal with Ssu-ma Kuang.

37 Hou, pp. 511–521.

38 Ibid. pp. 521–535.

39 ibid. pp. 535–544.

40 ibid. pp. 545–570.

41 Hou takes this to be a restatement of a position taken by Liu Tsung-yuan, a man of whom he makes much as recently as in his 1964 article.

42 Hou, pp. 595–647.

43 This, I presume, refers to Needham.