第九十三章《胡适英文论著：中国哲学史》（

第九十三章《胡适英文论著：中国哲学史》（3）

hepublishedacommentaryontheichingandalittlebookentitled“aprimeronthestudyoftheiching.”andheleftanumberoflettersanddiscussionsonthatclassic.

hismostdaringthesisabouttheichingwasthatthatbook,whichhadalwaysbeenregardedasasacredbookofprofoundphilosophicaltruth,wasoriginallydevisedasatextofdivinationandfortune-telling,andcouldbeunderstoodonlyifitwerestudiedasabookofdivinationandnomorethanabookofdivination.“thesentencesorjudgmentsforeverykua(hexagram),ofwhichtherewere64,andeveryline(ofwhichtherewere384)weremeanttobeusedasanswerstopeoplewhowantedtoknowwhetheritwaspropitioustodosuch-and-suchathingornot.someanswerswereforsacrifices,othersforhunting,othersfortraveling,orforwar,oremigration.ifthesageshadintendedtotalkaboutphilosophy,whyshouldtheynotsimplywriteaphilosophybook;whyshouldtheytalkalwaysintermsoffortune-telling?”“ifthebookisstudiedmerelyasatextforthediviner,thensomanypassageswhichhadbeenwronglyexplainedasmysteriousandprofoundwisdomimmediatelybecomequiteplain,simple,andintelligible.”

thiscommon-sensetheorywasthemostcourageousdoubteverutteredaboutthatstrangebook.butitwasrejectedbyhisfriendsasan“oversimplification.”butchuhsireplied:“itisjustlikethisbiglantern.everystripofbambooaddedtothelanternframesimplytakesawaythatmuchofthelight.ifwecouldonlygetridofallthoselight-coveringdevices,howmuchmorelighttherewouldbe,andhowmuchbetteritwouldbeforallofus!”

thatwasatrulyrevolutionarytheorywhichillustratesoneofhisgreatremarks,that“thesimplesttheoryisusuallythetruetheory.”butchuhsirealizedthathisviewoftheichingasnothingmorethanatextfordivinationwastooradicalforhistime.hesadlysaid,“itisdifficulttotalktopeopleaboutthistheory.theywouldnotbelieveit.manydistinguishedpeoplehavearguedsovehementlyagainstme,andihavespentsomuchenergytoexplainandanalyzemyviewtothem.asinowlookback,itisbettertosaynothingmore.ishallleaveithere,regardlessofwhetherpeoplebelieveitornot.ishallwastenomorestrengtharguingforit.”

chuhsiwasjustlyproudofhiscommentaryonthebookofodes(1177),whichwastoremainastandardtextformanycenturiesafterhim.twofeaturesofthisworkhavebeenfruitfulinleadingtofuturedevelopmentsinresearch.onewashiscourageousdiscardingofthetraditionalinterpretationasrepresentedintheso-called“prefacestothepoems”andhisinsistencethatthesongsandpoemsshouldbereadwithanopenmindandindependentjudgment.theotherfeaturewashisrecognitionofthe“ancientpronunciation”oftheend-rhymes,arecognitionthatwasatleastindirectlyresponsibleforthefuturedevelopmentofamoreexactstudyoftheentirefieldofancientpronunciation,leadingtothebeginningsofascienceofchinesephonology.

whenthebookofodesbecameamajorclassicoftheconfuciancanonunderthehanempire,therewerefourdifferentschoolsoftextualreadingandinterpretation.afterthefirsttwocenturiesofthechristianera,onlyoneschool,themaoschool,wasintheascendency,overshadowingalltheotherschools.thismaoschoolclaimedtohavebaseditsinterpretationofthepoemsontheauthorityofthe“prefaces,”whichweresupposedlyhandeddownfromtzu-hsia,agreatdiscipleofconfucius,butwhichwereprobablytheworkofsomehanscholarwhohadtakenthetroubletoassigneachpoemtosomehistoricaloccasionorevent,oreventosomehistoricpersonageasitsauthor.someofthehistoricalassignmentsweretakenfromthetsochuan,oneofthethreecommentariesoftheconfucianch’unch’iuannals,inwhichtheoriginofafew“poems”wasspecificallymentioned.thisdisplayofhistoricaleruditionwasquiteimpressiveandprobablyaccountedfortheessofthemaoschoolingraduallywinninggeneralacceptanceandofficialrecognition.the“prefacestothepoems,”therefore,wereregardedashavingsacrosanctauthoritythroughoutmorethanamillenniumbeforethetimeofchuhsi.

chuhsi’sseniorcontemporary,chengch’iao(1104-1162),thelearnedauthoroftheencyclopedictungchih,publishedalittlebookwiththetitle,“anexaminationoftheabsurditiesaboutthebookofodes,”inwhichhestronglyattackedthe“prefaces”asabsurdinterpretationsbyvulgarandignorantpersonswithnosenseofliteraryandpoeticappreciation.chengch’iao’svehemenceoflanguageatfirstshockedourphilosopherchuhsi,but,heconfessed,“afterreadingseveralofhiscriticismsandcheckingthemwithhistoricalworks,isooncametotheconclusionthatthe‘prefaces’ofthosepoemswerereallynotreliable.wheniwentontocomparesomeotherpoemswiththeirprefaces,ifoundthecontentandmeaningofthepoemsdidnottallyatallwiththeirprefaces.iwasfinallyconvincedthatmostofthe‘prefaces’werenottrustworthy.”

herewasagoodillustrationofconflictingideasleadingtodoubt,andalsoofanopenmindbeingreceptivetonewideasandessfulinresolvingthedoubtbyevidence.chuhsitoldhowhehadtriedessfullytopersuadehislife-longfriendandphilosophicalcomrade,lutsu-ch’ien(1137-1181),torejecttheprefaces.hepointedouttoluthatonlyafewprefaceswereconfirmedbyclearreferencesinthetsochuan,butmostofthemweregroundedonnoevidences.“butmyfriendsaid:‘howcanoneexpecttofindsomanydocumentaryevidences!’isaid:‘inthatcase,weshallhavetoleaveoutallthoseprefacesnotbasedonevidences.wecannotusetheprefacesasevidencesfortheinterpretationofthepoems.’‘but,’saidmyfriendlu,‘theprefacesthemselvesareevidences!’fromourdiscussion,irealizedthatmanypeopleprefertoexplaineachpoembyitspreface,andrefusetoseekunderstandingbyreadingthepoemitself.”

inhiscourageousfighttooverthrowtheauthorityoftheprefacesandseektounderstandthemeaningofthepoemsbyreadingeachpoemwithanopenmind,chuhsiwasonlypartiallyessful,bothinhisownnewcommentaryandinleadingfutureworkerstogofartherinthesamedirection.theweightoftraditionwasstilltoogreatforchuhsihimselfandforfuturegenerations.butthegreatandcreativedoubtofchengch’iaoandchuhsiwillalwaysberememberedwhenevermodernandunprejudicedscholarshipundertakestoworkonthebookofodeswithnewtoolsandinanentirelyfreespirit.

forthesecondnewfeatureofchuhsi’sworkonthebookofodes,namely,theaspectoftheancientpronunciationoftherhymes,hewasinspiredandaidedbytheworkofanotherlearnedcontemporaryofhis,wuyu,whodiedin1153or1154.wuyuwastherealpioneerinthestudyofchinesephonologyinworkingoutaninductivemethodofcomparingrhymedlinesinthatancientclassicamongthemselvesandwithotherancientandmedievalrhymedpoetry.hewrotequiteafewbooks,including“asupplementontherhymesofthebookofodes,”“explainingtherhymesinthech’utz’u,”and“asupplementtothestandardrhyme-book”(yunpu).onlythelast-namedhassurvivedtothisday,throughreprints.

thereisnodoubtthatwuyuhaddiscoveredthatthosemanyend-rhymesinthebookofodeswhichdidnotseemtorhymeaccordingto“modern”pronunciationwerenaturalrhymesinancienttimesandweretobereadaccordingtotheir“ancientpronunciation.”hethereforecarefullylistedalltheend-rhymesinthe300-oddpoemsofthebookofodesandworkedouttheirancientpronunciationwiththeaidofancientandmedievaldictionariesandrhyme-books.aprefacewrittenbyhsuch’an,afriendanddistantrelativeofhis,clearlydescribedhispatientmethodofcollectingandcomparingthevastnumberofinstances.“thewordnowpronounced‘fu’appears16timesinthebookofodes,all,withoutexception,pronounced‘bek’[or‘b’iuk,’accordingtobernardkarlgren].thewordnowpronounced‘yu’appears11timesinthebookofodes,all,withoutexception,rhymedwithwordsending-i.”

thisstrictmethodologyimpressedchuhsisomuchthathedecidedtoacceptwuyu’ssystemof“ancientpronunciation”throughouthisowncommentary.probablywithaviewtotheavoidanceofunnecessarycontroversy,chuhsididnotcallit“ancientpronunciation”but“rhymingpronunciation”—thatistosay,acertainwordshouldbepronouncedinsuchawayastorhymewiththeotherend-rhymesthepronunciationofwhichhadapparentlyremainedunchanged.

but,inhisconversationwithhisstudents,hefranklysaidthathehadfollowedwuyuinmostcases,makingadditionsormodificationsinonlyafewinstances;andthattherhymingpronunciationswerethenaturalpronunciationsoftheancientpoets,who,“likeusinmoderntimes,composedtheirsongsinnaturalrhymes.”thatistosay,therhymingpronunciationswereancientpronunciations.

whenaskedwhethertherewasanygroundfortherhymingpronunciation,chuhsianswered:“mr.wuproducedproofsforallhispronunciations.hisbookscanbefoundinch’uan-chou.foronewordhesometimesquotedasmanyasovertenproofs,butatleasttwoorthreeproofs.hesaidthatheoriginallyhadevenmoreevidences,buthadtoleaveoutmany[inordertoreducethecostofcopyingandprinting].”andinthosecasesinwhichchuhsifounditnecessarytodifferwithwu,healsocitedexamplesforcomparisoninhis“classifiedsayings”andinthech’u-tz’uchi-chu(anannotatededitionofthech’utz’u).

butbecausechuhsiusedtheexpression“rhymingpronunciation”throughouthiscommentaryonthebookofodeswithouteverreferringtotheexpression“ancientpronunciation,”andbecausewuyu’sbookswerelonglostoressible,adiscussionwasstartedearlyinthesixteenthcenturyintheformofaseverecriticismofchuhsi’simproperuseoftheexpression“rhymingpronunciation.”in1580,chiaohung(1541-1620),agreatscholarandphilosopher,publishedinhis“notes”(pi-ch’eng)abriefstatementofatheory(probablyhisfriendch’enti’s[1541-1617]theory)thatthoseend-rhymesinancientsongsandpoemsthatdidnotfitintomodernschemesofrhymingwereallnaturalrhymeswhosepronunciationshappenedtohavechangedinthecourseoftime.hecitedanumberofinstancestoshowthatthewordswouldrhymeperfectlyifpronouncedastheancientssangthem.

itwaschiaohung’sfriendch’entiwhoundertookmanyyearsofpatientresearchandpublishedaseriesofbooksontheancientpronunciationofhundredsofrhymingwordsinmanyancientbooksofrhymedpoetry.thefirstoftheseworkswaspublishedin1616underthetitle:mao-shihku-yink’ao(aninquiryintotheancientpronunciationofthebookofodes),withaprefacebychiaohung.

inhisownpreface,ch’entiproclaimedhismainthesisthattheend-rhymesinthebookofodeswerenaturallyrhymedintheiroriginalpronunciation,andthatitwasonlythenaturalchangeofpronunciationwhichmadesomeofthemappearnottorhymeatall.whathadbeenestedbychuhsias“rhymingpronunciations,”saidch’enti,wereinmostcasestheancientororiginalpronunciations.

“ihavedonesomeevidentialinvestigation(k’ao-chu),”hesaid,“andhavegroupedtheevidencesintotwoclasses:internalevidences(pen-cheng)andcollateralevidences(p’ang-cheng).internalevidencesaretakenfromthebookofodesitself.collateralevidencesaretakenfromotherancientrhymedworksofapproximatelythesameage.”

toshowhowtheword“fu”wasinvariablyrhymedinitsoriginalarchaicpronunciation(bek,orb’iuk),helisted14internalevidencesand10collateralevidences,atotalof24.thesameinductivemethodwasappliedtothestudyofancientpronunciationinotherrhymedliteratureofancientchina.toprovetheancientpronunciationoftheword“hsing,”hecited44instancesfromtherhymedsectionsofthebookofchanges,allrhymingwithwordsendingin-ang.fortheword“ming,”hecited17evidencesfromthesamebook.

nearlyhalfacenturylater,thepatriot-scholarkuyen-wu(1613-1682)completedhisyin-hsuehwu-shu(fivebooksofphonology).oneofthemwason“theoriginalpronunciationofthebookofodes”;anotheron“thepronunciationofthebookofchanges”;andanotheron“therhyminggroupsofthet’angperiod,”whichisanattempttocomparetheancientpronunciationwiththatofthemiddleages.kuacknowledgedhisindebtednesstoch’entiandadoptedhismethodinclassifyinghisproofsintointernalandcollateralevidences.

letusagainusetheword“fu”asanexample.inhis“originalpronunciationsofthebookofodes,”kuyen-wucited17internalevidencesand15collateralevidences,atotalof32.inhislargerworkontherhyminggroupsofthet’angdynasty(618-907),helistedatotalof162evidencesfromavailableancientrhymedliteraturetoshowhowthatwordwasrhymedandpronouncedinancienttimes.

suchpatientcollectingandcountingofinstanceswasintendedtoserveatwofoldpurpose.inthefirstplace,thatwastheonlywaytoascertaintheancientpronunciationofthewordsandalsotofindpossibleexceptionswhichmaychallengetheruleanddemandexplanation.kuyen-wuacknowledgedthatsomeexceptionscouldbeexplainedbythepossibilityoflocalanddialectaldeviationsinpronunciation.

butthemostvaluableuseofthisvaststatisticalmaterialwastoformabasisforsystematicreconstructionoftheactualgroupingsofancientsounds.onthebasisofhisstudyoftherhymedliteratureofancientchina,kuyen-wuconcludedthatancientpronunciationscouldbeanalyzedintotengeneralrhyminggroups(yunp’u).

thuswasbegunthedeductiveandconstructivepartofchinesephonetics,namely,thecontinuousattempts,first,tounderstandtheancient“finals”(rhyminggroups),and,inalaterperiod,tounderstandthenatureoftheancientinitialconsonants.

kuyen-wuproposedtengeneralrhyminggroupsin1667.inthefollowingcentury,anumberofscholarscontinuedtoworkonthesameproblemandbythesameinductiveanddeductivemethodsofevidentialresearch.chiangyung(1681-1762)ested13rhyminggroups.tuanyu-ts’ai(1735-1815)increasedthenumberto17.histeacherandfriend,taichen(1724-1777),furtherincreaseditto19.wangnien-sun(1744-1832)andchiangyu-kao(diedin1851),workingindependently,arrivedatamoreorlesssimilarsystemof21rhyminggroups.

ch’ienta-hsin(1728-1804),oneofthemostscientificallymindedmenoftheeighteenthcentury,publishedin1799his“notes,”whichincludestwopapersontheresultsofhisstudiesofancientinitiallabialsanddentals.thesetwopapersareoutstandingexamplesofthemethodofevidentialinvestigationatitsbest.hecollectedover60groupsofinstancesforthelabials,andaboutthesamenumberforthedentals.intheidentifyingoftheancientsoundofthewordsineachgroup,eachstepwasaskillfulcombinationofinductionanddeduction,ofgeneralizationfromparticularsandapplicationofgeneralrulestoparticularinstances.thefinaloutcomewastheformulationoftwogenerallawsofphonologicalchangeregardinglabialsanddentals.

itisimportantforustoremindourselvesthatthosechinesescholarsworkinginthefieldofchinesephoneticsweresogreatlyhandicappedthattheyseemedalmostfromtheoutsettobedoomedtofailure.theywerewithouttheminimumaidofanalphabetforthechineselanguage.theyhadnobenefitofthecomparativestudyofthevariousdialects,especiallyoftheolderdialectsinsouthern,southeastern,andsouthwesternchina.norhadtheyanyknowledgeofsuchneighboringlanguagesaskorean,vietnamese,andjapanese.withoutanyoftheseusefultools,thosechinesescholars,seekingtounderstandthephoneticchangesoftheirlanguage,wereactuallyfacedwithanalmostimpossibletask.theiressesorfailures,therefore,mustbeevaluatedinthelightoftheirnumerousandimportantdisadvantages.

theonlydependabletoolofthosegreatmenwastheirstrictmethodofpatientlycollecting,comparing,andclassifyingwhattheyrecognizedasfactsorevidences,andanequallystrictmethodofapplyingformulatedgeneralizationstotesttheparticularinstanceswithintheclassifiedgroups.itwasindeedverylargelythismeticulousapplicationofarigorousmethodthatenabledwuyuandchuhsiinthetwelfthcentury,ch’entiandkuyen-wuintheseventeenthcentury,andtheiressorsintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturiestocarryontheirsystematicstudyofchinesephoneticproblemsandtodevelopitintosomethingofascience—intoabodyofknowledgeansweringtotherigorouscanonsofevidence,exactitude,andlogicalsystematization.

ihavesketchedherewhatihaveconceivedasthestoryofthedevelopmentofthescientificspiritandmethodinthechinesethoughtofthepasteightcenturies.itbeganintheeleventhcenturywiththeambitiousidealofextendinghumanknowledgetotheutmostbyinvestigatingthereasonorlawinallthingsoftheuniverse.thatgrandioseidealwasbynecessitynarroweddowntotheinvestigationofbooks—tothepatientandcourageousstudyofthefewgreatbookswhichformedthe“sacredscripture”ofthechineseclassicaltradition.historysawthegradualdevelopmentofanewspiritandanewmethodbasedondoubtandtheresolutionofdoubt.thespiritwasthemoralcouragetodoubtevenonquestionstouchingsacredmatters,andtheinsistenceontheimportanceofanopenmindandimpartialanddispassionatesearchfortruth.themethodwasthemethodofevidentialthinkingandevidentialinvestigation(k’ao-chuandk’ao-cheng).

ihavecitedsomeexamplesofthisspiritandmethodatwork,notablyinthedevelopmentofa“highercriticism”intheformofinvestigationsoftheauthenticityanddatingofapartoftheclassicaltextsandinthedevelopmentofascientificstudyoftheproblemsofchinesephonology.but,asamatterofhistory,thismethodwasfruitfullyandeffectuallyappliedtomanyotherfieldsofhistoricalandhumanisticresearch,suchastextualcriticism,semantics(i.e.,thestudyofthehistoricalchangesofthemeaningofwords),history,historicalgeography,andarcheology.

themethodofevidentialinvestigationwasmadefullyconsciousbysuchmenasch’entiandkuyen-wuintheseventeenthcentury,whofirstusedtheexpressions“internalevidences”and“collateralevidences.”theefficacyofthemethodwassoclearlydemonstratedinthescientificworksofthetwogreatmastersoftheseventeenthcentury,kuyen-wuandyenjo-ch’u,thatbytheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturiespracticallyallfirst-classmindsinintellectualchinawereattractedtoitandweredevotingtheirlivestoitsapplicationtoallfieldsofclassicalandhumanisticstudy.theresultwasanewageofrevivaloflearningwhichhasalsobeencalledtheageofevidentialinvestigation.

eventhemostviolentcriticsofthisnewlearninghadtoadmitthescientificnatureofitsrigorousandeffectivemethod.onesuchviolentcriticwasfangtung-shu(1772-1851),whoin1826publishedabookwhichwasavehementcriticismandcondemnationofthewholemovement.evenfanghadtopayhightributetotherigorousmethodasitwasusedbytwoofhiscontemporaries,wangnien-sunandhisson,wangyin-chih(1766-1834).fangsaid,“asalinguisticapproachtotheclassics,thereisnothingthatsurpassestheching-ishu-wen(notesontheclassicsasihaveheardfrommyfather)ofthewangsofkao-yu.thatworkcouldactuallymakethegreatchenghsuan(d.200)andchuhsibowtheirheads(inhumbleacknowledgmentoftheirerrors).eversincethehandynasty(206b.c-a.d.220),therehasneverbeenanythingthatcouldcomparewithit.”suchatributefromaviolentcriticofthewholemovementisthebestproofthatthemeticulousapplicationofascientificmethodofresearchisthemosteffectivemeanstodisarmopposition,toundermineauthorityandconservatism,andtowinrecognitionandcredenceforthenewscholarship.

whatwasthehistoricalsignificanceofthisspiritandmethodof“exactandimpartialinquiry”?

abriefbutfactualanswermustbe:iteededinreplacinganageofsubjective,idealistic,andmoralizingphilosophy(fromtheeleventhtothesixteenthcentury)bymakingitseemoutmoded,“empty,”unfruitful,andnolongerattractivetothebestmindsoftheage.iteededincreatinganewageofrevivaloflearning(1600-1900)basedondisciplinedanddispassionateresearch.butitdidnotproduceanageofnaturalscience.thespiritofexactandimpartialinquiry,asexemplifiedinkuyen-wu,taichen,ch’ienta-hsin,andwangnien-sun,didnotleadtoanageofgalileo,vesalius,andnewtoninchina.

why?whydidthisscientificspiritandmethodnotresultinproducingnaturalscience?

sometimeago,itriedtoofferahistoricalexplanationbymakingacomparativechronologyoftheworksoftheintellectualleadersofchinaandofeuropeintheseventeenthcentury.isaid:ifwemakeacomparativechronologyoftheleadersofchineseandeuropeanlearningduringtheseventeenthcentury—theformativeperiodbothforthenewscienceinmoderneuropeandthenewlearninginchina—weshallseethatfouryearsbeforekuyen-wuwasborn(1613),galileohadinventedhistelescopeandwasusingittorevolutionizethescienceofastronomy,andkeplerwaspublishinghisrevolutionarystudiesofmarsandhisnewlawsofthemovementsoftheplanets.whenkuyen-wuworkedonhisphilologicalstudiesandreconstructedthearchaicpronunciations,harveyhadpublishedhisgreatworkonthecirculationofblood[1628],andgalileohistwogreatworksonastronomyandthenewscience[1630].elevenyearsbeforeyenjo-ch’ubeganhiscriticalstudyofthebookofhistory,torricellihadcompletedhisgreatexperimentonthepressureofair[1644].shortlyafter,boyleannouncedtheresultsofhisexperimentsinchemistry,andformulatedthelawthatbearshisname[1660-1661].theyearbeforekuyen-wucompletedhisepoch-makingfivebooksonphilologicalstudies[1667]newtonhadworkedouthiscalculusandhisanalysisofwhitelight.in1680,kuwrotehisprefacetothefinaltextsofhisphilologicalworks;in1687,newtonpublishedhisprincipia.

thestrikingsimilarityinthescientificspiritandmethodofthesegreatleadersoftheageofnewlearningintheirrespectivecountriesmakesthefundamentaldifferencebetweentheirfieldsofworkallthemoreconspicuous.galileo,kepler,boyle,harvey,andnewtonworkedwiththeobjectsofnature,withstars,balls,incliningplanes,telescopes,microscopes,prisms,chemicals,andnumbersandastronomicaltables.andtheirchinesecontemporariesworkedwithbooks,words,anddocumentaryevidences.thelattercreatedthreehundredyearsofscientificbooklearning;theformercreatedanewscienceandanewworld.

thatwasahistoricalexplanation,butwasalittleunfairtothosegreatchinesescholarsoftheseventeenthcentury.itwasnotenoughtosay,asidid,that“thepurelyliterarytrainingoftheintellectualclassinchinahastendedtolimititsactivitiestothefieldofbooksanddocuments.”itshouldbepointedoutthatthebookstheyworkedonwerebooksoftremendousimportancetothemoral,religious,andphilosophicallifeoftheentirenation.thosegreatmenconsideredittheirsacreddutytofindoutwhateachandeveryoneofthoseancientbooksactuallymeant.asrobertbrowningsangofthegrammarian:

“what’sinthescroll,”quothhe,“thoukeepestfurled?

“showmetheirshaping,

“theirswhomoststudiedman,thebardandsage,—