【訪談】蔡亮：改寫漢武帝“獨尊甜心一包養網儒術”年夜敘述需求學界集體盡力

Cai Liang:This book developed on the basis of my doctoral thesis. When we first set the target of doctoral thesis, there was a basic question that always troubled me: We often talk about Confucianism and discuss the Han Dynasty’s “demolishing all schools of thought and respecting Confucianism alone”. Do we really know that Confucian scholars in the Han Dynasty? In the framework of traditional knowledge, there are few Confucian scholars in Western Han Dynasty who are familiar with. In more than two hundred years of history, the foundations of Confucian scholars who are often discussed are Gong Sun Hong, Dong Zhongshu, and Liu Xiang. What about the other Confucian scholars, where are they? In what kind of preservation state does it exist? A scholar or an official? What does the “suppressing all schools of thought and respecting Confucianism” specifically refer to? Is it said that Confucianism appears in the elite level, or is it said that Confucian scholars themselves can exercise their political power? These questions began to guide me to review “History Records” and “Han Books”.

Everyone can define “Confucianism”, 原文Who is a “Confucian scholar”? However, while everyone defines, they will also bring in their own prejudice and existing expectations and thinking settings. Contemporary scholars can define Confucian scholars, but I chose a different research method. As a historian, I want to try my best to break down existing achievements and recreate history. So what I am concerned about is how people in the Han Dynasty defined “Confucianism”. Specifically, when doing research, I was looking for existing historical materials to define “Confucianism” or “Confucian scholar”. Because the history of Western Han Dynasty is based on Sima’s “Shi Ji” and Ban Gu’s “Han Book”, what I looked for is who was called “Confucian scholar” in “Shi Ji” and “Han Book”.

It is obvious that Sima and Ban will not call all officials or all scholars Confucian scholars. So what standard do they use when planning to classify? Behind this standard, what observations and insights did they observe and understand the social or authority system at that time? Some people may doubt that Sima and Ban Gu are also biased. Yes, Sima and Ban Gu both have their own prejudice. All our historical materials, whether modern or modern historical materials, are not completely viewed, but are cut and have some prejudice. We must take a closer look at the prejudice of historical materials in order to further our efforts from historical facts. From a different perspective, the reproduction of unbiased prejudice in history is almost impossible. The understanding of the limitations of historical materials and individual perspectives determines the inability of the complete recovery of history. However, we must accurately and comprehensively restore the history that history guessed, as long as we have a new and thorough grasp of historical materials, we can keep getting closer to history ourselves.

After the research and the concepts used were clearly confirmed, I carried out a system’s historical material construction task. Historical materials are the standard of my own learning. The infinite data of Qin and Han history makes this way and fantasy of this way and fantasy become capable. Under this thought, I sorted out the Confucian scholars mentioned in “Historical Records” and “Han Book”.

In the process of sorting out, I found that there were very few Confucian scholars during the reign of Emperor Hanwu who were recorded by Shi Guess. This is in a strong contrast with the traditional understanding – “respecting Confucianism alone”. I started to ask: What kind of social and historical encounter did Confucian scholars preserve it? Confucius said, “At thirty,” so how did Confucian scholars settle in the Western Han society, what kind of burden do they have, and how did they achieve it? Long-term maintenance? What method do they use to “settle a family and make a living”? Most of the Confucian scholars recorded in history appear as officials. So, what group is there besides Confucian officials?What about the big empire in Xihan? Under the impetus of these problems, I began to systematically sort out all the high-level officials and cats that have been recorded since Emperor Hanwu. I don’t know how long I was sleepy here. I looked dying (three dukes and nine ministers, soldiers, and officials in the capital), and made a systematic cleaning of their family landscape, career path, academic trends and social relations networks. The results of suffering from data humanities (thanks to the “Hanji Full Text Database Plan” and the “Chinese Philosophy Book Electronic Program” have opened up the data historical materials they have packed for the public), so that I can do as much as possible to clean up within a certain time. These collection, structuring and analysis of traditional historical materials became the foundation of “The Wu Ze Zhi Zhu and the Rise of the Confucian Empire”.

Peng Pai News:In your research, Confucian scholars as a group were formed in the Huo Guang era after Emperor Hanwu. So why did we gain the “common knowledge” of Emperor Hanwu’s “destroying all schools of thought and respecting Confucianism alone”?

Cai Liang:After I finished the statistics of the Three Dukes and Nine Ministers who were recorded in the late Western Han Dynasty, I was also surprised. Because there were very few people who were appointed as Confucian scholars or officials of Confucian scholars by Sima or Xu Ban. After searching the carpet style, it was found that only 7 high-level officials were called Confucian scholars during the 54th year of Emperor Hanwu’s rule, and there were 76 high-level officials in the Hanwu dynasty who had detailed records. Statistical data shows that Confucian scholars were only a few schools during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han. Moreover, the political power and influence that these seven Confucian scholars and high-level officials can exercise are also very short and unlimited. Confucian scholars often fight each other. A familiar belief believes that “respecting Confucianism alone” is protected by the system, that is, setting up Taixue, Shuli Wushu PhD and the system of chasing. However, when we analyzed and sorted out the official career of Emperor Hanwu all the high-level Confucian scholars, we found that few people entered the right system through the eleventh and investigation channels. In fact, among the three dukes and nine ministers of Emperor Hanwu, as long as Gong Sun Hong’s official career began with the verdict, as long as Ni Qian entered the authority system through the Taixue school. Whether it is data or the recorded career path of Confucian scholars, it is in a strong contrast with the common sense we already have, that is, the belief that Emperor Hanwu “destroyed all schools of thought and respected Confucianism alone.”

The newly discovered data overturned my own traditional knowledge, so the next step I thought of at that time was to read it again. There are two goals to read again: First, I want to examine from the beginning how contemporary scholars can explain Emperor Han Wu’s “destroying all schools of thought and respecting Confucianism alone”; second, IWant to figure out how the existing coaching verbs are composed.

When reading from the beginning, I found that Chinese and foreign scholars had begun to doubt the fate of Emperor Hanwu’s “respecting Confucianism alone” from a different perspective. Just like Master Shigemasa Fukui believed that Emperor Wu did not teach Doctor Goto like we trusted widely. (See Fukui Shigema, “S