Earlier I wrote a paper on “natural history,” but it was rather hasty, and there is still much work to be done. On the one hand, the inner connection between the rise of natural history and the rise of historiography in modern Western thought still awaits examination from the standpoint of intellectual history; on the other hand, the relationship between history and nature also deserves further philosophical reflection. Senior Brother Ke suggested that I read Foucault’s The Order of Things; he seemed to mean that the book would support the translation “natural science” [博物学], but when I flipped through it roughly, it was clearly supporting my line of thought.
In any case, reexamining translated terms is the basis for further thought. If one keeps understanding the Western tradition of natural history through the concept of “natural science,” then one simply cannot make sense of it, nor think it through. I think that even if my paper cannot be said to have proved that the translation “natural history” is absolutely appropriate, it can at least make people put a question mark beside this term; at the very least, it can enable people to understand it through the concept of natural history, rather than through the concept of natural science.
That said, “correct naming” is precisely what the historiographical tradition has always been most concerned with. The mathematical and scientific tradition does not care about this problem. From a mathematical-scientific mode of thinking, naming or translating is nothing more than a matter of matching X with Y; once the correspondence is right, that is enough. Historiography, however, treats it as a matter of the first importance.
In Arendt’s terms, the sciences of historiography and mathematics just happen to represent the ultimate pursuits under the two attitudes of “active life” and “contemplative life.” Mathematical science symbolizes the pursuit of “eternity,” while history represents the pursuit of “immortality.” The pursuit of eternity and the pursuit of immortality are not contradictory, but they are certainly not the same thing. The ancient Chinese institution of the historiographer was what the soul of traditional Chinese culture depended on.
Seen in this light, our present talk of reviving traditional Chinese culture acquires a deeper meaning. At the most superficial level, it means reviving traditional thought and rereading the classics of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. At a somewhat deeper level, it means the revival of li-jiao, the reappearance, as cultivation and a way of life, of “li, yue, she, yu, shu, shu” [rites, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and mathematics]. But above the level of thought and the level of life there is still a religious level. We say that Confucianism is also a religion, as if reviving Confucian learning were tantamount to rebuilding faith; in fact, that is not so. Ordinary people in traditional China could believe in a jumble of folk religions, but the spiritual faith of the literati was actually sustained by “history” [史]. The line “From ancient times, who has not died? Let my loyal heart illumine the chronicles” — this “green silk,” this “history” [汗青], was the true spiritual refuge of the Chinese traditional literati. In antiquity, the historiographers were priests; in later ages, the historiographers still bore the priestly spiritual role. They were the medium through which one reached “immortality.” Traditional Chinese religion does not pursue eternity, but immortality; and the historiographer is the medium that leads people toward immortality. The system of historiographers is thus a religious institution.
Without historiographers, without “the chronicles” [汗青], the sacredness and ritual character bestowed upon history are both stripped away. History as a discipline and historical documents may have become more developed, but without the support of an institutional ritual form, they are completely secularized. This is the real crux of the contemporary Chinese lack of faith. If we want to rebuild faith, reviving Confucian thought alone is not enough. At most, Confucianism can tell you, “You do not yet know life, how can you know death?” Only the historiographer can tell you: when you die, there will still be the chronicles shining upon you.
In a certain sense, the revival of historiographer culture seems to have the clearest prospects. The ideas and ways of life of antiquity are very hard to stand up against scientific concepts and technological life, but historiographer culture may perhaps be able to revive itself through borrowed body and soul. That is to say, it can make use of the ready-made institution of the “secretary” [书记]. The term “secretary” as an official post seems to have been invented by Marx; could this possibly have no relation to Marx’s view of history? In any case, Marx happens to be the representative figure in the modern West for the shift from “contemplative life” to “active life,” and from speculation to history. The “history” Marx championed probably does not refer merely to the process of development and progress itself, but also contains the connotation of “immortality.” Of course, even if one says that the name “secretary” is merely a coincidence, it is a coincidence that fits rather too well. The current title “secretary” is in fact both name and reality out of joint; the secretaries are not truly responsible for being secretaries. Yet if one is to improve the political system, the first step should be to begin with the secretary system. There is absolutely no need to overturn the entire secretary system wholesale. The best approach is precisely to let secretaries truly become secretaries. Let them be responsible for handling documents, for recording the words and deeds of administrators, and for recording the sentiments and dispositions of the people. The power of the secretary lies in keeping the books, and the duty lies in recording affairs. If this could be done, then historiographer culture would truly be able to be reborn.
November 9, 2010
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply