The Comparison Of Study To Chunqiu Fanlu Between Kang Youwei And Su Yu

In the late Qing Dynasty, various powerful countries attempted to divide oldChina, and the revolts from the bottom of society didn′t stop at all. So, old Chinaencountered the very troublesome situation for thousands of years. Many academicelites began to abandon the study style of proving the specific things and started tothink about how to reform politics and society to survive our motherland. In themiddle of the Qing Dynasty, Zhuang Cunyu set up the Changzhou School, which hadrelived the New Text Confucian Classics that had slept near two thousands years.From generation to generation the famous scholars such Liu Fenglu, Song Xiangfeng,Gong Zizhen and Wei Yuan etc. have transmitted New Text Confucian Classics, thenthis School of Thought was founded and the reform theory in this School was explored.Finally, Kang Youwei expanded it to the ultimate and republished such books asXinxue Weijing Kao, Confucius′Reform Kao, Chunqiu Dongshi Xue and etc. Heproved that Liu Xin had fabricated all the Old Text Confucian Classics, Confucius wasa great reformer, and Chunqiu Fanlu was a masterpiece on reform. In addition, Kangleaded the1898Reform Movement under the guidance of these ideologies.Kang et al. only respected those New Text Confucian Classics and studied themfor the sake of political reform. However, in the group of New Text Confucian School,some scholars such as Kong Guangsen, Ling Shu and Chen Li paid attention to theOld Text Confucian Classics as well. Their study attitude was rational and moderate.Under the influence of this study style, Su Yu, a Gongyang scholar from Hunan, wrotea book Chunqiu Fanlu Yizheng adopting the Gongyang Studies′theory to combatagainst Kang′s Chunqiu Dongshi Xue. From the Yi-Li′s angle, to restitute DongZhongshu′s real thought, he correctedμ Kang′s annotation way that aimed at politicalreform.This paper compares the book Chunqiu Dongshi Xue with the one Chunqiu FanluYizheng from four aspects. Firstly, based on the social and academic background, thegoals and the styles of the two books are analyzed. Kang separated the phrases andparagraphs of Chunqiu Fanlu, rearranged them by each significance and attached hiscomments after each paragraph. Su added his own and others· interpretations aftereach sentence in Chunqiu Fanlu. He criticized Kang′s exaggeration of comments, anddelivered to describe the proper thinking of Dong Zhongshu. Secondly, there is amajor difference between Kang·s and Su·s viewpoints on what kind of book Chunqiuis. Kang believed Chunqiu was a classic about reform, while Su indicated its essential goal was to work out some doctrines. Thirdly, Sanke Jiuzhi were the focuses of debatebetween them. Kang said the theory of Tong Santong in Sanke Jiuzhi reflected therenewal of political system, while Su thought it reflected the change of ritual system.Kang expounded that the theory of Zhang Sanshi signified the social evolution fromJuluan Era, then Shengping Era to Taiping Era, while Su held the view that itcontained Confucius′different attitudes to the three eras. However, there is aconsistency between their ideology in terms of the Yi Wai-Nei Theory concerning therelations between the countries of Zhuxia and Yidi. They two maintained the sametheory, that is Yi-Xia Jin-Tui, which is an important ideological resource to solve thenation contradiction in the late Qing Dynasty. Lastly, in the aspect ofNeo-Confucianism, Kang supported the Qi Ontology, while Su didn·t propose anytheory related to ontology. Kang believed human nature was essentially good, whileSu confirmed human nature was essentially not only good but also bad as DongZhongshu had put it. Kang′s Theory of Cultivation was Yangqi and Yangxin, whileSu′s was Bianbie. Of course, no matter from what aspect their thoughts are compared,some common points between their thoughts can be found because they study thesame Gongyang Classic with Gongyang′s theory. But as a whole, the differences aremore than the common points.Through the comparison between the two books, it can be found that Kangclaimed that society always develops step by step. And his immediate goal was tocreate a political system of constitutional monarchy, his ultimate goal was to establisha society of extensive democracy and absolute equality. So, his ideological systemadapted to the social situations at that time. It is neither a simple circular concept ofhistorical development, nor a conservative and vintage view. And Su wasn·t an OldText Confucian scholar as the previous research has demonstrated before, becausethough he insisted on the Gongyang Studies, however, his explanation to the coretheory of Gongyang Studies such as Tong Santong, Zhang Sanshi and Yi Wai-Nei wasdifferent to Kang·s. What′s more, he didn′t have school prejudice and he hadabsorbed the ideological essence and the study achievements of Old and New TextConfucian Studies. In fact, this kind of elucidative difference always existed in thehistory of the inheritance and development of New Text Confucian School in QingDynasty. So, the divergence between Kang and Su wasn′t a disparity between the Newand Old Text Confucianism, but a inner conflict within the scholars of New TextConfucianism.