Context,Hearsay And History:A Study Of "Questioning Li Yan"

Because of the two special elements of "late Ming Dynasty" and "peasant war",The study of the peasant war history in the late Ming Dynasty occupies a very high position in the historical research of our country."Questioning Li Yan" was hailed as one of the "four important issues" in the study of the history of peasant wars in the late Ming Dynasty.Li Yan is one of the legendary conspirators in Li Zicheng's uprising army.It is not only seen in the official history books,but also in novelists' words,and it is also widely circulated among the people.During the Kangxi period,some people pointed directly at Li Yan as a non-existent person.This time,the doubt reached its peak after Gu Cheng published "Questioning Li Yan",and then different scholars joined the debate,leaving the "Questioning Li Yan" debate.The article first sorts out the "previous life" of "questioning Li Yan",that is,the internal rheological path it followed.Investigate the changing process from Li Yan as a character of historical fiction,Li Yan as a character of historical books,and Li Yan as a character of historical history.Carding Li Yan research conducted by scholars in the Qing Dynasty after Li Yan was written in the History of Ming Dynasty.Second,focus on Li Yan's research in the context of revolution.Investigate the writing background and profound meaning of Guo Moruo's "The 300th Anniversary of Jiashen," and Guo's use of "Li Yan" to express his political appeal as an intellectual.At the same time,it discusses how Li Yan's image created by Guo Moruo was dissipated step by step in the discussion of the role of intellectuals in the peasant rebel army from 1949 to 1966.The dissolution process is also a stepping stone for "Questioning Li Yan"process.Third,it discusses the "Questioning Li Yan" argument in the context of scientific terminology.It points out that the Cultural Revolution period has just begun to emerge,but it is stumped by the situation and cannot be used.It examines the academic debate on the authenticity of Li Yan since 1978,and divides the two sides of the debate into "skeptics" and "Confirmation":Combating the conflict of views and the issues of agreement caused by the different credentials of the two sides of the theoretical warfare,which problems have left behind the stagnation of subsequent studies of Li Yan's problem.Fourth,analyze the "deadlock" and "breakthrough" of"Questioning Li Yan".Explaining that "Questioning Li Yan" the two sides of the debate "same route to the same goal" all point to the circulating hearsays of Li Yan.The failure to give a convincing explanation puts "Questioning Li Yan" in a deadlock.How to interpret the hearsays has become the key to "breaking the game."In this process,as a representative of overseas Sinology,what constructive opinions and ideas did Dr.Roger V.DesForges put forward;and the appearance of the "Family Tree of Li's Family" in Tang Village not only gave a reasonable statement,but also made it difficult to question The place makes Li Yan's problem more confusing.Fifth,this article discusses the enlightenment brought by "Questioning Li Yan" to the study of history.On the one hand,it reviews the application and limitations of the"source-tracking method" in "Questioning Li Yan";on the other hand,it re-evaluates the academic significance of "Questioning Li Yan":It not only pulls the study of the history of peasant wars that was ideologically engulfed in the revolutionary context back to the path of positivist history in the terminology,but also fully reflects the problematic consciousness and skepticism.The Practice of "Distinguishing Ancient History" Methodology.Finally,look forward to the future of Li Yan's research.We should jump out of "questioning" and focus on "hearsay".We cannot easily determine whether Li Yan is a real person,nor can we be trapped in "questioning".We should change our minds and put more effort into Li Yan's hearsay research.