A Tentative Analysis Of American Sinologist Herrlee Glessner Creel’s Study On The Origin And Development Of "Ru"

The discussion about "original Ru " was a popular issue for Chinese scholars at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century,which was closely related to the social background.Faced with the impact of Western learning and the decline of Confucianism in China,Chinese intellectuals and scholars seriously reflected on Confucian civilization and its relationship with the Chinese culture under the impact of Western learning.Herrlee Glessner Creel,an American scholar devoted to the study of early Chinese civilization,inevitably treated on the issue of "original Ru " in his works.This thesis,with a focus on the issue of "original Ru",makes a comparative analysis of Creel’s and Chinese scholars’ studies from two aspects of the connotation of "Ru" and the relationship between Ru(Confucianism;Confucius)and Tao(Taoism;Lao Tse)in order to explore the characteristics and evolution of Greel’s sinological studies.The first chapter focuses on the meaning of Ru.Chinese scholars Zhang Taiyan and Hu Shi are taken as examples to analyze their investigation of the origin and development of Ru.Zhang Taiyan’s contribution to the study of "original Ru " is that he demonstrated the origin of Ru by examining the historical changes of its meaning.Zhang Taiyan divided Ru into Da Ru,Lei Ru and Si Ru,indicating the meaning of Ru was in a process of being narrowed down.Hu Shi basically adopted Zhang Taiyan’s academic perspectives,and his study focused on the historical evolution from Ru in its broad sense to that in its narrow sense.Hu Shi thought that the original Ru referred to Yin people and their posterity.As the descendant of Yin,Confucius bore the hope of the restoration of Yin.Therefore,Confucius was the key figure for the evolution of Ru.Creel concentrated on Ru in his representative work,Confucius,the Man and the Myth.However,having been strongly influenced by the School of Doubting Ancient History,Creel restricted his scope of the history of Confucianism.His research focused on Confucius and his followers,which was what Zhang Taiyan called "Si Ru".After research on Confucius’ genealogy,Creel thought that some documents about Confucius were unreliable because they were based on the idea that Confucius ought to have been the Son of Heaven or the king.As for the reasons behind the unauthentic or false image of Confucius,Creel analyzed them from three aspects:the division of Confucianism,the distortion and falsification of the opponent schools and the influence of rulers.Based on the historical documents and the social and historical background of Confucius’ time,Creel thought that Confucius was a reformer rather than a traditionist.Confucius’ adherence to Zhouli(The Rites of Zhou)was more like a strategy,which reflected the contemporaneous spirit of"admiring the ancient".Confucius did not study and inherit Zhouli completely but selectively.In the second chapter,the issue of "original Ru" is discussed from the relationship between Ru and Tao.The discussion of the relationship between Ru and Tao is actually an attempt to elucidate the origin and development of Chinese culture.This chapter first takes Hu Shi,Zhang Ertian and Jiang Quan,who represent three different views on this issue,as examples to analyze their studies on the relationship between Ru and Tao.We find that Creel’s view of the relationship between Ru(Confucius)and Tao(Lao Tse)underwent an obvious evolution.In the early stage of his academic career,Creel adhered to the traditional view that "Lao Tse was senior to Confucius".In the monograph based on his doctoral dissertation Sinism:A Study of the Evolution of the Chinese World-View,Creel created the concept of "Sinism",i.e.the source of Chinese culture,which could be defined as the generalization of Chinese customs and cultural concepts.In the theoretical system of Sinism,"Confucianism" and "Laoism(Taoism)" can be unified.Confucius represented the tradition and prevailing of Sinism,and Lao Tse represented the reform and innovation of Sinism.In the later period of Creel’s academic career,his view on the relationship between Ru(Confucius)and Tao(Lao Tse)changed from "Lao Tse being senior to Confucius" to"Confucius being senior to Lao Tse" because of the influence of the School of Doubting Ancient History.This change of view,in consequence,greatly affected Creel’s study.In his book SHEN PU-HAI:A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C.,based on the idea of"Confucius being senior to Lao Tse",Creel further proved that Shen Buhui was not influenced by Lao Tse and Chuang Tse.Instead,the latter two were more likely influenced by the ideas and opinions of Shen Pu-haiThere are three obvious characteristics in Creel’s Sinological study from his research on"original Ru":Firstly,his Sinological study had been following Chinese academy,that is,his research had distinct domestic Chinese academic characteristics;Secondly,Creel doubted the authenticity of ancient written Chinese materials;Thirdly,Creel was good at exploring cultural concepts through analysis of the denotation and connotation of Chinese characters.