Chapter 12 Another climax in the third quarter

Facing the new domestic and international situation, especially the increasingly serious danger of the political and economic blockade and flanking attack on mainland China by the Western camp headed by the United States, the senior CCP officials, who were impatiently waiting to see, were determined to bombard Hu Shi with one fell swoop. Bomb it to the ground, and at the same time clean up all the "poison" remaining in the minds of mainland intellectuals to stabilize the new regime.As a result, a larger-scale Hu criticism movement detonated again, and its superficial fuse was due to a peculiar "event" caused by two "little people".

In September and October 1954, two "little people" named Li Xifan and Lan Ling co-published an article accusing the former professor of the Chinese Department of Peking University, a red scholar, and a researcher at the Classical Literature Research Office of the Institute of Literature of Peking University. Yu Pingbo, who did not see great anti-feudal tendencies, and so on.After seeing this article, Mao Zedong felt that it was just to his liking, and immediately ordered his wife Jiang Qing to go to the "People's Daily" to arrange reprinting.Unexpectedly, the head of the "People's Daily" did not know what was going on, but he had the audacity and muddleheaded to refuse.Afterwards, Li and Lan made another effort, accusing Yu Pingbo that the source of his thought was Hu Shi's subjectivism and idealism, which should be thoroughly criticized.This article once again attracted Mao Zedong’s attention. He believed that in order to “leave to the Soviet Union” politically and completely eliminate the Chinese people’s admiration for American imperialism, it is necessary to completely eradicate Hu Shi’s influence in the ideological world as a “loyal lackey of the reactionary regime.” .Therefore, Mao Zedong broke through the right and wrong of Hongxue itself, and the ulterior motives were not in the wine but in the pot (Hu) and turned his spearhead to the criticism of eliminating the lingering poison of Hu Shi's thought since the May Fourth Movement. ), pouring the pot (hu), smashing the pot (hu), throwing the pot (hu) and so on a series of movements to remove the pot (hu).

On the surface, the campaign to criticize Hu was led by Guo Moruo and Zhou Yang, two well-known "cultural leaders" and "slave managers" (in Lu Xun's language), but soon people in the educational and cultural circles learned that Mao Zedong was the real instigator, and they panicked even more disturbed.The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Writers Association set up a special committee for this purpose, with Guo Moruo as the director, and launched a comprehensive, concentrated, sharp, and brutal artillery bombardment against Hu Shi's philosophical thoughts, political thoughts, literary and artistic thoughts, and historical views. .Guo Moruo took the lead and criticized Hu Shi by speaking at meetings, talking with reporters, or writing articles in person.On November 8 of this year, "Guangming Daily" published Guo Moruo's conversation with our reporter, saying: "The discussion caused by Yu Pingbo's erroneous views on the 'Dream of Red Mansions' is a major event in the current cultural and academic circles...it is the work of Marx and Lenin. This is a serious ideological struggle... Hu Shi's bourgeois idealism academic views are deeply rooted in Chinese academic circles, and there are still quite a few high-level intellectuals. Great potential. We have declared Hu Shi a war criminal politically, but in the minds of some people Hu Shi is still a "Confucius" in the academic world. We have not knocked down this "Confucius" yet, and we can even say that we rarely Go touch him." On December 9, "People's Daily" re-published Guo Moruo's speech at the expanded joint meeting of the Presidium of the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles and the Presidium of the Chinese Writers Association the day before under the title "Three Suggestions". In his speech, he called Hu Shi "the No. 1 spokesperson of the comprador bourgeoisie. He was from academia, education, and politics. He and Chiang Kai-shek were both literary and military, and they were brothers. Through the criticism of Hu Shi and Yu Pingbo's research, "deep inspection, always vigilant".

Guo Moruo's bombardment spread to the United States through Hong Kong and other leftist newspapers, and Hu Shi knew about it. At first, Hu was confused and a little annoyed by Guo's actions, but after thinking about it carefully, he understood and was relieved.Regarding Guo's behavior, Hu once said to his assistant Hu Songping: "Guo Moruo is a fickle person, and I have never admired him. About eighteen or nineteen years ago, when I returned to Shanghai from Beiping, Xu Zhimo invited me to dinner, and also invited Guo Moruo to accompany him. During the meal, Xu Zhimo said: "Moruo, Mr. Hu appreciates your article (it's about ancient thoughts, but I forgot the title). "Guo Moruo heard me Appreciating one of his articles, he ran to the seat, hugged me, and kissed me on the cheek. I complimented him, and he jumped up." The chopsticks jumped up, but now they criticized Hu Shi very severely.The treatment that Hu Shi enjoys is no longer being kissed passionately like acting and showing off, but being bitten and slapped coldly.For Guo Moruo's repetition and fickleness, Hu Shi has personally experienced it several times. In February 1947, Guo Moruo wrote an article "Changing Poems for Hu Shi", which changed the word "Pin" into "Feng" in a poem given by Hu Shi to Chen Guangfu during the Anti-Japanese War. The word, in order to satirize Hu Shi, who was ordered by Chiang Kai-shek to be a pawn of the Kuomintang.After Hu Shi saw this article on revising the poem, he was very worried, but he was limited to "embarrassing", and he had not yet used his own influence and power to fight back and retaliate.What academics saw was that in May of this year, Hu Shi still generously advocated that Guo Moruo be included in the list of candidates for the first academician of the Academia Sinica, and he spoke out for Guo during the review of the judging committee, and finally made him pass the test without losing the election. In February 1948, Guo Moruo wrote another long article "Refuting Hu Shi (Two Problems in the International Situation)".A month later, 81 academicians were elected, and Guo Moruo was on the list.In May of the same year, Guo Moruo published an article "The Evidence of the "Three Noisms"" in Hong Kong's "Hua Shang Bao", and even scolded Hu Shi as "shameless! Shameless! The third is shameless!" How to show closeness and generosity, because of political needs and his own interests, Guo Moruo would not express his gratitude to Hu, let alone return a good face ignorant of current affairs.He expressed his ruthlessness towards his former friends in a severely critical way, as if in this way he could highlight his revolutionary stance and possibly win the trust of the central authorities.But now, in the face of Hu Shi who went to the United States and the Supreme Leader's instructions to criticize Hu, Guo Moruo's attitude is naturally more righteous and heroic.

After Guo, Fan Wenlan, known as the authentic "master of Marxist-Leninist historiography", naturally cannot lag behind.At the Hu Criticism Conference held by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the 62-year-old old Fantou spoke: "The Japanese invaders want to 'conquer the hearts of the Chinese nation', of course they must rely on Hu Shi, the contemporary Confucius who 'leads the cultural and educational movement'. Hu Shi Of course, the value of Hu Shi can be increased by ten thousand times. Maybe the Japanese imperialism is smarter than the American imperialism, and sees through the uselessness of this slave. No matter which of the two imperialists is stupid and who is smart, anyway, Hu Shi is a man pretending to be Confucius for sale. Traitors and traitors."

In the crusade against the rumbling of guns and flying shrapnel, under the huge social and political pressure, the remaining "Hu Shi faction literati" in the mainland, as well as figures of all sizes in the academic, educational and cultural circles, expressed their positions one after another, vowing to completely break with Hu Shi, and to give up their positions. The pens or ballpoint pens they used were used as spears and daggers, and they were thrown at Hu Shi who was far away in the ocean. In December of the same year, Li Changzhi, a professor of the Chinese Department of Beijing Normal University who was ridiculed by Lu Xun as "Li Genius", used his distinctive "genius" style of writing in his long essay "Hu Shi's Thoughts and National History" to make a head start. There was a big question mark at the top: "What kind of person is Hu Shi?" Then he answered: "Hu Shi is a stubborn counter-revolutionary. He himself said, 'We would rather not avoid the name of counter-revolutionary'." After the "evidence" of the bastard, Li Changzhi emphatically accused Hu Shi of "selling individualism everywhere", "he raised the individual to such a status, and believed that the reason why Japan became a 'powerful country' in one leap was 'only because of Ito Hirobumi, Okubo Toshimichi, Nishi Xiang Longsheng and other dozens of people's efforts'. Therefore, he has a "biographical fever". From valuing the individual to despising the masses, hostile to the masses, and not avoiding the name of "counter-revolution" to the reality of counter-revolution, this is Hu Shi's development path ".In the end, Li Changzhi raised his arms and shouted with his usual bravado and intimidating writing style: "Yes, it's 'hand to hand'. We are going to meet this battle! Meet this combat mission including our own thoughts!"

The flames of war have been ignited, and the soldiers are fighting hand to hand!As Hu Shi's closest disciple, Gu Jiu should also go to the battlefield, tearing his face and fighting directly with real knives and guns, bleeding the "Confucius of today" Mr. Hu.Luo Ergang, a student who has always been favored by the Hu family, took the lead to stand up and said: "In 1950, I returned to my unit from my hometown. At that time, Mr. Tao Menghe was the vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He came to Nanjing and treated me well. He said that Hu Sidu wrote an article "My Father" that draws a boundary with Hu Shi. It was very good and asked me to read it. At the time of liberation, I had not studied in my hometown, and I didn't know what a boundary is. Hu Shi's But the problem was weighing heavily on my mind. I listened to what Mr. Meng He said, and immediately went to the library to borrow the "People's Daily" to read. After reading it, I realized that Hu Sidu and Hu Shi could still draw the line between the enemy and ourselves. As a student, you can draw a clear line between the enemy and yourself with the teacher! Since then, the problem in my heart has been solved, and I suddenly become enlightened. 20 years ago, I was Hu Sidu’s teacher, and today Hu Sidu is my teacher!”

Luo Ergang, who was born in Guixian County, Guangxi, is a well-known favorite student of Hu Shi. After graduating from Shanghai China Public School, where Hu Shi was the principal, in 1930, he went to Hu Shi's family as an apprentice.At that time, Hu Shi had resigned from his position as the principal of a Chinese public school, moved to Peiping, and served as a compilation member of the board of directors of the China Education and Culture Foundation.Luo's work in "Shizhi's family is to assist the two brothers Zuwang and Sidu in their studies, and to copy the remains of Mr. Tiehua (taboo biography) (1841-1895) of the Taishi teacher".After the completion of this work, in order to verify that the author of the book "Awakening Marriage" was Pu Songling, Luo Ergang assisted Hu Shi in collating various versions of "The Complete Works of Liaozhai", and returned to his hometown in Guixian after completing the work in the autumn of 1931 . In 1934, Luo Ergang returned to the Hu Mansion. This time Hu Shi did not give him a fixed job, but only taught him to read and do research by himself. He went to the Peking Library to read every day, and occasionally asked Luo to help with copying and writing.It was also during this period that Luo Shi began to dabble in the academic research on the military system of the late Qing Dynasty and the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.Luo Ergang entered and exited the Hu Mansion twice for about five years, learned a lot, and published papers and monographs, which attracted the attention of experts in the industry. In October 1934, Luo entered the Archaeological Office of the Institute of Liberal Arts, School of Liberal Arts, Peking University, where Hu Shi was the dean and director, as an assistant researcher, mainly sorting out epigraph rubbings.With the rise of the Anti-Japanese War, Luo Ergang first returned to Guixian County, his hometown, and after discussions between Hu Shi and Tao Menghe, he moved to Kunming. After several years of painstaking research, he has finally become a well-known research expert on the military system of the Qing Dynasty and the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom both at home and abroad.

In the spring of 1943, at the request of Qian Shifu, editor-in-chief of Guangxi Guilin Culture Supply Co., Ltd., the young Luo Ergang wrote an autobiographical biography "Teacher's Disgrace to Teacher", which follows Hu Shi in his pursuit of learning, getting along with teachers and students, and deep friendship. There are more than 40,000 words in the article, and it was published in June 1944 by Guilin Jianshe Bookstore.Regarding why this book was named "The History of the Teacher's Humiliation", Luo Ergang later made a special explanation, saying: "This is because my "Outline of the History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" was published in the spring of 1937, and the teacher Shi Shi severely admonished me. I am partial to the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and have a serious position against the historians. At that time, many historical materials of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom had not been discovered, and I, like people at that time, believed that the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom did the murder, arson, and looting. His hope for me is because he called this book "The Story of the Teacher's Humiliation." He also said, "Shi Zhishi was sick at home that day. I sent the book at 7:30 in the morning, and when I got home from work at 12:00, I picked it up." I was asked to go to the note... He was very angry that day, and Wu Han came out with me and said that he was terrified.... At that time, I was "standing in front of the teacher of fitness and listening to his reprimand silently", Wu Han was sitting in the guest seat opposite Teacher Shi’s desk. Teacher Shizhi only reprimanded me and did not tell Wu Han. Teacher Shizhi’s attitude at night was also completely different. Because at that time, Teacher Shizhi’s teachings were thought to be completely correct. , I failed the teachings and hopes of Shi Zhishi, so I named the book "The History of Disgraceful Teaching by the Teacher".

The day Luo Ergang mentioned was February 21, 1937, and Hu Shi wrote the following in his diary on that day: Read Luo Ergang's "Outline of the History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom".In the afternoon Ergang came with Wu Chunhan (South Press: Wu Han), and I said to them: "You can't learn fashion in writing books. The problem with this book is that it can't help being fashionable." Later, the Xinhai era, and even the cultural movement of the May 4th Movement era had a profound impact.” I said to them: “We didn’t know that there were some social reforms in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom era until we discovered a lot of historical materials in recent years. At the beginning, no one knew. How can these things have such a profound impact?"

But the narrative of this book is very concise, and it is a very readable short history. Judging from Hu Shi's plain and fair narrative, nothing remarkable happened, but in Luo Ergang's view, it was a storm enough to shake the soul. "The Outline of the History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" was written from the end of 1935 to the middle of April of the following year. It was written by Luo Shi in the evening while dragging his tired body.Since the intended readers of this book are middle school students, many cumbersome materials were not used, and some academic textual research was not included in it.When it was printed in 1937, Luo Ergang excitedly presented the "masterpiece" to Hu Shi. He wanted to be praised by his teacher, but it turned out to be a hit.Hu Shi sternly reprimanded: "You wrote this book to praise the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. China has experienced the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom's chaos in modern times and has not recovered its vitality for decades, but you did not write it. A historian should not be subjective, but must understand the truth of the facts. Tell the whole story, if you ignore one side, it is a one-sided record. This is wrong. You also said that the May Fourth New Literature Movement was influenced by popular literature promoted by the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. I have never read the vernacular of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. .” Hu Shi was furious with thunder, and Luo Ergang felt "creepy", and he was enlightened, sobered up a lot in ignorance.Later, Luo Shi said in "The Story of Disgrace to Teachers": "The battle of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the 19-year long war, how many cultural relics were destroyed, how many cities and villages were destroyed, the catastrophe of military disasters and epidemics, and the misery of the displaced people, I collected them all. With such historical materials, why don’t I describe them in detail in this book? It seems that those cruel facts are intentionally concealed...…Isn’t this little book of mine becoming a propaganda material for “teaching people to revolution”? As for the promotion of popular literature in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, I can only say that the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom once had such advocacy, but I cannot say that the May Fourth New Literature Movement was influenced by it. My far-fetched statement violates what Zhang Binglin said On the creed of 'abstinence from tyranny' that teachers of scriptures should abide by, it is a violation of the lesson taught by the suitable teacher on a daily basis that 'one point of evidence speaks one thing, and one point of evidence speaks three points'..." Finally, Luo Ergang said : "The teacher of fitness taught me to be so strict. His strictness is not as terrible as summer, but like the warm spring sun, it has a kind of enlightening business, which is moving and invigorating. .” It was with such a feeling of shame and gratitude that Luo Ergang worked hard to complete his unique biography "The Story of the Disgrace of the Teacher" and it was published.It’s just that the good times didn’t last long. Not long after this book was printed, the Japanese army launched the Battle of Guiliu in the "No. 1 Battle Plan". The Institute of Social Sciences, chaired by Academia Sinica Tao Menghe, continued to study the military system of the late Qing Dynasty during the day, and at night, under the dim rapeseed oil lamp, revised and supplemented the book, and copied it out "in the cold night" ". In the middle of the night of February 3, 1945, Luo Ergang said affectionately in the "Preface" of the supplementary manuscript: "This little book of mine is not a memoir with a smile, but a confession with shame. What is shown in it is not me. A small life, but the teachings of a plain and kind scholar, and his compassionate and passionate heart that loves young people. If readers can get this impression, then this reprint will not be superfluous. Not long after, Luo Ergang sent the revised manuscript to Lu Jichen, general manager of Chongqing Independent Publishing House, for reprinting.Lu Yuan was the secretary of the Faculty of Liberal Arts of Peking University and the secretary of the Institute of Liberal Arts. He had a deep friendship with Hu Shi and Luo Ergang. He was in charge of the affairs of Chongqing Independent Publishing House at this time.After Lu received Luo's supplementary manuscript, he did not type it immediately, but sent it to Hu Shi who was far away in Beiping for review and asked him to write a short preface.When Hu Shi saw Luo's manuscript, he was very grateful and agreed. However, due to business entanglement, he did not write the preface in Beiping until August 3, 1948. In addition to sending the original manuscript and preface to Lu Jichen in Chongqing, he also found someone else to copy Give it to Luo Ergang.According to Luo Ergang’s recollection, Hu said in the attached letter: “The honor given to him by this small book is even more honorable than the 35 honorary doctorates he received. Later it turned out that his words were true." Hu Shi said in the preface of "The Story of the Teacher's Disgrace to the Teaching": My friend Mr. Luo Ergang lived in my home for several years and helped me do many things, one of the most arduous tasks was transcribing and sorting out the posthumous works of my father, Mr. Tiehua.He absolutely refused to accept payment, and every year he sent money from his family to lend him pocket money.He is my assistant and the children's tutor, but he always feels that he is an "apprentice" in my house, and he should not be paid any more besides food and housing. This is his kindness, which means being strict in behavior, which is what the ancients said, "It's not the right way, it's not the way, one should not be given to others, and one should not be taken from others" (the ancients said that "one is" the one) It is borrowed from the word "mustard", I guess "Yijie" may refer to shells that were used as currency in ancient times).I have long valued Ergang's kind and honest character.I firmly believe that anyone who can be "scrupulous in what he takes, and strict in what he takes" in his behavior will also be able to develop a work habit that is not sloppy and scrupulous in his studies.So I told him early on that his habit of refusing to let it go is his greatest working capital.This is not what others can give him, this is the capital he brought himself.In the autumn of the 20th year of the Republic of China, when I answered his farewell letter, I said: Your "cautious and diligent" behavior is what I call "scrupulous".This is what the ancients meant by "respecting the deacon".If you have this virtue, you will surely achieve success in the future. ... If I can help him in any way, I just wake him up at any time to pay special attention: this kind of scrupulous habit needs conscious supervision.Occasionally, if you don't pay attention to it, or if you relax a little bit, loopholes will appear and jokes will be made.I want him to know that the so-called scientific method is nothing more than scrupulous work habits coupled with conscious criticism and supervision.The usefulness of good teachers and helpful friends is nothing more than pointing out such slack at any time and helping us to do some criticism and supervision. Ergang not only did not blame me for my criticism of him, but also thanked me in particular.My criticism.Whether it is oral or written, Er Gang recorded it.Some words were quite harsh, but he accepted them humbly.With his unyielding spirit, humility, and incomparable hard work, no matter where he is, he will have good academic results. ... Ergang's autobiography, as far as I know, seems to be a creation that has never been seen in autobiography.No one has ever described his academic experience in such a frank and detailed manner, and no one has ever left such a friendly picture of the fun of teachers and friends discussing each other. The picture of teachers and friends discussing the fun is of course beautiful, but unfortunately this picture is not monolithic, but a paint cloth that changes with the times and can be painted according to different wills and thoughts at any time.When the movement to criticize Hu arrived and took on the trend of "hands-on-hand combat", the characters in this interesting picture also changed their color along with it. In order to express his loyalty to the CCP and his stance of "criticizing Hu", the enlightened Luo Ergang seized the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to participate in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1955, and without hesitation threw his hands at Hu Shi, his former mentor and today's enemy. of throwing guns.Roche said: "The people honored me, and I was able to participate in the first plenary meeting of the Second National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which gave me infinite feelings." With this feeling came personal experience and epiphany. : After the failure of the Great Revolution, I came to Shanghai and "transferred to the Chinese public school where Hu Shi was the principal at that time. They dragged me into the mud pit of disillusionment, and formed me with a nihilistic outlook on life and the world, which has dominated half of my life. Soon after graduating from Chinese public school, I went to Hu Shi's house to be his personal secretary. I was hit again The poison of Hu Shi’s reactionary academic thoughts has also dominated half of my life. The poison Zhuangzi gave me, after one sentence, made me unable to distinguish right from wrong, made me have no love and hate, made me feel nothingness, and made me a walking dead. Hu Shi The poison given to me by reactionary academic thought is hard to describe in words.”Next, Luo Ergang listed the cases and ironclad evidence of Hu Shi’s poisoning: He taught me that writing history must go beyond politics and class, stand on an "objective" standpoint, be impartial, and be qualified to be a historian.I was deceived by him, and the "Outline of the History of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" published in 1937 was written according to the position he said.When Hu Shi saw this little book, he got very angry and scolded me, saying that I only praised the bright side of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and did not mention the dark side of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.When I was scolded by him at that time, not only did I not feel disgusted, but I also thought that I was violating the teacher's teaching.So six years later, when I went to Guilin, a bookstore asked me to write an autobiography, so I wrote a booklet called "The History of Disgraceful Teaching by Teachers" to describe this incident.In order to pursue Hu Shi's absurd objective standpoint, I was unable to write the history of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom that I planned for many years.Thinking back today, the poisoning was too deep back then, to what extent.From this, it can be seen that it is inevitable for me to juxtapose the traitor Zeng Guofan's "Call to Cantonese Bandits" with the three revolutionary articles of the Taiping Rebellion, calling Zeng Guofan a counter-revolutionary hero, and being on the same level as the revolutionary hero and loyal king Li Xiucheng. up. Perhaps, Luo Ergang thought that this "iron evidence" alone was not enough to overthrow Hu Shi's thoughts and theories, so he continued his efforts and listed Hu Shi's "textual research for the sake of textual research" one after another, saying that "all of Hu Shi's textual research is purposeful textual research He himself did not 'research for the sake of research', but he taught people to 'research for the sake of research'' in order to let young people avoid politics and bury themselves in the pile of old papers.However, Hu Shi's textual research "is a 'bold assumption' based on idealism, and his solution to the problem is not 'cautious verification' as he himself said, but really a 'bold play'".He also said: "Hu Shi's textual research, generally speaking, the evidence is not enough, the more he is self-satisfied, the less evidence there is. For example, "Awakening Marriage Biography" is a textual research that Hu Shi thought he was proud of. I read a note written by a modern person saying that "The Legend of Awakening Marriage" was written by the famous author Pu Songling. He put forward a hypothesis, developed it boldly, and made a conclusion. Strictly speaking, in this textual research There is not even a single piece of direct evidence.” Afterwards, Luo Ergang listed Hu Shi’s absurd and reactionary ideas such as “beyond politics and beyond class”, and finally understood that history is a “science of class struggle” and that the party and the The government leadership is absolutely correct.He said that after various studies and transformations, he finally broke free from the shackles of "Hu Shi Thought" and was pulled out of the mud pit of illusory disillusionment. Luo Ergang, who was pulled out, came ashore, threw his spear at Hu Shi, and at the same time lashed and scolded his past life mercilessly, and he said with deep emotion: "What two different lives are these! One is a life of coldness, emptiness, and helplessness; the other is a life of love, confidence, and optimism. Two different lives depict two different eras in China: In the old era, revolutions turned to counter-revolutions Progressive intellectuals joined the revolution, and reactionary intellectuals fell into the mire of counter-revolution, while a backward intellectual like me became a walking dead; in today's era, under the glory of Mao Zedong, as long as You demand progress, and even a living dead like me has regained its youth and is full of vitality." Luo Ergang's speech was full of revolutionary passion, and its content and ideas were excellent. It was titled "Two Lives" and was published in Guangming Daily on May 4, 1955.This article was published on May Fourth Youth Day, a special festival, which fully reflects the deliberate planning and arrangement of the authorities, which contains deeper political significance.Others of the same kind who have not yet acted or are waiting to see, see Luo Ergang, the author of "The Story of Disgrace to the Teacher", who has written in black and white, and now he is naked and fired at his mentor Hu Shi, and appeared in front of the general public on Youth Day. suddenly see the light".Just as Luo Ergang respected Hu Sidu as his teacher in Nanjing back then, Hu Shi's disciples of all kinds also began to regard Luo Ergang as their teacher. They raised their spears and daggers and threw them at the old man Hu Shi who was far away across the ocean. At this time, another student of Hu Shi, Ren Jiyu, who graduated from the Institute of Liberal Arts of Peking University during the Anti-Japanese War and had a lot of research on Buddhism (according to the south: later served as the director of the Beijing Library), followed the method of "teacher" Luo Ergang, borrowed Hu Shi criticized the "fallacy of research" on the history of Zen Buddhism and said: "Why did Hu Shi spend so much effort in "Biography of Shenhui" to praise Shenhui to the nine heavens, saying that he has 'great achievements and permanent influence' ?First of all, because Hu Shi copied back some works about Shenhui in Paris and London, the higher the praise of Shenhui, the more credit he has for 'discovering' Shenhui. Secondly, Shenhui is a politician-style monk , this point is similar to Hu Shi, a politician-like 'scholar'. Hu Shi appreciates "Shenhui's superb skills", "Shenhui is really a great politician of the Southern sect!" Again, Hu Shi especially admires Shenhui's use in the quarrel of Buddhist orthodoxy. His "strategy and tactics" are brilliant, and his subjectivity and "boldness"." He also said: "In these explanations, what he is obsessed with is only God's ability to be 'skillful', 'politician', 'bold', and 'preemptive. ’ etc. to disregard the facts and play tricks on right and wrong. These techniques are exactly the methods Hu Shi himself has always adopted for textual research and research on ‘knowledge’.” Under the influence of Luo Ergang, Ren Jiyu and others, and the coercion of leaders of the Chinese Academy of Sciences such as Guo Moruo, in 1955, Xia Nai, then deputy director of the Institute of Archeology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, published "Criticizing Hu Shi’s Bourgeois Thoughts in Archeology”, which listed many of Hu Shi’s accusations, such as Article 4: “Monopolizing materials and hoarding goods for strange things, this reflects the bad style of the decadent bourgeoisie.” Article 5 : "There are many sects, and the school lords dominate. Hu Shifu's generation of school lords, with research institutions and colleges as their territory, has become an exclusive sect. Like warlords, although they often intend to expand their territory into other people's spheres of influence , but one's own territory is absolutely not allowed to be touched by others. This kind of ethos has also spread to archaeological work." Xia Nai, who was deeply influenced by Hu Shi's thoughts and ways of studying, may still remember Hu Shi's rigorous and realistic spirit of "scholarly and literary" taught by Hu Shi at this time. While listing several crimes, he also Do not forget to intersperse several typical examples to supplement it.For example, "Hu Shi himself is a layman for archaeology. In his works, there is only one opinion on specific issues of archaeology. He said in the first volume of "Ancient History": "Anterson who discovered the Mianchi Stone Age culture Suspecting that the Shang Dynasty is still the late Stone Age (Neolithic Age), I think his assumption is quite close.' (p. 200) This not only shows his ignorance of archaeology, but also fully shows his comprador class The idea of ​​worshiping foreigners. However, Hu Shi has played a dominant role in Chinese history for more than 30 years, and the poison he spread is very serious." He also said: "Because Hu Shi passed his disciple Fu Sinian Therefore, Hu Shi advocated the pragmatic research method of "bold assumptions and careful verification", which "has had a very bad influence on archaeology." Hu Shi, who was a layman in archaeology, "only had one opinion on a specific issue of archaeology", and there were not many poisons to criticize, so Xia Nai had to drag "Hu Shi's thug" Fu Sinian to accompany him.As early as 1949, Mao Zedong identified Hu Shi, Fu Sinian, and Qian Mu as representatives of "reactionary literati and scholars". matter.Fu Sinian, who was in Taiwan at this time, had already registered on the ghost record and became an out-and-out "dead tiger" one level worse than a paper tiger. Xia Nai no longer had any worries.For this reason, Xia further cites the case of the Institute of History and Philology of the "Academia Sinica" to illustrate: "For example, in the early days of the excavation of the Yin Ruins in Xiaotun, Anyang, it was only because there was a bold statement that the cultural layer of the Yin Ruins was alluvial from floods." Assumption' (Volume 1 of "Anyang Excavation Report"), so many unreliable so-called "evidences" were collected to prove this hypothesis. After their bending, the rammed earth of the foundation became the silt soil washed by the flood, The hammer marks of the rammed earth have become waves and wrinkles, and the large pebbles at the base of the pillars are also believed to have been transported by the flood, and a drifting and alluvial map of oracle bones was drawn, and even the bones in a tomb were believed to be the most proof that the flood passed. Facts', 'You can still see the way he opened his mouth to call for help'. Although the description of a drowned young child opened his mouth to call for help, it is very vivid, but the Song Dynasty's "Title and Washing Injustice Records" already knew that he drowned before his death The corpse is 'mouth closed, eyes open and close indefinitely, and both hands clenched fist'. Even if he opened his mouth to call for help when he was dying, he rushed into muddy water, not a hard object. After drowning, his muscles stiffened and contracted, and he must have closed his mouth and clenched his fists. Another example is found A skull with inscriptions, first boldly assume that he is Lintou, and then collect a lot of materials about Lin from books, and write "Get Bailin Jie" ("Anyang Excavation Report" No. 2 volumes), it seems to be conclusive evidence. Later, biologists identified that the animal head turned out to be a bull head, which has nothing to do with Lin. I also know that the original author also admitted his mistakes later, but he did not realize these things. It is the poison of Hu Shi's pragmatism 'bold assumption, careful verification' method." The "Anyang Excavation Report" mentioned by Xia Nai in the article, and the "Yin Ruins Piaobu Shuo" and "Anyang Huolin Theory" that later became a laughing stock in the industry were all the insights that Li Ji, Dong Zuobin and others personally discovered and put forward. He has no direct relationship with Fu Sinian, let alone Hu Shi.After all, Xia Nai is Xia Nai. He not only needs to find evidence and materials for criticism so that the article does not become empty slogans, but also abides by the moral values ​​and cultural conscience in his heart. The senior figures who are directly related are embarrassed, so they made this bad strategy to relieve the pressure and coercion from the highest instruction and from Guo Moruo and others, so as to cope with passing the test.Although Zhang Guan Li Dai, after all, Fu Sinian is also a figure of his own generation, and he can be regarded as a good teacher who has benefited him throughout his life. Xia Nai's inner struggle and pain in writing this article can be imagined.However, as the ideological "bath" continues to deepen and become institutionalized, long-term, and intensified, many things are beyond Xia Nai's control and can be muddled through with "smartness" and "harmony".In the days that followed, more and more people were called "bathers" by Qian Zhongshu's wife Yang Jiang. Hu Shi, Fu Sinian, Li Ji and others were constantly attacked by "angry revolutionary masses" in various places and newspapers. The verbal and written criticisms have become inevitable.Through the newspapers and periodicals at that time, it can be seen that the academic and cultural circles involved a wide range of areas, large and deep in the campaign to criticize Hu.For example, Wang Jiaji, director of the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, enumerated the struggle against the Hu Shih Group by the "Nanjing Dongda" (Nanjing Higher Normal University, Southeast University) group to which he belonged in his criticism.Said: "This group especially regards Fu Sinian and Wang Jingxi in the Peking University group as enemies. They have a good vision. These two are not only academic bullies in the past, but have also embarked on the path of counter-revolution. But in their own lineup There are also counter-revolutionaries like Zhang Qiyun.” He also said: “In the era of the reactionary government, whenever the Academia Sinica held a review meeting, if Hu Shizhi did not attend, it would be a disappointment. Who can hold Hu Shizhi for a few seconds?钟手，多谈几分钟话，就会觉得体面，人家看见了还要眼红。而胡适之和蒋匪介石一样，同是美帝国主义的臣妾呢！” 胡适的学生辈人物，北大历史系教授周一良，针对胡适提出的历史“铜钱说”，批判道：“我们都知道，人类社会的发展是有其不以人们的意志为转移的规律的。而胡适却认为历史是一些彼此孤立、不相联系的个别史实，犹如一堆铜钱，你怎样摆弄，它就被摆弄成什么样子。这就是说，历史的发展不但无规律可言，而且历史的真实性也根本不存在。”在北大历史系召开的一次批胡、倒胡座谈会上，胡适任北大校长时的秘书邓广铭，对胡的学术研究更加细化地挥刀切割道：“试看他搞了好多年的《水经注》问题，而始终只是纠缠在书中某字为戴震所改动，某字为赵一清或全祖望所改动的问题上，既不是要恢复《水经注》的原始面貌，更不是想从此进而研究古代的地理，连赵一清、全祖望等人整理《水经注》的意图尚不能及，谈什么'大处着眼'呢？”继邓之后，在昆明、李庄时代的北大文科研究所学生张政烺接着起身历数胡适的罪过：“胡适是政客，是反动的宣传鼓动家，从来都不是什么学者……我在北大上学时，本来是瞧不起胡适的浅薄无聊、吹牛皮和政客作风，从来没上过他的课，但在考证小说这一点落后思想上却统一起来了。”见向来与胡适亲近并深受对方厚爱的学生周一良、邓广铭、张政烺等辈，都不顾旧情，纷纷站起来，满脸苦大仇深状进行“灭祖”行动，早年毕业于燕大，原本与胡氏没有多少瓜葛，时任教于北大历史系的齐思和，也就感到没有什么好客气的了，于是紧随邓广铭之后又补了几刀：胡适说“商代是石器时代”、“屈原并无其人”。在他眼里，中国人是世界上最“不争气”的民族，因之遂得出“中国不亡，是无天理”的卖国结论。 见小子辈都争先恐后地向老师抡起了铮铮铁拳，向达、冯友兰等老字号人物，自然不能坐视其功，也纷纷蹦将起来向胡适的影子猛踹几脚。向达认为胡适“其思想的主要特点是唾弃祖国，认贼作父，麻痹青年，逃避现实。”而冯友兰则指斥胡适处于对中国共产党建立新政权的恐惧，胡说什么“汉帝国的创立者都是平民，刘邦是个不事生产的无赖，萧何是个刀笔吏，樊哙是个屠狗的。……其中只有极少数的人，如张良、陈平是受过教育的”；“这一班乡下人统治下的政治，确实有点可怕”。在向达与冯友兰一阵拳打脚踢之后，胡适的好友、著名经济学家，时任教于中国人民大学经济系的吴景超，为显其能而另辟蹊径，居然刨坟掘墓，把胡适的母亲从棺材里拎了出来。吴说：“他的母亲，在十七岁时，违背了父母的意志，嫁给比她大三十岁的人做填房，为的是要享一下官太太的滋味……胡适，过去是我的朋友，今天是我的敌人。我要坚决与胡适所代表的一切进行斗争，不达到最后的胜利，决不罢休！” 在号角阵阵，险象环生的氛围中，大多数学界中人为求自保，不得不拿起投枪匕首向胡适的影子猛刺开来，一个新的高潮再度掀起。