The Chinese Historical Review

ISSN: 1547-402X (Print) 2048-7827 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytcr20

Gu Jiegang and the Creation of Chinese Historical

Geography

Xin Fan

To cite this article: Xin Fan (2010) Gu Jiegang and the Creation of Chinese Historical
Geography, The Chinese Historical Review, 17:2, 193-218, DOI: 10.1179/tcr.2010.17.2.193

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/tcr.2010.17.2.193

Published online: 19 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytcr20
Article

GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL

GEOGRAPHY

Xin Fan

Introduction

GU Jiegang 顾颉刚 (1893-1980) is one of the most important figures in twentieth-

century Chinese historiography. 1 Throughout his life, he had engaged with
various topics centered on ancient Chinese history and historiography. In 2004 the
Historical Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS),
the highest-level government sponsored historical research institution in China,
together with the History Department of Sun Yat-sen University, celebrated Gu
Jiegang’s 110th danchen 2 by dedicating a conference to him. The CASS outlined
Gu’s three major contributions to modern Chinese historiography. First, Gu and
his Gushi bian (Debates on Ancient History) School exerted invaluable influence
on modern Chinese historiography. 3 Second, Gu was the first to explore folklore
as a historical source and established folklore studies as a new discipline of
historical study in China. 4 Third, Gu is the founding father of modern Chinese
historical geography. 5
There has been copious research about Gu’s contributions to modern
Chinese historiography in the last several decades especially from the perspective
of intellectual history. However, since previous scholarship primarily focuses on

1
Some scholars argue that Zhang Taiyan, Hu Shi and Gu Jiegang are the most
important intellectual figures throughout the 20th century. See Wang Xuedian & Sun Yanjie,
Gu Jiegang he ta de dizi men [Gu Jiegang and His Disciples] (Jinan: , 2004), 362.
2
Danchen, refers to birthday celebration for a revered person, which might occur
whether the person is alive or deceased.
3
Jinian Gu Jiegang xiansheng danchen 110 zhounian lunwen ji [A Festschrift for
Master Gu Jiegang’s 110th Danchen], edited by the Institute of History at the CASS and the
History Department at Sun Yat-sen University (Beijing, 2004), 1.
4
Ibid, 2.
5
Ibid, 3.

© The Chinese Historical Review, Volume 17, Number 2 (Fall 2010): 193-218.
194 XIN FAN

Gu’s contributions to the study of ancient history, there is still much space to work
on his impact on the emergence of modern historical geography in China. 6
In this article, I will examine previous studies about Gu through two new
perspectives: the social dimension of knowledge production and the construction
of academic identity in Chinese society. The study is based on recently released
and published sources such as Gu’s voluminous diaries and reading notes.
Earlier studies rarely deal with how Gu Jiegang contributed to the production
of new historical knowledge by constructing a scholarly community, which is
known as the Yugong Society. 7 This article argues that the construction of a
scholarly community centered on a symbolic master is an important way to
facilitate the spread and transmission of new historical knowledge in Chinese
society. Gu adopted this method to promote his critical ideas about ancient
Chinese history and geography.
The impact of the Yugong Society has been profound; the participants in the
CASS conference noted that the leading scholars specializing in ancient Chinese
historiography in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were almost all from the
Yugong Society and began their careers as Gu’s disciples. These scholars include
Tan Qixiang 谭其骧 (1911-1992), Yang Xiangkui 杨向奎 (1910-2000), Tong
Shuye 童书业 (1908-1968), Shi Nianhai 史念海 (1912-2001), Hou Renzhi 侯仁
之 (1911-present), Han Rulin韩儒林 (1903-1983), and Zhang Weihua 张维华
(1902-1987). 8 As a great leader in this Chinese intellectual community, Gu’s
contribution to the formation of the discipline of modern Chinese historical
geography is significant.
Second, although the story of the Yugong Society is about the emergence of
a new discipline of historical geography in China, earlier studies have not
addressed the following question: Why was the new discourse emerging with the
discipline of historical geography positively received in contemporary society?
This question is directly linked to the issue of trust in modern Chinese intellectual

6
Laurence Schneider, Ku Chieh-kang and China’s New History (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1971).
7
In his book on Chinese historical geography and new historiography, Peng Minghui
contributes much to this issue. However, his book does not pay enough attention to the
social factors in the formation of a scholarly community. Peng Minghui, Lishi dili xue yu
xiandai Zhongguo shixue [Historical Geography and Modern Chinese Historiography]
(Taipei, 1995). Scholars constantly acknowledge Gu’s contributions in this area. However
historical geography was not a major field of Gu’s research. In this regard, it is an even
more interesting question to see Gu’s influence on this minor field in his scholarship.
8
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie point out that Gu’s disciples are active in many
academic fields, especially ancient history study and historical geography. In addition, Gu
has a great number of followers in areas such as folklore studies, ethnography, philosophy,
library sciences, gazetteer studies, and cataloguing. Wang and Sun, 65. The CSSA
conference organizers even argue, “Now the great scholars in the historical geography field
are almost entirely from members of the Yugong Society.” Jinian Gu Jiegang, 4.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 195

history. As Steven Shapin argues, it must be “trustworthy agents” that conduct

new and generally accepted research. 9 It is critical for the agents producing new
knowledge to construct an identity rooted in trust in contemporary society.
Following Shapin, this article argues that Gu, with his disciples’ assistance,
“construct[ed] a usable new identity out of existing cultural materials” 10 for
himself that was rooted in the changing social and cultural context of the 1930s.
To be more specific, this identity contained Gu’s three self-claimed images: an
“authority” of new historiography, a patriot, and a respectable “master.” In doing
so, he was able to build his credibility in Chinese society and promote his new
ideas about ancient history and historical geography.
This article is divided into three parts. The first part documents the genesis
of the Yugong Society in the 1930s. It shows how Gu played an important role in
fostering the creation of a scholarly community through constructing a reliable
identity acceptable to Chinese society. The second part uncovers the tensions
between Gu and his disciples in the 1930s and 1940s. The third part focuses on the
historical memory about the origins of the scholarly community in the 1980s and
raises the question why the tensions between Gu and his disciples have no place in
the memorial literature about Gu that was published in this period.
By examining the rise and fall of the Yugong Society and the contemporary
memory of it, the article argues that the construction of a scholarly community
centered on a symbolic master is an important way to facilitate the spread and
transmission of new historical knowledge in Chinese society; however, the
construction of the identity of a symbolic master is a self-conscious process where
existing cultural resources often play an important role.

The Genesis of a Scholarly Community

YUGONG banyue kan 禹贡半月刊 [Yugong Biweekly] was a historical geography

journal founded by Gu Jiegang and his graduate student Tan Qixiang on March
31st, 1931. The name of the journal derived from the book of “Yugong 禹贡” in
the Shangshu尚书 (Book of History), 11 which is the earliest text referring to
Chinese geography. In the early issues of this journal, the contributors were
almost exclusively Gu’s college-level students; Gu’s graduate student Tan
Qixiang served as chief editor. 12 In May 1936, the Yugong Society was founded
under his guidance at Yenching University. Gu Jiegang, Qian Mu, Feng Jiasheng,
and Tan Qixiang were elected as secretaries. Gu’s personal influence had been

9
Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-
Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), xxvi.
10
Ibid, xxxviii.
11
Shangshu is a collection of ancient Chinese political documents. Some chapters in
this book can be traced back to c.a. 600 BC.
12
Peng Minghui, Lishi dilixue yu xiandai Zhongguo shixue, 155.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

196 XIN FAN

very strong throughout this organization. Prior to its dissolution in 1937 after the
Japanese occupation of Peking (today’s Beijing), the Yugong Society had created
enormous academic and economic opportunities for Gu and his disciples. This
organization nurtured a whole generation of young Chinese scholars in the fields
of ancient historiography and historical geography.
Few scholars would deny the significance of Yugong Biweekly in producing
modern Chinese historical geography. 13 The articles in Yugong generated new
knowledge about Chinese historical geography different from traditional Chinese
yange shixue沿革史学 (Evolutionary geography) 14 in the following ways: first, as
a collective research project organized by Gu, these articles on the journal were
more systematic; second, these articles directly addressed the contemporary
political issues such as the controversy about the Manchurian territory; third, they
claimed to be more scientific by conducting field research in contrast to the
primary textual focus of yange shixue. 15 However, as a journal mainly comprised
of contributions from college students, many of its articles lacked academic rigor.
The 1930s were an important age in modern Chinese intellectual history. 16
Without a strong centralized government’s control, all kinds of intellectual
schools enjoyed freedom and competed to promote their ideas to Chinese society.
In contrast to other schools, the Yugong Society was composed mostly of Gu’s
disciples who just started, or were about to start, their academic careers. Their
writing often still sounded a bit naïve, and the journal was not well funded. Why
this school was able to succeed despite all the odds against it?
The issue of trust in producing new knowledge in a given social and cultural
context provides a partial answer to this question. In his seminal study on civility
in scientific research in seventeenth-century England, Steven Shapin points out
the important role of trust in producing new knowledge by linking this theme to
the issue of identity. He argues that the constructed nature of knowledge means
that it has a moral character. 17 The reliability of the producer of new knowledge is

13
Tao-Chang Chiang, “Historical Geography in China,” Progress in Human
Geography 29, no. 2 (2005): 148-164.
14
Yange shixue is a traditional Chinese historiographical genre. Its research focuses
on the historical evolution of China’s territory and its administrative institutions. See Ge
Jianxiong & Hua Linfu, “Daolun, 20 shiji de zhongguo lishi dili yanjiu” [Introduction,
Chinese Historical Geographical Research in the 20th Century], Ershi shijie Zhongguo
xueshu wencun, lishi dili yanjiu [The Collection of 20th Century Chinese Scholarly
Research: Studies of Historical Geography], edited by Ge Jianxiong and Hua Linfu (Wuhan,
2002), 1; Xin Deyong, Lishi de kongjian yu kongjian de lishi [Historical Space and Space’s
History], (Beijing, 2005), preface, 1.
15
One of the main criticisms of Yange dili is that this approach only focused on
textual sources. Zhongguo da baike quan shu [Encyclopedia of China] (Beijing, 1990), 457.
16
1930 niandai de Zhongguo [China in the 1930s], edited by Republican History
Seminar of the Institute of Modern History at CASS and the History Department of
Sichuan Normal University, (Beijing, 2006), i.
17
Shapin, xxv.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 197

based on his or her free action and virtue, which is defined in turn by
contemporary moral standards, in this case, status as a gentleman and Christian
virtue. 18
Therefore, he believes that the construction of identity is crucial to generate a
new system of knowledge and its process is both subjective and self-conscious.
By examining the process how Robert Boyle, a British scientist, “constructed
a usable new identity out of the exiting cultural materials,” 19 Shapin identified the
social nature of Boyle’s construction of a new identity by drawing attention to
four factors: First, this process continually develops in contingent social and
cultural contexts. Second, the new identity had to be collectively emulated by
Boyle’s follows. Thus, an exemplar one will be formulated. Third, this new
identity is constructed on the basis of local cultural materials. Fourth, the new
identity changes with time. 20
Shapin’s collective biographical approach and embrace of social history are
applicable to the study of modern Chinese intellectual history. The emergence of
the new discipline of historical geography was a process of establishing a new
system of knowledge, and the Yugong Society was an important link in this
development. The issue of trust is relevant as well. The process of constructing an
identity in Chinese context shares some similarities to Boyle’s case. I will show
how Gu consciously mobilized local cultural materials to shape his identity in the
new discourse of knowledge. I will also attend to the issue of how local culture
materials regulate (or in Foucault’s word, “discipline”) the new knowledge, which
is a topic not dealt with in Shapin’s discussion.

Authority in Historiography

THE 1930s was a founding era for modern Chinese historiography. Prior to 1937
and the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, China enjoyed a relatively peaceful
time of economic, social, and cultural development. The 1930s also were a
successful period in Gu’s own academic career. Backed by his colleagues Hu Shi
胡适 (1891-1962), Qian Xuantong钱玄同 (1887-1939), and Fu Sinian傅斯年
(1896-1950), Gu challenged the paradigm of ancient historiographical study in
China during the late 1920s. 21

18
Ibid, xxvi, xxxviii.
19
Shapin, xxxviii.
20
Ibid, 127-30.
21
Gu Jiegang’s revolutionary ideas on ancient history have been discussed by
previous scholars. In an early article, he claimed that his goals in the study of ancient
history were: 1) to break the belief that the peoples in China were of the same origin; 2) To
break the belief that the territory of China was united since its very beginning; 3) To break
the belief that the legendary characters in early mythology were historical; 4) To break the
belief that the history of early China was a “Golden age.” Gu Jiegang, “Da liu hu xiansheng

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

198 XIN FAN

Disregarding the strong criticism from traditional scholars, Gu’s

revolutionary ideas about ancient history were well received in Chinese society, 22
especially among young students. 23 Consequently, his position as an authority in
ancient historiography had been well established by the 1930s. His followers
called him “the founding father in academia (xueshu taidou 学术泰斗).” 24
Showing respect to authority is a normal practice in modern Chinese
intellectual history. 25 By the 1930s, many kinds of organizations and journals
recognized Gu’s fame as an authority on ancient history and constantly invited Gu
for contributions. In the meanwhile, Gu was teaching at several institutions and at
least had three groups of followers, including those in the History Department of
Yenching University, Peking Research Institute, and the Yugong Society. 26 The
Yugong Society was the most influential of these groups.
Scholarly communities are an important feature in the landscape of modern
Chinese intellectual history. 27 In his study on the community of liberal scholars
with Hu Shi being the center, Zhang Qing argues that since the 1920s the
formation of the Chinese scholarly communities began to shift from
geographically-based identity to intellectually-based identity. 28 Such shift is
shown by the formation of the Yugong Society, which was an intellectually-based
society.
Compared to other scholarly communities, the Yugong Society was more
under Gu’s individual guidance and had less consensus on its intellectual

shu” A Letter to Mr. Liu and Hu], Gushi Bian [Debates on Ancient History], Vol.1 (Hong
Kong, 1962), 96-102.
22
It was so influential that today some scholars even think this school actually
dominated the historical paradigm of that time. See Wang Fansen, “‘Jiazhi’ yu ‘shishi’ de
fenli, minguo de xinshixue” [Separating Moral Values from Facts, Republican Intellectual
History], Zhongguo jindai sixiang yu xueshu de xipu [The Genealogy of Modern Chinese
Intelligentsia and Scholarship], (Taipei, 2003), 400.
23
For example, one of his disciples, Yang Xiangkui, remembered that he decided to
go to the History Department of Peking University in 1931 after he read Gu’s famous
works, Gushi bian. Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 361.
24
Shi Aidong, “Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian yu minsuxue [Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian and
Folklore Studies],” Jinian Gu Jiegang xiansheng danchen 110 zhounian lunwenji, 231.
25
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 64.
26
Ibid, 65-66.
27
Zhang Qing, “Hu Shi pai xuerenqun” yu xiandai Zhongguo ziyou zhuyi [The Shu
Shi Intellectual Clique and Modern Chinese Liberalism], (Shanghai, 2004), 28-30.
Benjamin Elman has done a significant research on Qing scholarly communities in
Southeastern China. In his research, by adopting Michel Foucault and Thomas Kuhn, he
acknowledges the importance of social factors in producing new knowledge. Benjamin
Elman, From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in the
Late Imperial China (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), 98-99.
28
A public sphere in the print media had played an important role in the formation of
this community. Zhang Qing, 32.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 199

approach. On one hand, Yugong Biweekly had a private nature due to the fact that
this journal was originally supported by Gu and Tan Qixiang’s salaries. 29 On the
other hand, Gu and Tan announced in the opening words of Yugong that this new
journal would adopt a new approach to academic study,

In the past to study academics [one] has to follow several authorities

faithfully. It seems like that researchers on Mao Shi [a version of the Book of
Poetry edited by a person surnamed by Mao] should consider them as the
slaves of Boss Mao. Under such a mindset, there will be different schools
and clans. Now we want to completely break this “heroic” thinking to admit
that neither some people nor ourselves are absolutely right. 30

Following this thinking, Gu and some of his followers refused to admit that
the Yugong School existed at all as seen in their comment that “We indeed admit
that in this community the individuals are equal and our community is equal to
other communities as well.” 31 The actual history of the journal, however, went
beyond the scope of Gu’s conscious design. When Gu read and edited his diaries
in his later life, he added a comment on the entry of February 15, 1931 (which was
the day when Yugong was sent to be published). He remembered that this was the
beginning of Yugong. He commented, “I didn’t realize that this journal finally
yielded that much. It lasted for three and half a years only because these people
attached to me and supported me.” 32 Throughout his life, Gu never took credit for
the Yugong Society. However, no one could deny that he played a significant role
in organizing this community.
Moreover, taking Yugong as this journal’s name reflects Gu’s lifelong
interest. Gu’s recently published reading notes show that he had had strong
interest in this document at the very early stage of his academic life. This interest
persisted throughout his whole career. Even after his death in 1980s, his

29
Gu Chao, Lijie zhongjiao zhi buhui, wo de fuqin Gu Jiegang [Throughout All the
Disasters Dream Still Is Alive, My Father Gu Jiegang], (Shanghai, 1997), 159.
30
Gu and Tan use an irony here. Ge Jianxiong, Youyou changshui, Tan Qixiang
qianzhuan [The Uninterrupted Yangtze River, Tan Qixiang’s Early Life], (Shanghai, 1997),
74.
31
Ibid, 74. This is confirmed by Gu’s disciple, Shi Nianhai’s recollection. See Shi
Nianhai, “Gu Jiegnag xiansheng yu Yugong xuehui [Master Gu Jiegang and the Yugong
Society],” Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu [Master Gu Jiegang’s Memorable Deeds and
Sayings], edited by Wang Xuhua (Beijing, 2006), 150. On the contrary, in the 1980s, Yang
Xiangkui argued that this scholarly community was still developing. Yang Xiangkui,
“Shimen jixue [Remembering the Study in Master’s House],” Wenshizhe [Literature,
History and Philosophy], no. 5 (1985): 53.
32
Gu Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji [Gu Jiegang’s Diary], vol. 3 (Taipei, 2007), 161.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

200 XIN FAN

posthumous commentaries on Yugong were published by his disciple Liu Qiyu,

his assistant in his later years, under their joint names. 33

Self-Proclaimed Nationalist

THE evolution of the Yugong Society marked a shift in Gu’s understanding of the
nature of scholarship. Scholars have realized that there was a transition in the
scholarly style of that Yugong Biweekly from the earlier issues to the later ones.
As Schneider points out, in the beginning this journal was focused on textual
studies and worked on “the meaning of ancient geographical terms and
geographical place names.” He argues,

From Volume Four on, the journal was more heterogeneous both in subject
matter and contributors. In addition, Ku [Gu]’s initial scholastic orientation
to antiquity became balanced with ethnographic and demographic studies,
often based on recently gathered data. China’s inner-Asian frontiers and the
Moslem peoples who were to be found within them became the
overwhelming concern of this journal. 34

Actually, this transition reflected a tension in Gu’s understanding of

scholarship. In his earlier career, Gu claimed his research was a “scientific
enterprise.” 35 His whole purpose was to destroy the imaginary genealogy
between ancient historiography and contemporary reality. 36 However, the pursuit
of scientific objectivity was not always accepted in the social and cultural mindset
in the 1930s. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria placed psychological pressure
upon the Chinese intellectual community, which forced them to abandon the
pursuit of pure knowledge as the purpose of academic practice. 37
Gu also experienced this pressure as a member of this larger community. For
instance, in 1929 Gu’s edition of a Chinese middle-school textbook was banned

33
Gu Jiegang and Liu Qiyu, Shangshu jiaoshi yilun [Correction, Critique, and
Translation of Shangshu], (Beijing, 2005).
34
Schneider, 274.
35
Gu Jiegang, Gushi bian, vol. 1, 227. Gu’s belief in the scientific nature of historical
studies might also be an influence from Hu Shi. Gu Jiegang was a disciple of Hu Shi. The
latter was considered to be a forerunner in arguing a scientific research approach. See Luo
Zhitian, Zaizao wenming de changshi: Hu Shi zhuan (1891-1929) [Attempt to Re-create a
Biography of Hu Shi (1891-1929)], (Beijing, 2006), 158.
36
Gu Jieang, Gu Jiegang riji, vol. 2, 593-94.
37
Wang Fansen, “Jiazhi yu shishi de fenli? Minguo de xinshixue jiqi pipingzhe” [The
Separation of Facts from Values? New Historiography in Republican China and Its
Critiques], Zhongguo jindai sixiang yu xueshu de puxi, 377-462. Also see Q. Edward Wang,
Inventing China through History, The May 4th Approach to Historiography (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2001).

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 201

by the government. Dai Jitao 戴季陶 (1891-1948) believed that a denial of Three
Sovereigns and Five Emperors (of sagely antiquity) 38 would shake the confidence
in Chinese nation and do harm to the county. 39 However, this does not mean that
Gu was not empathetic to nationalist movement. His concern was expressed as a
dream preserved in his diary. In October 14, 1932, Gu described his dream,

This morning I dreamed of joining the Yiyong Army [Army of Resistance]

and killing enemies [the Japanese] and Chinese traitors, which was so merry
and lively. After waking up, I thought it over. I study history by which to
inspire our national spirit. This is more important than to kill enemies. And
this work is as hard as passing through the hell. I should wait for the chance.
As Fichte said, “As long as my books were not lost our nation won’t die.” I
should try to realize this goal. 40

Under such pressure, Gu joined other intellectuals and shifted his research
from the search for historical objectivity to the reaffirmation of Chinese national
identity through writing history. Gu’s transition was fully addressed in the
foreword of Yugong Biweekly,

During last couples of decades, we cannot bear the oppression from the
imperialists any longer. As a result, the nationalistic consciousness has been
highly inspired. Because of this consciousness, everyone expects that a
universal Chinese history will be published so we can see how our nation is
constituted and what territories should be in our control. However, the
difficulty of this work is far beyond ordinary people’s imagination. Nation
and geography are two things which cannot be separated. Since our
geography study is not developed, how could it be possible for researchers
on history of our nation to look for evidence? 41

38
Wai-keung Chan, “Contending Memories of the Nation: History Education in
Wartime China, 1937-1945,” The Politics of Historical Production in Late Qing and
Republican China, edited by Tze-ki Hon and Robert J. Culp (Leiden, 2007), 169. The
Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors were legendary kings in traditional Chinese history.
Most Chinese and Chinese governments took their stories as the beginning of Chinese
civilization However, Gu believed that these figures were fabricated by later Chinese
scholars. Sun Longji, “Qingji Minzu Zhuyi yu Huangdi Chongbai” [Nationalism and the
Huangdi Cult in Late Qing], Lishi Xuejia de Jingwei [Historians’ Cosmos], (Guilin, 2004),
21-22.
39
Wang Fansen, 441. Dai Jitao was a senior official in the Nationalist Party at that
time.
40
Gu Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji, vol. 2, 698.
41
Gu Jiegang, “Fakanci” [Foreword], Yugong banyue kan [Yugong Biweekly] 1, no.
1 (March 1, 1934): 2.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

202 XIN FAN

In this foreword, Gu and his associates further emphasize the correlation

between political power and academic knowledge.

Needless to say, let us examine [the situation] that our Eastern neighbor
[Japan] intends to invade us so they invent the name of Benbu 本部 [China
Proper] to call our eighteen provinces and imply that our border areas are not
originally [our territory]; we the dump are hoodwinked by them [and accept
the name Benbu]. Now every textbook calls [our country] like that. Isn’t it
our disgrace? However, examining the origin of this idea, [we find] it is also
somewhat related to Yugong. Yugong is enlisted in Book of History, which is
read by everyone. However, there was no Youzhou [the ancient name for the
northeastern part of China]. Northeast [at that time] is only limited to Jieshi
[in today’s Hebei province]. So those who read the books of the “sage and
saint” think that China’s Northeast is as such. Without actually collecting
sources they base their lifelong geographic conception only upon reading
several simplistic Confucian canons. Is it humiliating for us?

The nationalistic sentiment was built into the mission of the Yugong
publications and organization. In a subsequent issue of the journal, Gu’s student
Feng Jiasheng claimed that purpose for his study of Chinese Northeastern
[Manchurian] geography was,

For example, the four provinces in Northeast, no matter in terms of history,

geography, or law, are apparently Chinese. However, in order to stretch their
territory, the Japanese have promoted their “Manchu-and-Mongolia-Not-
China” thesis years ago. It is a pity that none of scholars in our country is
able to stand up to refute [this thesis]… I used to say that judged by the
fruitful outcome of their research on this area, the Japanese are entitled to
take over Northeast. 42

On October 23, 1935, Gu wrote a letter to his former friend turned enemy,
Fu Sinian — a senior official in the Nationalist Party and a nationalistic scholar, 43
regarding Yugong’s latest financial problems. In this letter, Gu utilized a
nationalistic stance to frame his request for financial support from the Nationalist
government and reinterpreted the mission of this journal,

The reason I founded the Yugong Society and published Yugong Biweekly is
an extension of your project on editing Dongbei shigang 东北史纲 [Outline

42
Feng Jiasheng, “Wo de yanjiu dongbei shidi de jihua [My Project on Research of
the History and Geography of Northeast],” Yugong banyue kan 1, no. 10 (July 16, 1934): 2.
43
About Fu Sinian’s life, see Fan-sen Wang [Wang Fansen], Fu Ssu-nien: a Life in
Chinese History and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 203

of the history of Northeast] and is to hope to inspire readers to take back our
lost territory and to build up a solid basis for nationalism. 44

However, is this reinterpretation real? Was this Gu’s original purpose of

founding this school? The possible responses to these questions are contradictory
partly because Gu talked too much. He had previously argued the purpose of this
journal was to cultivate nationalism, to pursue pure scientific knowledge, and to
create opportunities for his students. Which one of them was close to his original
thoughts? To answer this question, we have to look into his another layer of in the
process of identity construction as Gu become a respectable master.

Respectable Master

DESPITE his revolutionary stance in regards to historiography, Gu Jiegang actually

behaved well according to the traditional relationship between master and disciple.
According to Yang Xiangkui, Gu always treated his Master Hu Shi humbly:

Master Gu always treated his master Hu very humbly. Once Hu asked Gu,
“Jiegang, are you older than me or not?” Actually, their ages were almost the
same. But Master Gu’s hair had turned all white. Hu said, “Aha, but your
hair has turned all white!” Gu answered, “Alas, I waste my time so badly
that my black hair in youth has turned white.” 45

The definition of a respectable master is complicated in Chinese intellectual

history. In traditional historiography, there was a special historiographical genre
called xue’an ti 学案体 (cases of learning). 46 Since the writings of Huang Zongxi
黄宗羲 (1610-95) and Quan Zuwang 全祖望 (1705-55) xue’an ti has highlighted
two issues in intellectual history: the attachment of individual scholars to their
intellectual context and the scholarly interconnection from one generation to

44
Cited from Gu Chao, 168. Dongbei shigang is a monograph written by Fu Sinian
in the 1930s during the controversy over the Chinese sovereignty over Manchuria after the
Japanese invasion of this area. Due to its poor scholarly quality, the book received a lot of
criticism among Chinese intellectuals at that time. Wang Fansen, “Sixiangshi yu
shenghuoshi you jiaoji ma? — du ‘Fu Sinian dang’an’,” [Is There an Intersection between
Intellectual History and History of Ideas? –Reading Fu Sinian’s Archives], Zhongguo
jindai sixiang yu xueshu de xipu (Taipei, 2003), 501-502.
45
Yang Xiangkui, “Wusi shidai de Hu Shi, Fu Sinian, Gu Jiegang sanwei xiansheng
[The Three Masters Hu Shi, Fu Sinian, and Gu Jieang in the Era of the May Fourth],”
Wenshizhe, no.3 (1989) : 50.
46
Hung-Lam Chu, “Confucian ‘Case Learning’: The Genre of Xue’an Writings,”
Thinking with Cases: Specialist Knowledge in Chinese Cultural History, edited by
Charlotte Furth et al. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007), 244-273. As for
Chinese meaning of xue’an, see Chu, 266-267.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

204 XIN FAN

another generation of scholars. Furthermore, this genre highlights agency of some

individual scholars, especially those who created a new scholarly tradition. Such
scholars are often called dashi (great masters). These masters’ influence on later
generations is present in more than their scholarship, just as an old saying goes
that “even as [your] master for one day, regard him as [your] father all your life.”
Gu was fully qualified as a master in a traditional sense. 47
There are two dimensions to Gu’s role as a master that offer new
perspectives on Gu’s purpose in founding Yugong Biweekly. First, the journal was
a method of passing knowledge to his disciples. To some extent, the whole
Yugong project started as a class at Yenching University. From the latter half year
of 1931, Gu taught a class on Shangshu studies. In this class, he had a heated
discussion over the political geography of the early Han dynasty with his graduate
teaching assistant Tan Qixiang. This discussion helped Gu to realize the
importance of the historical geography in Chinese history as well as the talent of
Tan Qixiang. In the following year Gu gave a course on ancient Chinese
geography. Dozens of students from Peking University and Yenching University
took this class. The prior discussion about early Chinese historical geography
continued during this course. Gu assigned each student a research topic. After one
semester, they needed to complete a publishable term paper. 48 Gu worked
diligently to create opportunities for his disciples to publish. 49 In some cases, Gu
edited his disciples’ papers until they were good enough to be published. For
instance, one of his disciples Hou Renzhi remembers,

Forty-six years ago when Yugong Biweekly was first launched, I was a
sophomore at college… In a class, Master Gu told us, the publication of this
journal will offer us a forum to practice our writing. He himself selected a
research topic for each of us. My topic was Hanshu dilizhi zhong suoshi
zhifang shanchuan qinze [The recorded mountains and lakes in the
geographical section of Hanshu]… To my surprise, as a paper for practice in
the classroom, it was soon published on Yugong Biweekly. What in particular
surprised me was that the introduction and conclusion of this paper were
modified, extended, and proofread by Master Gu Jiegang so that I was not
even able to recognize that it was my own writing. This event greatly

47
Yang Xiangkui has proposed three criteria to define a great master. First, the
master’s scholarship has to have its own system. Second, the master has built up a scholarly
community, say, a school. Third, the master has a relatively sophisticated method and
epistemology. Yang believed that Gu meets with all the three criteria and thus is qualified
as a great master. Yang Xiangkui, “Shimen jixue,” 53.
48
Yang Xiangkui, “Huiyi Yugong,” Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu, 122. Hou
Renzhi, “Huiyi yu xiwang, jinian Yugong bitan,” Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu, 126.
49
His letter to Tan to explained why he had been more productive in editorship than
Tan had: Gu said, in that job, “I had bet my life on it!” See Ge Jianxiong, Youyou
changshui, 80.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 205

inspired me and was the beginning that I decided to study in ancient

knowledge. 50

Moreover, as the previous example to some extent shows, Gu assumed

responsibility to support his disciples to find academic positions. Gu constantly
mentioned in his letters and diaries that he regarded talented young scholars as
precious. In practice, he attempted to create as many opportunities as possible for
them. Gu did not hesitate to alienate his colleagues in order to support his
disciples. 51 He understood the importance of the job placement for young scholars,
and he was always ready to help them in finding jobs. For example, after meeting
with Qian Mu — a high school teacher — twice, Gu recommended him for a
teaching position at Sun Yat-sen University. 52 Later on, Qian became a renowned
scholar of Chinese history. Because of Gu’s support, He Ziquan, a prestigious
professor at Beijing Normal University today, experienced a similar turn of fate. 53
These two examples illustrate how Gu viewed Yugong Biweekly as an opportunity
for his disciples.
The 1930s, according to scholars’ memoirs, was not an easy time for
students in humanities and social sciences to find good academic jobs. 54 Gu
encouraged his disciples to publish as early as possible. His biggest concern was
the future of his disciples on the job market. In his letter to Tan Qixiang, Gu
described his concern in detail,

I founded this journal because I want you to be famous. But how many
talented young people were ploughed under! And how many young people
were worth being brought up! Although we cannot help everyone, we should
try our best to promote as many as we can, which we will not feel guilty to
the talent endowed by the heaven. 55 (Underlined by the author)

50
Hou Renzhi, “Huiyi yu xiwang [Memory and Hope],” Lishi dili [Historical
Geography] vol.1 (1981): 160-61.
51
Regarding the case of He Dingsheng, see Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 123-26
52
Qian Mu, Bashi yi shuangqin and shiyou zaji [Remembering My Parents at the
Age of 80 and Miscellaneous Memories about My Masters and Friends], (Beijing, 1989),
148.
53
He Ziquan, “Jinian Gu Jiegang laoshi,” Gu Jiegang xiansheng yanxing lu, 453.
54
Ji Xianlin, Liude shinian [Ten Years in Germany], (Beijing, 1992), 6-7,
Particularly because that the Nationalist government in the twenties and thirties regarded
the industrial development as the most important issue. See William Kirby, “Engineering
China: Birth of the Developmental State, 1928-1937,” Becoming Chinese: Passages to
Modernity and Beyond, edited by Wen-Hsin Yeh (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 2000), 137-160.
55
Ge Jianxiong, Youyou changshui, 79. This argument might be genuine. From Gu’s
letter to Hu Shi, the influential figure in the job market, we can clearly see that Gu
attempted to recommend Tan to Hu. Hu Shi wanglai shuxin xuan [Selected Letters to and
from Hu Shi], vol.2 (Beijing, 1983), 258.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

206 XIN FAN

Gu launched the Yugong project in 1931 when most his disciples were
college students. In 1934 when most of them faced graduation and headed to the
job market, Gu again worked hard to seek governmental support for them. His
plan was to ask government to nationalize this project and to set up an official
apparatus to take in all his capable disciples. Therefore, he had to write to Fu
Sinian. In this letter he elaborated on his nationalistic motivation in such a way
that he completely reinterpreted the original purpose of his project.

I founded this organization to set up a common goal for us which inspires

these young men’s interest and confidence. If this organization could last
forever, these young men can turn their passion to good account and live up
to the dream that universities are created; but what I could have done is only
this much. I can only encourage them to move forward. If without the
support from the rear, 56 their bravery will lose eventually. I dare not say that
the government should offer these young people jobs and settle them down
to work, since this is a too complicated issue and I know under the current
situation it is hard to realize. But I dare say that the government or private
organizations should support this organization and to some extent give some
benefit to those students. Therefore, although living in pain they will not lose
courage to move forward. According to my experience, if graduates from
college cannot find an academic job within four or five years, they are no
longer able to work in academia for the rest of their lives. The purpose of
graduate school is to offer him an opportunity to continue studying after his
graduation, which enables them eventually to work in academia. The reason
why I can launch this biweekly journal is it is that, backed up by the graduate
school of Yenching University; the progress of this journal is the progress of
the graduate school of Yenching University as well. 57

Gu finally persuaded Fu. After this agreement with Fu and the creation of the
Yugong Society, most of Gu’s capable disciples were able to stay in academia and
finally became specialists in various academic disciplines in China.
Meanwhile, Gu and his disciples maintained a very close relationship. For
instance, earlier in the 1920s, when Gu had to leave Sun Yat-sen University
because of a conflict with his colleague Lu Xun 鲁 迅 (1881-1936), several
students followed him all the way to Peking. 58 In the Yugong Society, his
disciples such as Yang Xiangkui, Tong Shuye, and Zhang Weihua actually lived

56
Gu used “the rear” to refer to the government.
57
Gu Chao, 169.
58
For example: He Dingsheng, Gu Jiegang riji, vol.11, entry of May 18th, 1980; Li
Guangxin, in the entry of October 6, 1980.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 207

in the headquarters and worked for Gu. There, life and academics were
intertwined. 59

More Than Just a Perfect Story: Conflicts and Tensions in the Yugong
Society

MOST contributors to Yugong Biweekly were Gu’s disciples or his disciples’

disciples at Peking University, Yenching University and Fu Jen University. 60 The
Yugong project was a continuation of Gu’s classroom teaching. 61 He also showed
his nationalistic stance in order to seek support from the government and the
public. Gu’s influence on these students and the journal was very strong, which
demonstrates the personal aspects of the journal. In other words, it seems that Gu,
as the master in classroom, the fundraiser for publishing, and the established
scholar in academia, assumed absolute authority in this project. In this sense, one
would assume that the whole project of the Yugong Society followed the
trajectory anticipated by Gu. This simplistic explanation is not the real story. Gu’s
recently-published diaries disclosed the conflicts and tensions within this
scholarly community.
On February 27, 1942, after a series of recent conversations with his disciple,
Wang Shumin, Gu wrote in his diary and reflected on his lack of capability to
work with other people:

I had talked with [Wang] Shumin several times recently He told me that I
could appreciate others’ talent but I could not use them wisely. For those I
am not familiar with, I think they are good people. However, as I get more
familiar with them, I will find their inferior qualities so that become
estranged from them. I reflect on the fact that it is very easy to get into my
group but it is very hard to work with me. For those who come closer to me I
will exert higher pressure on them. There are only few people in the world
who have strong aspiration, so most people often refuse to work. Tan
Qixiang, Zhang Weihua, Yang Xiangkui, Wang Zhongmin and Yang
Zhongyi are all such examples. 62

59
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 344.
60
Tan Qixiang was teaching at Fu Jen University in the early 1930s.
61
Peng Minghui, Lishi dilixue yu xiandai Zhongguo shixue, 147. Also, see Gu
Jiegang, “Bian hou [Postscripts],” Yugong banyue kan 1, no. 1 (March 1931): 24.
62
Gu Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji, Vol.4, 640. Gu’s self-analysis can be confirmed by He
Ziquan’s memory. He remembers that Yang Zhongyi said to him, “Master Gu is a nice guy,
but he is too tedious. Not working with him, he is passionate, protective, and caring [to
you]; working with him, he is controlling over any tiny and tedious things. So it’s better to
be far away from him.” He Ziquan, “Jinian Gu Jiegang laoshi,” 452.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

208 XIN FAN

If we look at this list, these are all his disciples in the Yugong Society.
However, this list is not complete without adding Tong Shuye to it, although the
two men had a falling out in the 1950s.
Examining Gu’s bifurcated interpretations of history is a way to understand
the tensions among Gu and his disciples. Currently, scholars argue that
intellecuals in Republican China had two conflicting understandings of the nature
of historical studies. On one hand, they treated historical studies as a way to look
for facts and to show what actually happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen); on the
other hand, they adopted historical studies as a way to promote social and moral
values in Chinese society. Scholars call these two approaches “history as pursuit
of objectivity” and “history as pursuit of value” respectively. 63 Gu acknowledged
both tendencies in his works and shifted his position from one to another. For
example, he claimed the purpose of the Yugong Society was “to study academics
for its own purpose为学问而学问.” 64 By contrast, due to the social and economic
pressure, he had to emphasize its social value, as he claimed that his foundation of
the Yugong Society was to promote nationalism in society. 65 These internal
tensions in his scholarship are reflection of social problems in wartime China that
inspired conflicts among Gu and his disciples. 66
One example is the case of Tan Qixiang, Gu’s most capable assistant and his
favorite disciple. Tan Qixiang’s academic career started with a debate on
historical geographic issues with Gu. As Gu’s teaching assistant at Yenching
University, Tan felt that Gu’s interpretation of the Han administration system was
not satisfactory. Hence, he wrote two letters to argue against his master. Gu not
only admitted his mistake but also showed Tan’s letters to his other students. This
experience motivated Tan for the rest of his academic career, as Tan remembered
in his later life,

I sent two letters, and he [Gu Jiegang] replied twice, both of which
confirmed some of my opinion and negated others. While agreeing with me,
he honestly admitted he was wrong in his previous thinking; while
disagreeing with me, he illustrated his evidence and pointed out my mistakes.
His writing was so humble and sincere that he never regarded himself as an
authority and treated me as a peer. This is such a sincere and touching style!
He not only admitted to me, the antagonist in this discussion, that his some

63
Wang Fansen describes the tension between scholars who believed in the social
value of history and one who believed in the academic value of history during the Sino-
Japanese War. Wang Fansen, “‘Jiazhi’ yu ‘shishi’ de fenli, minguo de xinshixue,” 438-446.
64
Gu Chao, 167.
65
Ibid, 167.
66
The tension between history as social value and as pursuit of objectivity has been a
deep tension embedded in Chinese historiographical tradition. For its modern fate, see Peng
Minghui, Wanqing de Jingshi Shixue [The Historiography Focusing on Social Values in
the Late Qing], (Taipei, 2002), 243-244.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 209

opinion was wrong, but also published these letters to all the students in
order to have everyone seen it. Again, this is such a grand tolerance! Just
encouraged by Master Gu’s this bearing, my research was able to get deeper
and I was able to thinking independently and make some reasonable
arguments. Thus, to some extent, I was able to make contribution to this
issue. Meanwhile, I believe that my two letters had some significance when
later on Master Gu wrote his master piece “Liang Han zhouzhi kao.” 67

In other words, Tan’s memory on Gu focused on Gu’s pursuit of objectivity

in historical studies, in which the major conflict between Gu and Tan was skipped.
The earlier tension between Gu and Tan was because of their different
attitudes toward Yugong Biweekly. Gu’s original plan for this journal, 68 as he
announced in the postscripts of the first issue, was,

This journal is a forum where we practice how to conduct academic research.

So hopefully readers wouldn’t judge it according to very strict standards.
Please don’t expect too much progress from us, either…Now what we look
for from the society is to offer us nurture and protection. Now we are still a
group of kids. Receiving good education while we are young, we can build
up a great career when we grow up! 69

In contrast, as co-founder of this journal and chief editor, Tan Qixiang did
not compromise his academic standards and tended to only accept articles with
high academic quality. He believed that it was a waste of his time to “deal with
unprofessional articles.” In doing so, he often found that there were not enough
articles to be published in the next issue. For this reason, Gu had to write to Tan
and criticized his attitudes,

I said Shihuo had much content so Yugong shouldn’t have less in order to
compete with it. 70 You said that quantity was not a deciding factor for good
or bad. You are certainly right here. But your experience is too limited.
Suppose I ask, how many [people] can tell difference between the nature of
the good and bad? Most people only know difference in quantity. You will

67
Gu Jiegang, “Liang Han zhouzhi kao” [Criticism on Two Hans Regional System],
Guoli zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan [The Bulletin of the Institute of
History and Philology of the Academia Sinica], special issue on “Cai Yuanpei xiansheng
liushiwu sui qingzhu lunwen ji” [A Festschrift for Mr. Cai Yuanpei’s 65th Birthday],
(Peking, 1934), 855-902.
68
Tan Qixiang was a serious scholar throughout his life. Peng Minghui, Lishi dilixue
yu xiandai Zhongguo shixue, 13-14.
69
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 101.
70
Shihuo Biweekly [Food and Merchandises] was another populous academic journal
in the thirties founded by Tao Xisheng and his disciples at Peking University.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

210 XIN FAN

argue it is not necessary to court the multitude to run this journal at all! This
is certainly correct. But supposing to ask where is the foundation of the
Yugong banyue kan? If the subscriptions and retail sales go down, we can’t
exist, can we? 71

Gu’s letter did not persuade Tan. In a return letter, Tan gave up his
editorship and refused to work for Gu. In the following letter to Tan, Gu explained
tensions between them by their different understanding of scholarship and their
different attitudes toward work. 72 However, despite the tensions in the 1930s, Gu
and Tan Qixiang still maintained a friendly relationship throughout Gu’s life
according to more recent sources. Gu’s diary shows that Tan and Gu’s other
disciples visited Gu as a group on September 13, 1980 shortly before Gu’s
death. 73
Put into another perspective, what Gu suggested as the purpose of the
Yugong was actually an attempt to interrogate the boundaries of academia. Since
the 1930s, Gu increasingly took popular culture into consideration. He organized
his friends and disciples to visit rural areas in northwestern China. 74 He was ready
to utilize folklore as a historical source and field research as a methodology. Hou
Renzhi, whose scholarship is primarily based on the outcome of the field research,
in particular remembered the Yugong Society’s contribution to the new
methodology. 75 Meanwhile, he began to see publication as a way to make money
in order to subsidize his disciples. Some of Gu’s students came from poor family
background. Gu would sometimes ask them to write papers in his name. They
could sell those papers for their living. Once, in order to meet a publishing
deadline, he asked his disciple and co-writer Shi Nianhai to directly take over
materials from Tan Qixiang’s lectures, which seemed to undermine the
relationship between the latter two. 76
Yang Xiangkui is another interesting figure in the Yugong Society. Yang
was born in a peasant family in Fengruan 丰润, Hebei. He was admitted into
Peking University in 1931 and began to take Gu’s classes. From September 1932,
he attended Gu’s course on ancient Chinese historical geography. An independent
thinker, Yang was particularly active in class discussion and his participation in

71
Ge Jianxiong, Youyou changshui, 77-78. Gu Jiegang’s diary also confirms the
tension between Gu and Tan. For instance, in his diary on March 6, 1934, Gu complained
that Tan Qixiang spent too little time editing Yugong with efficiency. “Three volumes in
one issue, I sent how many manuscripts! He had to put off one week to publish!” Gu
Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji, vol.3, 316.
72
Ge Jianxiong, Youyou changshui, 78-80.
73
Gu Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji, vol.10, September 13, 1980. They must have known
this was going to be the last visit to their master before his death!
74
Gu Chao, 145-151.
75
Hou Renzhi, “Shicheng xiaoji,” Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu, 131.
76
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 344.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 211

discussion spurred Gu’s research. 77 He was also a major contributor to the

Yugong project. He remembered,

From the very beginning, I enjoyed the Yugong Society. When Yugong
Biweekly was published, I was a enthusiastic reader. Master Gu asked me to
serve in a by collecting information on historical geography from news-
papers and other journals to publish as a collage in every issue. Therefore,
my name appeared on almost every issue. 78

In volume six, Yang published his Fengruan xiaozhi (A Mini Gazette of

Fengruan), which was praised by Gu for its social value.
However, Yang did not fully accept Gu’s authority as his master after the
1930s. One interpretation was that their personalities were incompatible. Wang
Xuedian and Sun Yanjie argue that Yang was a natural leader and found it
difficult to follow a master. He was free spirited and refused to heed commands. 79
On the other hand, as an established authority and respectable master, Gu
sometimes asked for an absolute obedience, a situation that created tensions
between him and Yang. 80
Later sources confirm this interpretation. For example, in early 1940, Gu
established a graduate seminar on Guoxue [the study of traditional Chinese culture]
at Qilu University in Chengdu. 81 Yang, although having become a professor in the
department of literature and history at Gansu College, still wanted to study and
asked Gu to let him attend this graduate program. Gu thought it was not a good
decision at first for Yang to give up a teaching position and become a graduate
student. After Yang remained insistent, Gu finally promised to give him a
research position. In the winter of that year, when Yang went to Chengdu, Gu
seemed to change his mind by saying, “we haven’t decided whether to hire you.”
Without any more words, Yang left and refused this position when Gu later
offered it to him. 82 After that incident, cooperation between Yang and Gu ceased.
The 1940s were not a good time for Gu. Losing his position in Peking and
his scholarly community composed of his best disciples and assistants due to the
Japanese invasion, his research sunk to a low ebb. He had to negotiate a new

77
Ibid, 306-307.
78
Ibid, 307.
79
Ibid, 300.
80
Ibid, 299-300.
81
See Hu Fengxiang, “Xiandai Zhongguo shixue zhuanye jigou de jianzhi yu yunzuo
[The Organizational System and Operation of Modern Chinese Historiography
Institutions],” Shilin, no.3 (2007): 168-169.
82
Yang Xiangkui, “Huiyi Gu Jiegang laoshi,” Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu, 210-
211.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

212 XIN FAN

position in academia. 83 He seriously considered shifting his future career from

professional research to program building. He began to invest and run some
publishing businesses. As disciple of Gu, Yang Xiangkui was strongly against his
master’s choice. He constantly wrote to Gu to request that he return to academia.
He said, “It seems that it has been a year since Master worked on a practical
career and paid little attention to pure knowledge. I don’t think it is worth at all.” 84
What his disciple had done deeply hurt Gu’s feelings: in 1943 after
exchanging several letters with Yang and experiencing a series of setbacks in his
career, Gu was overcome with despair. He swore to rebuild his relationship with
his disciples. On July 31, 1942 and February 28, 1943, Gu wrote out his plans
twice in history diary to meet this goal:

1. Absolutely not to interfere with too many issues and try to break away
from social activities
2. Never lose control in my own working division
3. Have to train and supervise newcomers strictly and trust them only after a
long observation
4. All the power in me and this is not arguable. 85

In the 1950s, together with another disciple of Tong Shuye, Yang attacked
Gu fiercely from a communist ideological perspective. In August 1957 Yang was
transferred to Beijing and worked for Yin Da in the same institution with Gu, the
Institute of History at the CASS. From the late 1950s until the early 1980s when
Gu passed away, more than twenty years passed while Yang and Gu worked in the
same building without speaking to each other. Since his leader, Yin Da, as a
communist radical, showed no respect to Gu, it was “hard” for Yang to approach
Gu during these years. 86

Remembering and Forgetting an Intellectual Community

GU’S difficult position in the 1940s was caused by the dramatic changes in
Chinese society. 1937 represents a crucial turning point in Chinese history. The
invasion of the Japanese army stopped the social, economic, and cultural
development of the 1930s. Rumor said Gu had been included on the Imperial
Japanese Army’s blacklist. Gu had to abandon his career in Peking and fled
southward. 87 Yugong Biweekly ceased publication and the Yugong Society
dissolved. Although Gu and several colleagues temporarily revived the Yugong

83
In his diary, Gu admitted that he had passed his florescence as researcher. Gu
Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji, vol. 5, 140.
84
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 349.
85
Gu Jiegang, Gu Jiegang riji, vol.4, 716.
86
Wang Xuedian and Sun Yanjie, 358-340.
87
Gu Chao, 186.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 213

society in 1943, it was not successful. 88 It finally disappeared as a coherent

organization in the landscape of modern Chinese intellectual history.
Since the very beginning of the PRC, Gu had been reluctant to accept
communist ideology. Although he still had strong influence in academic circles,
he had fallen out the mainstream intellectual trend by the 1950s. He was criticized
in the early 1950s by his own disciples such as Yang Xiangkui and Tong Shuye.
His attachment with Hu Shi, a model of anti-revolutionary intellectual figures,
brought him additional trouble with the new government. During the Cultural
Revolution, he had to stop his research and work on an official editing project on
ancient historiography. However, he survived the tumultuous era in spite of his
loss of status. He died in 1980 as a respectable master for the contemporary
intellectuals.
The influence of the Yugong Society, however, never completely died out.
In the 1980s, the three leading institutions of historical geographical studies in the
PRC were all led by Gu’s disciples. Tan Qixiang founded a research center on
historical geography at Fudan University, Hou Renzhi at Peking University and
Shi Nianhai at Shannxi Normal University. Each of them followed one trajectory
of Gu’s scholarship, while sharing some similarities in defining the new
knowledge system of historical geography. For example, both Tan Qixiang and
Shi Nianhai stuck to the traditional methodology of contextual criticism. 89 Hou
Renzhi, though agreeing with them on the independence of historical geography,
in contrast, tended to promote social science methodologies such as field research.
The focus of this article, however, is not the biography of Gu in the PRC. 90
Rather, it looks at how those individuals who had conflicts with Gu but were
commemorating him by the 1980s.
In the 1980s, despite the tensions between Gu and his disciples, the typical
memory of Gu is that the master is respectable and the disciples are respectful. For
instance, in the preface in one of collections commemorating Gu, the editor claims,

The authors of these articles respectively record his academic activities and
stories of cultivating the talents in every period of Master Gu Jiegang’s life
and express gratitude truly from their hearts, which can never be forgotten
through all their lives. Through these anecdotes, it enables people to feel the
grand and brilliant image that Master Gu’s works hard in academics,
encourages on the later generations, and is always ready to help others all his
life, He will become an model for the later generations forever. 91

88
Ibid, 219.
89
Shi Nianhai, “Lishi dilixue de xingcheng yinsu [The Formulating Factors of
Historical Geography],” Zhongguo lishi dili luncun, vol. 2 (1989), 15.
90
Ursula Richter, “Gu Jiegang: ‘His Last Thirty Years,’” The China Quarterly 90
(June 1982): 286-295.
91
Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu, i.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

214 XIN FAN

It is also the case for Yang Xiangkui. In the 1980s, when ideological control
was loose and Gu passed away, Yang began to write extensively to memorialize
Gu, his master. However, he kept silent in regards to the period of strained
relations with Gu. He wrote,

After the liberation, from 1956 on, we both worked in the Institute of History.
For twenty years, I ran into Master almost every day. Master was getting old,
and I am not young any more. 92

Although Tan Qixiang was also relatively quiet about his conflicts with Gu,
he though highly of the relationship between master and disciples too: During the
Cultural Revolution, Chen Yinke’s disciple, Liu Jie, asked to stand in his master’s
place in a public criticism. After that, Liu said it was his honor to do this. Tan
Qixiang was deeply moved by this event. And wrote down a comment in his notes:
“Liu Zizhi [Liu Jie] is such a nice guy!” Later on, Tan Qixiang mentioned to his
disciple Ge Jianxiong more than once. 93
Forgetting has become a model of memory when it comes to the issues we
cannot explain. Tan Qixiang kept silent about his tension with Gu. Yang Xiangkui
skirted round the sensitive era of the 1960s and 1970s. Meanwhile, through re-
interpreting their memories about Gu, their relationship with him is redrawn and
idealized. An ideal paradigm of the master-disciple relationship is duplicated.

Conclusion: Socialized Knowledge, Socialized History

THIS article explores Gu Jiegang’s role in the rise and fall of the Yugong Society
in the 1930s and after. It argues that it was a self-conscious practice for Gu to
establish himself as an academic leader in order to facilitate the spread and
transmission of his critical ideas about ancient Chinese history and geography in
Chinese society.
The fundamental question is about knowledge transmission. Recent
scholarship has shown that knowledge is constructed within a specific temporal
and spatial context. 94 It becomes a difficult question: how does knowledge travel?
One assumption is that knowledge only travels in similar contexts (or, similar at
least in imagination). Once knowledge is transmissible, intellectual history is
possible. In this regard, the basis of intellectual history is an assumption of
historical continuity.

92
Yang Xiangkui, “Jinian Gu Jiegang laoshi,”210.
93
Ge Jianxiong, 58.
94
Michel Foucault, Two Lectures,” Power/Knowledge, Selected Interviews and
Other Writings, edited by Colin Gordon (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), 78-108.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 215

Another question is: why does knowledge travel? 95 The assumption is

between now and then such knowledge still matters. Besides the question of
historical continuity, there is the issue of truth and power. The time span of this
paper covers the period between the 1930s and 1980s. Although these two eras
differ in social, cultural, and economic factors, there is something unchanging,
which is uncovered unconsciously by Chen Pingyuan’s comment.

The graduate student education in the 1980s was close to the irregular
knowledge transmission form between master and disciple [in the 1930s].
But when life integrates with academics, it has its own advantage. 96

If we looked back to the college education in the 1930s, the Yugong Society
certainly shows some private nature as well. In this sense, there is indeed
continuity in modern Chinese intellectual history, which is the xueshu chuancheng,
a private nature of knowledge building where the role of a master is central.
In this hierarchical construction, the xueshu chuancheng, knowledge
transmission model in master-disciple relationship, took over a social and cultural
setting of modern Chinese intellectual landscape. In this regard, the conflicts
among Yang Xiangkui, Tan Qixiang and Gu Jiegang have a broader meaning,
only when one realizes the existence of the peripherals. Since a discourse is so
complicated that a gaze on its center will easily lead one astray. 97 Without
looking into it, it is hard to understand the most seemingly easy questions in
modern intellectual history. Therefore, one has to question the nature of Chinese
intellectual history. Rather than merely focused on one dimension of knowledge,
it is a story entangled with a social and cultural considerations.
To some extent, the significance of this research is beyond the confine of the
subject of historical geography, for similar cases are common in modern Chinese
intellectual history. It has become a question of an academic culture based on an
imaginary relationship between master and disciples. Although this relationship is
never ideal in reality, as the study about the memorial literature about Gu Jiegang
in this paper has shown, a symbolic relationship between masters and disciples
has been constantly duplicated through the practice of collective memory in the
(re-)writing of intellectual history.

95
Here a parallel study would be Lydia Liu’s research on translation. Lydia Liu,
Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modern – China,
1900-1937 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).
96
Chen Pingyuan, “Chen Pingyuan fangtan: guanyu bashi niandai [Interview with
Chen Pingyuan: About the Eighties],” Shehui kexue luntan [Forum on Social Sciences]
(2005): 107.
97
Foucault, 97-98.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

216 XIN FAN

Bibliography of Chinese Sources

1930 niandai de Zhongguo 《1930 年代的中国》. 中国社会科学院近代史研究

所民国史研究室、四川师范大学历史文化学院编. 北京: 社会科学院出
版社, 2006.
Chen Pingyuan 陈平原: “陈平原访谈: 关于八十年代”, 载《社会科学论坛》
2005 年.
Feng Jiasheng 冯家昇: “我的研究东北史地的计划”. 载《禹贡半月刊》1934 年
7 月第 1 卷第 10 期.
Ge Jianxiong & Hua Linfu 葛剑雄、华林甫: “导论: 20 世纪的中国历史地理研
究”, 收入《二十世纪中国学术文存: 历史地理研究》, 武汉: 湖北教育出
版社, 2001.
Ge Jianxiong 葛剑雄: 《悠悠长水: 谭其骧前传》. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社,
1997.
Gu Chao 顾潮: 《历劫终教志不灰: 我的父亲顾颉刚》. 上海: 华东师范大学出
版社, 1997.
Gu Jiegang xiansheng xuexing lu 《顾颉刚先生学行录》. 王煦华编. 北京: 中华
书局, 2006.
Gu Jiegang 顾颉刚: “两汉州制考刊”, 收入《国立中央研究院历史语言研究所
集刊》外编《蔡元培先生六十五岁庆祝论文集》. 北平, 1934,页 855-902.
—— : “发刊词”, 载《禹贡半月刊》, 1931 年 3 月第 1 期.
—— : “秦汉统一的由来和战国人对于世界的想象,” 收入《古史辨 》第 2 卷.
香港: 太平书局, 1962.
—— : “编后”, 载《禹贡半月刊》, 1931 年 3 月第 1 期.
—— :《顾颉刚日记》. 台北: 联经出版公司, 2007.
—— : “答刘胡两先生书”, 收入《古史辨》第 2 卷. 香港: 太平书局, 1962.
Hou Renzhi 侯仁之: “回忆与希望, 纪念禹贡笔谈”, 收入《顾颉刚先生学行
录》. 王煦华编. 北京: 中华书局, 2006。
Hu Fengxiang , “现代中国史学专业机构的建制与运作”, 载《史林》 2007 年
第三期.
Hu Shi wanglai shuxin xuan 《胡适往来书信选》.社科院中华民国史教研室编.
北京: 中华书局, 1983.
Ji Xianlin 季羡林: 《留德十年》. 北京: 东方出版社, 1992.
Jinian Gu Jiegang xiansheng danchen 110 zhounian lunwen ji 《纪念顾颉刚先
生诞辰 110 周年论文集》. 中国社会科学院历史研究所, 中山大学历史系
编. 北京: 中华书局, 2004.
Liu Qiyu 刘起釪: 《尚书校释译论》. 北京: 中华书局, 2005.
Luo Zhitian 罗志田, 《再造文明的尝试: 胡适传 (1891-1929) 》, 北京: 中华书
局, 2006.

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

 GU JIEGANG AND THE CREATION OF CHINESE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 217

Peng Minghui 彭明辉: 《历史地理学与现代中国史学》. 台北: 东大图书公司,

1995.
Peng Minghui 彭明辉: 《晚清的经世史学》. 台北: 麦田出版, 2002.
Qian Mu 钱穆: 《八十忆双亲；师友杂忆》. 北京: 三联出版社, 1989.
Shi Aidong 施爱东: “顾颉刚, 傅斯年与民俗学”, 收入《纪念顾颉刚先生诞辰
110 周年论文集》. 中国社会科学院历史研究所, 中山大学历史系编. 北
京: 中华书局, 2004.
Shi Nianhai 史念海: “顾颉刚先生与禹贡学社”, 收入王煦华编: 《顾颉刚先生
学行录》. 北京: 中华书局, 2006.
—— : “历史地理学的形成因素”, 载《中国历史地理论丛》, 1989 年第 2 辑.
Sun Longji 孙隆基: “清季民族主义与皇帝崇拜之发明”, 收入《历史学家的经
纬——历史心理学文集》. 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社, 2004.
Wang Fansen 王汎森: “‘价值’与‘事实’的分离——民国的新史学及其批评者”;
“思想史与生活史有交集吗? 读傅斯年档案”, 收入《中国近代思想与学
术的系谱》. 台北:联经出版公司, 2003.
Wang Xuedian & Sun Yanjie 王学典、孙延杰: 《顾颉刚和他的弟子们》. 济南:
山东画报出版社, 2004.
Xin Deyong 辛德勇: 《历史的空间与空间的历史》. 北京: 北京师范大学出版
社, 2005.
Xu Weiyu 许维遹: 《吕氏春秋集释》. 梁运华整理. 北京: 中华书局, 2009.
Yang Xiangkui 杨向奎: “五四时代的胡适、傅斯年、顾颉刚三位先生”, 载
《文史哲》, 1989 年第 3 期》.
Yang Xiangkui 杨向奎: “回忆《禹贡》”, 收入《顾颉刚先生学行录》. 王煦华
编. 北京: 中华书局, 2006.
Yang Xiangkui 杨向奎: “师门记学”, 载《文史哲》, 1985 年第 5 期.
Zhang Qing 章清: 《“胡适派学人群”与现代中国自由主义》. 上海: 上海古籍
出版社, 2004.
Zhongguo da baike quan shu 中国大百科全书. 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社,
1990.

Xin Fan 范鑫 is a Ph.D. candidate in Modern Chinese History at Indiana

University-Bloomington. His research interest includes modern Chinese
intellectual, cultural history, historiography, and world history. His
dissertation focuses on Chinese cultural responses to globalization by
examining the case of the rise and fall of the study of Ancient World History
(AWH) during the twentieth century in China. Before coming to the United
States in 2006, he had received a master’s degree in Ancient World History

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010

218 XIN FAN

from Beijing Normal University and conducted one year research on

“Exchange Knowledge between China and the West” under the International
Quality Network project in Germany. Currently he is a Future Faculty
Teaching Fellow at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.
[xfan@ indiana.edu].

The Chinese Historical Review Fall 2010