I have been trying to think of how to respond to Magnus Fiskesjö’s remarks, which astonished me because they seemed so totally off the mark and indicated that he was not really acquainted with Li Xueqin’s publications. Thus, his response to Ian’s Johnson’s clarification is useful in at least giving me some idea of where he is coming from. I do not know the context of the statement Li made to this group of Western scholars about believing the ancient texts, but it does show that he was never a sycophant whatever his audience.
Li was not a deeply conservative scholar. He was, in fact, steeped in the Gushibian. He once told me that he had read every word of it as a teenager and it was surely one of his inspirations for entering the field. He was also acquainted with Western scholarship and made a point of introducing it to his students and encouraging them to read broadly. However, he did not see Doubt Antiquity as standing for healthy skepticism, as Western scholars tend to, but as a specific set of arguments about the ancient texts. With the discovery of excavated texts, beginning with Mawangdui, he increasingly began to doubt the validity of those arguments. Nevertheless, Li did not, simply revert to accepting the tradition uncritically. Leaving Behind the Era of Doubting the Ancients (Zouchu yigu shidai 走出疑古时代) is not, as Fiskesjö stated, a book that Li wrote, but a collection of his essays on various topics. In the eponymous article (originally a talk), Li did not call for giving up skepticism and believing the ancient texts (xin gu 信古). He advocated using two-pronged evidence of archaeology and transmitted texts, which he called, shi gu 释古, “explaining the ancients,” after Wang Guowei. He did think that the Xia Dynasty was historical. I am well-known for having written about the Xia as a myth, but there are legitimate scholarly reasons for identifying Erlitou culture with a Xia Dynasty, even if I don’t think they are correct.
To my knowledge, Li never discussed the Yellow Emperor in historical or nationalistic terms, and I do not see how he could possibly be considered a theoretician of, or in any way responsible for, the politically inspired nationalist history based on the foundational role of the Yellow Emperor that is being promoted in China today.
I found this ill-founded criticism particularly shocking because Li Xueqin, throughout his long career, in difficult circumstances, has been admired in China as standing for “pure” (critical, evidence-based) scholarship without any political cant. One may not agree with his opinions, but this was no mean feat in the times through which he lived. It is also no mean feat at the present time, West as well as East. But, it was and is, in and of itself, a great contribution to us all, and it is why so much scholarship on early China, West and East, cites his authority on so many different issues.
Sarah Allan <sarah.allan@dartmouth.edu>