EDITORIAL

No. 26, June 2011

China's Prosperous Age (Shengshi 盛世)

In the late 1980s, as a decade of China's Reform and Open Door Policies proffered a transformation of the country, anxieties over social change, economic inequalities, environmental degradation, weakness on the global stage and a sclerotic political system generated a national 'crisis consciousness' (youhuan yishi 忧患意识). To use Gloria Davies' expression, 'worrying about China' was widespread. As events would prove, people had good reason to be worried, and they still do.

From even before the 2008 Beijing Olympics a new wave of 'China worry' has been swelling in the People's Republic. At the same time, and despite its awareness of the multiple problems besetting the country, the party-state has advertised the state of the nation as being one reflective of a 'Prosperous Age' (shengshi 盛世), or 'Harmonious Prosperity' (hexie shengshi 和谐盛世).

Fig.1 'Harmonious Prosperity' (hexie shengshi 和谐盛世)

Shengshi is an ancient expression and it has been applied to a precious few periods in Chinese history. Such 'golden ages' have varied in length and content, but it is commonly recognized that during the Han 漢, Tang 唐 and Qing 清 dynasties there were remarkable periods of social grace, political rectitude and cultural flourishing. The self-proclaimed Prosperous Age of today's People's Republic has been nearly a century in the making; its achievement is far more contentious.

During a state visit to the United Kingdom in June 2011, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was welcomed in Stratford-upon-Avon where he lauded its most famous native, William Shakespeare (known in China since the late-nineteenth century as Sha weng 莎翁), as 'the greatest writer who ever lived'. Boris Johnson, the oftimes laddish mayor of London, observed that: 'Yup', Shakespeare 'was the greatest writer of all time, but he also knew how to cope with censorship, the secret police and the absence of anything that we would now call pluralist democracy. Which is why, I venture to say, it is very safe and correct to admire him in Beijing.' (See: 'Shakespeare, torchbearer for the Chinese way of doing things', 26 June 2011.)

In this issue of China Heritage Quarterly we feature the views of a number of prominent historians who, in late March 2011, gathered in Hawai'i for a roundtable at The Asian Studies Association annual conference to discuss China's Prosperous Age, its histories and significance. In Features we also include 'New Words of Warning in a Prosperous Age', which discusses the Children of Yan'an whose sense of China's impending political and social crisis have led them to formulate an appeal to the Chinese Communist Party's next congress, scheduled for late 2012. We also offer selections related to the Prosperous Age from our new CIW-Danwei Online Archive.

T'ien Hsia offers readers a recent interview with the Sinologist Pierre Ryckmans, by Daniel Sanderson; it reports on a workshop devoted to 'Tianxia' 天下; provides material from a new Penang Hokkien dictionary, and reproduces Leigh Jenco's review of a problematic book on non-liberal East Asia and the invented Confucian tradition. In Articles Nadia Sartoretti discusses a TV series devoted to the Prosperous Age of the Tang, Michael Churchman takes issue with the slow silencing of linguistic difference in the Chinese world, while Linda Jaivin discusses another kind of translingual strangulation. For my own part, I advance a view on the 'exit' of China's most troublesome artist.

In New Scholarship we are delighted to publish a review of a major exhibition of the work of Felice Beato by the New York-based photographer Lois Conner, a colleague whose own work has often featured in these pages; two conference reports, one on research into Chinese gardens and the other on 'representing China'; and, a charming translation by Duncan Campbell of the Song-dynasty writer Su Shi's essay 'Master Li's Mountain Hut Book Collection'.

This issue of China Heritage Quarterly has benefitted from the suggestions and contributions of Sang Ye, Linda Jaivin, Jeremy Goldkorn and Guo Jian. As ever, I am grateful to Daniel Sanderson for his tireless work, and his tolerance of creeping deadlines.—Geremie R. Barmé, Editor

Shengshi Zhongguo
盛世中国
China's New Prosperous Age

Geremie R. Barmé

General wisdom, or common sense, would suggest that to declare a particular period or an era to be a Golden or Prosperous Age before it is over may be ill advised. It is often a fraught proposition to determine whether a renaissance is underway in the midst of a period of rapid socio-cultural change. And that begs the question whether frenetic economic activity is the ne plus ultra of human endeavour.

As is so often the case with heroic figures, pivotal historical moments, crises, tipping-points and so on, the passage of time, a greater understanding of the complex interaction of politics and society, as well as culture and economics, individuals and mere happenstance, all contribute to more nuanced, if not 'correct', evaluations of a certain epoch. In China's modern history, however, enlightenments, rebirths and revivals have often been hastily announced and hailed in a mood of anxious exuberance. This often happens long before conclusions based on temperate reflection following a decent interval, measured understanding and deep reflection, can be drawn.

Walking Towards Harmonious Prosperity

In 2005, during the Central Chinese TV (CCTV) Spring Festival Gala (Chunjie Lianhuan Wanhui 春节联欢晚会)—the most watched television event in the Chinese calendar, and arguably an annual moment of celebratory national unity—one of the featured dance performances was called 'Grand Celebration of the Prosperous Age' (Shengshi dalianhuan 盛世大联欢).

Fig.1 'Demolition and Forced Relocation' (Chaiqian 拆迁), by Guo Jian 郭健, Beijing, 2011, diorama. Click image to enlarge. (Source: Courtesy of the artist)

'Demolition and Forced Relocation: It's a battle. We have been entertained into fearlessness; there is naught, neither straight nor bent. Wanton arrogance is undone by its own machines of destruction' (拆迁就是一场战争。 娱乐让我们无所畏惧，曲直不明，放肆和骄横终将被自己的挖掘机掘烂).—The Artist

Two years later, during his 2007 visit to the mainland the Taiwanese-based rapscallion historian and writer Li Ao 李敖 declared in a speech at Tsinghua University in Beijing that China was enjoying its first true Prosperous Age shengshi 盛世 since the Han and Tang dynasties (ever the contrarian Li pointedly overlooked the zenith of the Manchu-Qing). Also in that year, but rather in the paeans heaped on the Seventeenth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, a song performed by the nationally famous singer Song Zuying 宋祖英 chimed that China was now 'Walking Towards an Harmonious Prosperous Age' (Zou xiang hexie shengshi 走向和谐盛世).[2]

As the self-congratulatory accolades for the party-state have filled the Chinese media in recent years it is perhaps relevant to ask, just what is meant by the expression 'Prosperous Age'? The following is a shorthand, popular definition of the term 'Prosperous Age' shengshi 盛世 as it is presently used in the People's Republic:

A nation can be said to be enjoying a Prosperous Age when it has realized certain achievements both in terms of its domestic affairs and international politics.
Internally it features: economic prosperity; scientific and technological advancement; intellectual creativity and a cultural efflorescence;
On the international scene it features: military might; booming trade and considerable influence.
The general definition of a Prosperous Age includes the following measures:

Unparalleled military strength;
Unsurpassed economic prosperity;
Unsullied political life;
Unprecedented scientific and technological advancement; and,
Previously unmatched international exchanges.

盛世，即一个国家内政外交均有建树时的状况：

内政方面：经济繁荣，科技发达，思想活跃，文化昌盛；
外交方面：军事强大，贸易繁荣，影响力大等等。

盛世的界定，一般来说为以下标准：

军事空前强大
经济空前繁荣
政治空前清明
科技空前发达
对外交流空前活跃[1]

Even before the various official and semi-official acknowledgements of China's entry into a new 'prosperous age'—the first self-proclaimed era of egregious prosperity since the Kang-Yong-Qian 康雍乾 golden century of the High Qing (c.1680s to 1790s)—advertisers were already using the ancient expression shengshi to hawk their products. In the world of mercantile boosterism, for example, the Shanghai Tobacco Company which produces 'Double Happiness' (Shuangxi 双喜) brand cigarettes, used the advertising tag 'Prosperous China, Double Happiness Comes A'knocking' (Shengshi Zhonghua, Shuangxi lin men 盛世中华，双喜临门) when China successfully bid to host the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai.

Qing Redux

More significantly, it was initially historians of Qing dynastic history who, as early as 2001, called for a project aimed at producing a new history of China's last dynastic empire. In particular Dai Yi 戴逸 and Li Wenhai 李文海 made a case for the project in the leading mainland Qing history journal under the title 'An Age of Prosperity, an Incomparable Work in the Contemporary Era'.[3] In both this, and a speech made by the elderly scholars Ren Jiyu 任继愈 and Ji Xianlin 季羡林,[4] the historians argued that there was a need to produce a definitive history of the defunct dynasty. They pointed out the problematic nature of the Draft History of the Qing (Qingshi Gao 清史稿) compiled in the early years of the Republic of China by former Qing scholar-officials, and they reminded their audience of attempts to launch a major scholastic project devoted to Qing history in the early years of the People's Republic, again in the 1960s and once more following the initiation of the post-Cultural Revolution Reform and Open Door era.

But the discussion about a new history of the Qing was far from being merely academic. For as those attuned to the revival of interest in late-imperial Chinese history are aware, issues revolving around national unity, power, territorial integrity and global sway are today discussed in terms not of revolution but rather of empire. The proponents of the compilation of a new history of the Qing were also mindful of the revival of public interest in the last dynastic empire during the 1990s, as well as the declaration by the Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin in 2001 that the Communist Party was leading the 'grand renaissance/revival/fuxing of the Chinese nation' (Zhonghua minzu weidade fuxing 中华民族伟大的复兴).

Crucially important for students of historiography and of contemporary China was the contribution that a major project on the Qing could make to nation building for the Communist Party. As Zhao Ma, a history professor at SUNY Fredonia, noted in a 2008 overview of the new history project:

From their [the Qing historians Dai Yi and Li Wenhai, et al] point of view this project is important primarily because of the Qing's relevance to contemporary China. They argued that the roots of some of the domestic and international problems that China faces today are part of the Qing legacy; and the Qing government's success and failure in addressing these problems could offer some invaluable historical lessons.[6]

Flourishing China, Myths and Realities: a Forum

Since its creation in 2005 China Heritage Quarterly has been vitally interested in the interplay between heritage issues, history, culture and contemporary China. Under the rubric of New Sinology we have pursued our investigation into the complex nexus of past and present in a way that we hope helps illuminate both. We consider the present era of revivals in Chinese history—revivals that embrace the dynastic, the republican and earlier periods of the People's Republic—while understanding the shifting demands of the contemporary, and encouraging an understanding of how historical resonance can enrich as well as encumber the present. This approach is underpinned by broader humanistic concerns, rather than by evanescent academic or current affairs priorities.

This issue of China Heritage Quarterly brings together a number of historians to address the topic of 'Shengshi Zhongguo 盛世中国 Flourishing China, myths and realities'. Their remarks originally featured at a roundtable at the annual conference of The Association for Asian Studies (AAS). That forum, held in Honolulu on 31 March 2011, was the result of the best kind of intellectual discussion—one initiated over good food and wine. That earlier exchange had taken place following a workshop on knowledge production and Chinese Studies organized by our colleague Wen-hsin Yeh at the Berkeley campus of the University of California in May 2010. Wen-hsin closed the discussions with a meditation on writing Chinese history today in the international academy, its prospects, its limitations and its possibilities. She encouraged us all to contemplate the trajectories of historiography as the Chinese academy grew in prominence and volubility; she asked us to consider too how our own practice as researchers and educators would embrace what should, by all accounts, be the intellectual rise of China, one concomitant with its burgeoning global economic status.

On our last evening together, a few of us—Wen-hsin, Bill Kirby (Harvard University), Tim Cheek (University of British Columbia) and myself—went up into the Napa Valley to visit wineries and share a meal. It was then that, in light of Wen-hsin more formal peroration at the workshop and in consideration of remarks made by Bill from his perspective as someone working for Harvard in Shanghai, and from mine as the founder of a new research centre in Australia, that we discussed the commemorative year of 2011 and issues to do with China's vaunted new shengshi 盛世 (prosperous or golden age) and what it might mean for thinking about China's past, writing history and teaching it today.

That conversation built on an earlier discussion involving Yeh Wen-hsin, Tim Cheek and myself, in concert with Gloria Davies (Monash University) during an August 2007 conference in Melbourne around the theme of 'Chinese Visions' (for the 'provocation' that set the scene for that gathering, see here). In putting together a proposal for the 2011 AAS Forum, we framed our discussion in the following terms:

In recent times there has been considerable discussion of the rise and fall of great nations and empires. Ideas related to emerging and declining powers have exercised popular commentators and scholars both in China and elsewhere. As the new century unfolds amidst waves of economic change and political realignment it is not surprising that old debates about empire and prosperity, overreach and decay should be rekindled by new participants, as well as garnering academic attention. Strong unified states, and their opponents, often project national narratives in terms of historical destiny. We believe that the urgency of these discussions in the public realm should also give academics pause to consider contending narratives and their historiographic underpinnings.

Fig.2 Guo Jian, 'Demolition', diorama detail

On the eve of the centennial commemoration of the Xinhai Revolution 辛亥革命 of 1911 and the founding of China's first republic we think that it is timely to re-consider ideas related to 'flourishing ages' in Chinese history—be they imperial, modern or contemporary.

This proposed roundtable took as its theme 'Shengshi Zhongguo, Flourishing China: myths and realities'. We invited our colleagues Gloria Davies, Klaus Mühlhahn (Indiana University) and Mark Elliott (Harvard University) to join our deliberations and with their help we bracketed out considerations with two works that address the promise of and the nascent threats to a flourishing world or a prosperous age. These were Zheng Guanying's 1893 Words of Warning to a Prosperous Age (Shengshi weiyan, 鄭觀應《盛世危言》), which appeared on the eve of the Sino-Japanese War. It is a book that had an impact on the 1898 Reforms initiated by the Guangxu emperor of the Qing dynasty. The second work was Chan Koon-chung's 陳冠中 sardonic novel, In an Age of Prosperity: China 2013 (Shengshi Zhongguo, 2013《盛世 中國。2013》, the authorized English translation translates the title as The Fat Years), which tells a story set in near-future Beijing, capital of regnant harmony (for a review of this latter book, see Linda Jaivin, 'Yawning Heights' in the June 2010 issue of China Heritage Quarterly). Both works were concerned with the much-celebrated concept of 'the flourishing age', and its obverse, dystopia, as well as the incipient threat of precipitous change.

In considering this 120-year period on the eve of the centenary of the Xinhai Revolution, we were mindful that various moments in modern Chinese history had offered the promise of transformed socio-political conditions. For example, the New Culture Movement (1917-27)—a period eventually celebrated variously as a 'renaissance' and an 'enlightenment' (one is reminded that Sun Yat-sen called his group the China Renaissance Society, and that Hu Shi called the New Culture era a Chinese Renaissance)—was a time in which many of the major questions related to Chinese modernity and its global presence were clearly articulated. Similarly, the Nanking Decade (1928-37) would be seen as a period of rapid change and efflorescence. For a moment following the Sino-Japanese War there was a possibility of a rebirth, and there is no doubt that it saw a sudden rise in intellectual contestation. The early years of the People's Republic of China proffered national revival and historic transformation. For some the Cultural Revolution would claim to fulfil a revolutionary impetus that had its origins in the republican crucible, and now there are those who hark back to High Maoism to 'recoup intellectual resources' for the country's future. The post-1978 era is now discussed as being the ultimate realisation of the long durée of reform, a process that is generally dated from the period of the Opium Wars in the nineteenth century. That time of 'passive reform' (that is an openness forced on China under the threat of arms and as a result of trade demands) was frustrated by systemic, social, political, international and cultural factors. Meanwhile, since the late 1980s, democratic change in Taiwan has presented a practical realisation of the hopes of the early Republic of China.

Fig.3 Guo Jian, 'Demolition', diorama detail

Five Hundred Years: Flourishing and Decline

In outlining our AAS Forum we suggested that this was an initial discussion, one of a series of reconsiderations of Chinese history from the mid-sixteenth century which will engage with the theme of 'flourishing and decline' (xingshuai 興衰). For many historians, it is this timescape of approximately five hundred years that mature considerations of China's social, economic, cultural and political trajectory, as well as its regional and global context, should be best be undertaken. Of course, we are also reminded of the pre-Qin philosopher Mencius well-known remarks about the rise of a true sovereign and illustrious figures occurring every five hundred years:

When Mencius left Qi, Chong Yu questioned him upon the way, saying, 'Master, you look like one who carries an air of dissatisfaction in his countenance. But formerly I heard you say—"The superior man does not murmur against Heaven, nor grudge against men."'
Mencius said, 'That was one time, and this is another. It is a rule that a true royal sovereign should arise in the course of five hundred years, and that during that time there should be men illustrious in their generation. From the commencement of the Zhou dynasty till now, more than seven hundred years have elapsed. Judging numerically, the date is past. Examining the character of the present time, we might expect the rise of such individuals in it. But Heaven does not yet wish that the kingdom should enjoy tranquility and good order. If it wished this, who is there besides me to bring it about? How should I be otherwise than dissatisfied?'
—Trans. James Legge with modification]

孟子《公孫醜下》中雲：'孟子去齊，充虞路問曰："夫子若有不豫色然。前日虞聞諸夫子曰：'君子不怨天，不尤人。"'曰：'彼一時，此一時也。五百年必有王者興，其間必有名世者。由周而來，七百有餘歲矣。以其數，則過矣；以其時考之，則可矣。夫天未欲平治天下也，如欲平治天下，當今之世，捨我其誰也？吾何為不豫哉？'（孟子, 公孫醜下 十二）

In its more traditional modality, the ideal shengshi was regarded as an age of good rule and social quietude that would be hard won; an age that usually followed a period of corrupt government, turmoil, disunity, the collapse of moral standards and social chaos. The most commonly extolled prosperous ages in Chinese history are: that of the early Han dynasty; that of the Zhenguan and Kaiyuan reigns of the Tang; and the era of the Three Emperors (Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong) of the Qing dynasty. A range of other shengshi-like periods have been codified as part of China's historical repertoire by modern writers. Rather extensive the list claims that 'golden ages' are said to have occurred during: the Shang, Eastern Zhou, Western Han, Eastern Han, Tang, Song, Ming and Qing eras (武丁中興 (商朝), 成康之治 (西周), 文景之治、昭宣中興 (西漢), 光武中興、明章之治 (東漢), 貞觀之治、永徽之治、開元盛世 (唐朝), 洪武之治、永樂盛世、仁宣之治 (明朝)，康乾盛世 (清朝) ). Few would deny that ages of prosperity have often been realized at a high human cost.

As we note in the Features section of this issue of China Heritage Quarterly, a Prosperous Age once declared is not necessarily universally celebrated. Apart from the reflections of colleagues on the topic based on presentations at the AAS forum in March 2011, we feature a selection of articles on the subject of the Prosperous Age from Chinese-language sources. This material is drawn from the CIW-Danwei Online Archive established by the Australian Centre on China in the World in 2010.

Questionable Prosperity

In the present discussion of Prosperous China, we are in particular interested in the long-term recalibration of the history of the Qing, the Republic of China and the People's Republic in the context of China's political stability and economic prosperity, as well as in consideration of its prominence on the international stage. Some of the issues of relevance to our initial March 2011 discussion were:

How does, or should, the articulation of a Prosperous Age in official, popular and academic Chinese culture affect thinking about Chinese history, and its place in world history since the end of the last celebrated era of shengshi?

If, indeed, the contemporary celebration of a Prosperous Age indentifies vital continuities between the Qianlong era (or more broadly the Qing dynasty) and today, then what are the facets of that period that receive particular attention—political, geopolitical, social, cultural, intellectual? And within this trans-historical comparison of shengshi some commentators in China have argued that just as the Kang-Yong-Qian Three Emperors period contained within it the seeds of dynastic decline, does not the vaunted 'golden age' of the People's Republic not also present symptoms of systemic crisis?

How do narratives, popular and academic related to the rise, fall and rise of empires that has been common in China and more broadly in the last decade or so, influence our writing and thinking about Chinese history? How does this play in to discourses that describe Chinese history still in terms of 'cycles' and 'return'?

Does the articulation of a shengshi, no matter how it is defined in historical terms, or an 'Harmonious Prosperous Age' (hexie shengshi 和谐盛世) to employ the formula du jour, allow for a rewriting of history or a 're-orientation' as Gunder Franke suggested many years ago?

From the 2006 TV series 'The Rise of Great Powers' series (Daguo Jueqi 大国崛起),[7] to mass-market works by writers such as Martian Jacques (When China Rules the World, 2009) and Niall Ferguson (Civilisation: The West and the Rest, 2011), which appeal to readers not only internationally but particularly in China—how do such broad narratives stand in the context of teaching about China today? (Of even more recent relevance is Francis Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution, New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2011.)

How are the legacies of people like Zheng Guanying—a man with both a successful history in industry and trade and a popular impact as a thinker—feature in the Chinese world today? In terms of the role of the 'intellectual' (or rather the engaged writer/thinker) how do similar figures feature in creating contemporary narratives of China that engage with the work of historians and theorists?

One of the most celebrated 'golden ages' or shengshi in Chinese history is that of the Zhenguan 貞觀 reign period of the Tang dynasty (627-49CE), a time when Taizong 太宗 (Li Shimin 李世民) was advised by the fearless Wei Zheng 魏徵. If, taking the view that traditional tropes overlap with lived contemporary reality, a mark of wise rule and a true shengshi is fearless criticism of power, then how is China's 'harmonious shengshi' to be understood in historic terms, as well as in the context of Chinese revivalism?

In his 2010 book on renaissances Jack Goody identifies three elements leading to renaissances or rebirths in cultures over the last millennium: 1. A revival of classical knowledge; 2. Partial secularization; and, 3. An economic and social transformation. Goody further posits that 'all literate societies have periods of looking back, when the old is re-established sometimes with a renewed burst of energy, leading to a flowering of the culture. They have also periods when the religious element is played down, leading to humanistic episodes that provide humans with greater freedom, both in science and the arts.'[8] How does such a view sit with the realities of the ideological protectionism of the People's Republic, its guided media, its circumscribed academic discourse and the tireless policing of opinion on- and offline? Can these all be understood, elided or excused as part of a narrative of Chinese exceptionalism?

This issue of China Heritage Quarterly offers some disparate considerations of these and other issues. Our exchanges on this topic will continue. Importantly, we note that a range of writers in China see a profound disconnect between the material wealth of a rising China and its deficit as a modern civilization (for some details, see 'New Words of Warning in a Prosperous Age' in the present issue). The Shanghai-based intellectual historian Xu Jilin, whose work has often appeared in this journal, is one of the most outspoken of these thinkers (see Gloria Davies' essay in Features).[9]

Issues raised in Xu's work will feature at our next gathering, a workshop on the theme of 'Universal Norms and Dangerous Values' to be held at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in September 2011. Details of those discussions will feature in a workshop report in the September issue of this journal.

Notes:

[1] See: http://baike.soso.com/v538859.htm.

[2] From the CIW-Danwei Online Archive. See also: http://hi.baidu.com/wsgd/blog/item/b842d02ac110e792033bf6fa.html/cmtid/545274cf48342931f9dc610b. The lyrics of the song are such that we fell that we are justified in reproducing them here:

走向和谐盛世

谭仲池　词
龙伟华　曲

　　挽起高山
　　挽起江河
　　挽起五千年文明的民族
　　你的心中百姓是天
　　你的深情胜似雨露
　　光辉的旗帜和蓝图一样灿烂
　　科学发展
　　帷幄运筹
　　战胜挑战
　　铸造世纪辉煌
　　中华崛起
　　沧海横流
　　我们继往开来
　　创造美好生活
　　阳光中国遍地锦绣
　　新的起点铺展康庄大道
　　潮涌大地
　　花团锦簇
　　我们满怀憧憬走向和谐盛世
　　阳光生活
　　永远风流
　　拥抱热土
　　拥抱日月
　　拥抱辽阔富饶的神州
　　你让春天万紫千红
　　你教未来光耀宇宙
　　伟大的祖国和梦想一起腾飞
　　人民江山
　　天高地厚
　　战胜挑战
　　铸造世纪辉煌
　　中华崛起
　　沧海横流
　　我们继往开来创造美好生活
　　阳光中国
　　遍地锦绣
　　新的起点铺展康庄大道
　　潮涌大地
　　花团锦簇
　　我们满怀憧憬走向和谐盛世
　　阳光生活
　　永远风流

[3] 戴逸, 李文海, '一代盛世，旷世巨典——关于大型清史的编纂', Studies in Qing History (Qingshi yanjiu 清史研究), 3 (2001). Dai and Li's remarks are worth reproducing here in full:

一代盛世　旷世巨典——关于大型清史的编纂

中国有"易代修史"的传统。一个朝代灭亡以后，后继的新朝代为了总结历史，借鉴往事，吸取经验教训，都要给上一个朝代编纂历史。宋修唐史，元修宋史，明修元史，清修明史，这一修史的优良传统绵延不断，经久未绝，两千多年来积累了丰富浩瀚的二十六史和其他汗牛充栋的历史著作，构成我国珍贵的历史文化遗产。

现在，清朝被推翻已经整整九十年了，但至今还没有一部较为理想的大型清史。1914年，北洋政府曾开设清史馆，编撰清史，历时14年，至 1927年完成536卷《清史稿》。此书刊行以来，议论纷起。由于参加编撰的人大多是清朝的遗老遗少，忠于清廷，故而在不少重大问题上记载失实，评论不公，如把徐锡麟、秋瑾、熊成基等革命烈士斥为乱匪，而对端方、志锐、陆钟琦等因抗拒革命而被击毙的清朝官员大加褒扬，说他们"慷慨捐躯，从容就义，示天下以大义"。还有在记载民国元年成立中华民国临时政府时，只书其事，而不书临时大总统孙中山之名。这种立场、观点当然不能为世人所接受。故国民党统治时代，《清史稿》被列为禁书。平心而论，《清史稿》是以前清国史馆的资料、稿本为基础，提纲挈领，删繁就简，囊括三百年史事，历时颇久，用功甚勤，有相当的学术价值，未可一笔抹煞，但存在严重的政治缺陷。且编纂时，清宫所藏历史档案尚未为世人共知，故没有利用丰富的档案史料，这就大大影响了此书的质量。国民党去台湾以后，亦有编纂清史之议。但它偏居一隅，无心作此巨大的文化工程，又缺乏修史的专门人才，故仅把《清史稿》稍作修订，没有进行大规模的修史工作。

中华人民共和国成立以后，中央的领导人曾提出编纂清史的建议与设想，由于种种原因，此项工作亦未能启动。建国之初，董必武同志向中共中央建议编写两部书，一部是清史，一部是中国共产党史，此建议得到许多领导人的赞同。但建国之初，百废待兴，还顾不上修史工作，故而搁置下来。1959年周恩来总理委托吴晗同志考虑编纂清史的规划，吴晗有一个较宏大的设想，拟设立清史馆，先从培养清史研究人才和大规模征集整理清史史料开始。他向戴逸谈过设想并征求意见。田家英同志对修史最为热心，有意亲自撰写清史，他收集了大量清人的墨迹和史料作为修史的准备。60年代初毛主席在和范文澜同志的一次谈话中说：自己退居第二线，管的事情少了，空闲时间多了，想读一点清史方面的书。可见，清史和编纂清史工作在中央领导人中受到极大的关注。1965年秋，周恩来总理责成中央宣传部筹备此工作，中宣部为此召开部长会议，决定设立清史编纂委员会，作为编纂清史的领导机构，委员由七人组成：郭影秋（时任中国人民大学副校长）、关山复（时任中国科学院哲学社会科学部主任）、尹达、刘大年、刘导生、佟冬、戴逸。并在中国人民大学内成立清史研究所作为编纂大型清史的执行机构。但这次会议以后仅两个月，姚文元抛出了批判吴晗同志《海瑞罢官》的文章，揭开了文化大革命的序幕，酝酿多年的编纂大型清史工作化为泡影，而且成为中宣部和郭影秋干扰和对抗文化大革命的一项罪行。文革中，中国人民大学被"四人帮"勒令解散，教师分散到其他学校，郭影秋同志为了保存已在中国人民大学集合的一些清史研究力量，于1973年建议成立清史研究小组，暂时附设在北京师范大学内。至1978年中国人民大学复校，清史研究所复归到人大。80年代初，有人写信给邓小平同志，建议国家纂修清史，小平同志将这封信批转到中国社会科学院。此时，国家正在制订社会科学的"六五"规划，清史是历史规划中最重要的项目。本拟先写一部清代人物传和一部清代通史，作为整个大型清史的主要架构，此项工作一直延续到"七五"规划。当初的社科规划基金较少，资助的力度不够以及其他原因，大型清史的编纂工程未能继续实施下去。现在，已经进入21世纪，经过20多年改革开放，国家的面貌焕然一新，已在向小康社会迈进。政治稳定，经济发展，社会进步，综合国力增强，加之研究队伍壮大，学术积累丰厚，编纂大型清史已是最佳时机。此项工作启动过早或过迟，均有不利。启动过早，历史当事人很多健在，涉及个人利害关系与意见分歧，且史料未及整理，研究未及展开，卒尔命笔，质量难以保证。启动过迟，时过境迁，历史记忆已淡褪，历史细节已模糊，亦不易写成真实可信的历史。二十六史中的很多部写成在旧朝代灭亡以后大约数十年至一百年左右。现在，清朝灭亡已九十年，编纂大型清史，此其时矣。希望政府、社会、学术界共同关注此事，使此巨大的社会主义文化工程得以及时启动和顺利展开。

编纂清史不但有重大的学术价值，而且有很强的现实意义。清朝统治中国达268年之久，其前期在发展经济文化，巩固国家统一，加强民族团结等各方面有重大功绩，其政策措施，多可借鉴。中叶以后，内外矛盾尖税，实行闭关锁国，拒绝进行改革，政治日益腐败，其失误和教训，实足发人深省。"殷鉴不远，在夏后氏之世"。且清朝灭亡至今不足一百年，离我们时间最近，对现实生活影响最大，和当前的政治、经济、军事、外交、民族、文化等各个方面息息相关。要了解和掌握中国的国情，根据中国的国情来建设有中国特色的社会主义，非对清代历史进行深入研究不可，因此很有必要编纂出一部网罗各方面史事，详尽完备、篇幅较大的清史来。江泽民同志曾经指出："我们党在领导革命、建设和改革过程中，一贯重视历史经验的借鉴和运用。"又说："一个民族如果忘记了自己的历史，就不可能深刻地了解现在和正确地走向未来。"修纂清史的重大意义，也正是在这里。

最近，曾自女士写了一段她的父亲田家英同志关于编纂清史的谈话，值得我们一读。

"妈妈（指田家英夫人董边）清楚地记得，50年代，在一次她和父亲一起去王府井古旧书店买书的路上，父亲讲了一段话给她留下深刻的印象。当父亲谈到治学时，他认为治学不应脱离现实社会，多年研究中国近代史，使他形成了一个看法，他认为清朝是一个很有代表性的朝代，可以说是集封建社会之大成，了解清代历史，可以了解中国封建社会的特点，而我们从新民主主义社会转向社会主义社会，不研究中国的过去，不了解中国的特点是搞不好的。早在延安，他就有志写一部《清史》，现在条件比过去好多了，只是工作太忙，不可能集中精力写，但可以着手收集资料，为日后的写作和研究作准备。他告诉妈妈，他的这种想法和认识曾和毛主席谈过，得到了主席的首肯"（《中国政协》2000年第九期，曾自：《田家英的收藏情结》）。

我们今天要写一部怎样的清史？其体例、体裁、部件、篇幅需要全国的专家学者共同讨论，各抒己见，集思广益，拟定一个比较完善而可行的方案。清史的编纂既是继承和发扬我国修史的传统，应该和已有的二十六史相衔接，吸收已有史书的优点，但清代后期已从封建社会向近代社会跨进，历史内容和单纯的封建社会很不相同，修史的体例、体裁、方法不能不变化，应该超越前史，有所创新。为了讨论的方便，提出初步想法，大型清史可否考虑设置以下部件。

一、编年。编年以纪史事，按时间为序，取代二十六史中为帝王作传的本纪。
　　二、传记。网罗268年之历史人物，分别作传。这是大型清史的主体部分。篇幅最多，相当于旧史中的列传。
　　三、通史。按今日章节式之体裁，写成有清一代之通史。篇幅不必过大而观点须鲜明，叙事需准确，文字需通畅。具有高度的概括性、科学性，取其系统全面，简明可读，为旧史所无之新增部分。
　　四、专史。分门别类，叙述清代政治、经济、军事、外交、民族、思想文化、科技、文学、艺术等各方面之发展，篇幅不下于数十种，取代旧史中的"志"。
　　五、表。各种史表，如世系表、职官表等。
　　六、图。地图与其他图籍，可否收录照片，待议。
　　七、纪。清代268年中，包括南明和太平天国，二者各有其政权，各有其历史，各有其典章制度。如何记述，可否另设《南明纪》、《太平天国纪》，分别叙述。又清代关外部分，可否设立《清史前纪》。
　　八、清史著述书目。

总之，欲编纂清史，必须有工作计划与方案，先定部件与纲目，发凡起例，事体重大，必须全国专家学者共同商议，广泛吸收意见，冀可臻于完善。

当年，在中国人民大学内设立清史研究所，即是为了编纂大型清史。三十五年来，这一巨大的文化工程虽然迟迟未能正式启动，但清史研究所一直坚持这一工作方向和目标，黾勉以赴，矢志不渝，为大型清史的编纂作准备。大型清史，工程浩大，部件众多，不可能毕其功于一役，必需把各个部件分解开来，采取蚂蚁啃骨头的办法，逐个部件，分期分批，撰写完成。这个办法，持之以恒，已见成效，二十年来，清史研究所与其他单位合作，已完成了许多研究成果，包括《清通鉴》268卷，《清史编年》12卷，《清代人物传稿》37卷，以及大量资料的整理编纂，这些成果可以作为今后修史的准备和基础。

"盛世修史"这在文化史上具有重大意义。我们现在说到历代的文化工程，唐代就会提到《五经正义》和修纂六史（二十六史中的《晋书》、《梁书》、《陈书》、《北齐书》、《周书》、《隋书》），这些都完成于唐初的贞观盛世。宋代就会提到《文苑英华》、《册府元龟》、《太平御览》、《唐会要》以及《新唐书》、《新五代史》、《资治通鉴》，这些典籍都成于北宋前期政治较安定的宋太祖至宋神宗年间。明代就会提到《元史》和《永乐大典》，二书成于明太祖、明成祖国力最强大之日，清代就会提到《古今图书集成》、《四库全书》和《明史》，这些都在康熙、雍正、乾隆的盛世所编纂。我们这一代人幸值国家由衰转盛开始腾飞之时，将以什么样的文化工程传留给后世？当然，编纂《清史》、《中华民国史》、《中国共产党史》应是21世纪历史学界光荣的使命和义不容辞的责任。

编纂清史是一项艰巨的文化工程，要有政、府和社会的支持和参与。既要有一定的经费、编制，又要组织和协调各方面的专家学者共同努力，如军事史要依靠军事史家，经济史要依靠经济史家，科技史要依靠科技史家，要有学术界、文博界、档案界、科技界、出版界的协同配合，还要邀请台湾与海外学人参加编撰与讨论。任何个人或单位难以承担这一繁复的组织领导工作。历代修史都是政府主持，以政府首脑领衔，如唐初六史的修撰，以宰相魏征、房玄龄、　遂良等领衔，有学者姚思廉、李延寿，颜师古、李淳风等参与;清修明史由大学士张廷玉领衔，有史学家万斯同、王鸿绪参与，《四库全书》的浩大工程以永、永璇、永三位皇子和大学士刘统勋、刘纶、舒赫德、阿桂等领衔，有学者纪昀、周永年、陆锡熊、陆费墀、戴震、邵晋涵、任大椿、翁方纲等参加。这样的修史班子具有政治和学术上的权威性，便于创造修史的条件，动员和协调各方面力量，研究和解决编纂中的疑难和问题。如果组织有力，条件具备，队伍齐心，规划妥善，不难于二十年内完成编纂大型清史此一代之盛事、旷世之巨典。

[4] 任继愈, 季羡林, '在 "清史" 编纂座谈会上的讲话', Studies in Qing History (Qingshi yanjiu 清史研究), 3 (2001). For the text of Ren and Ji's remarks, see: http://www.lw23.com/paper_73773031/.

[5] For the official site of the project, see: http://www.qinghistory.cn/cns/qszx/index.shtml.

[6] From Zhao Ma, 'Research Trends in Asia: "Writing History During a Prosperous Age": The New Qing History Project', Late Imperial China, vol.29, no.1 (June 2008): 120-45, at pp.121-22.

[7] See: http://finance.cctv.com/special/C16860/01/; and, http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/11/the-rise-of-great-nations-eastsouthwestnorth/.

[8] Jack Goody, Renaissances: the one or the many?, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp.8-9 & 5 respectively.

[9] See 许纪霖，《普世文明，还是中国价值？——近十年中国历史主义思潮之批判》，原载《开放时代》杂志，2010年第5期 online at: http://blog.tianya.cn/blogger/post_read.asp?BlogID=1744388&PostID=25207362; 《中国要的是什么样的文明崛起？》, online at: http://www.qunxue.net/Article/TypeArticle.asp?ModeID=1&ID=7057; and,《中国发展不能自外世界主流文明》, online at: http://www.360doc.com/content/11/0311/10/5045244_100115280.shtml.