Cheng Jing’s Marxist Historiographical Research

Cheng Jing (1902–1950) was an important forerunner of Chinese Marxist historiography. In the early 1920s he already accepted historical materialism, and from 1928 to 1933, guided by historical materialism, he published a series of articles on Chinese social history, advancing views on social formations such as primitive society evolving from the group to the clan, the Yin-Shang clan society, the Western Zhou feudal society, and the Eastern Zhou and post-Qin periods as a disguised form of feudal society. Cheng Jing’s research path was not only basically consistent with that of Guo Moruo and Lü Zhenyu, but also no later than theirs in terms of research timing. In addition, he devoted himself to “a history of Chinese philosophy from the perspective of historical materialism,” not only exploring pre-Qin philosophical history from the angle of the relationship between thought and doctrine and the historical era, but also examining the history of modern Chinese philosophy from the perspective of intellectual origins and evolution. This is close to the basic principles and methods of Hou Wailu’s research on Chinese intellectual history. Therefore, Cheng Jing can be counted among the ranks of the forerunners of Chinese Marxist historiography.

程憬（1902—1950年）是中国马克思主义史学的重要先行者，20世纪20年代初期即接受唯物史观，又在1928年至1933年以唯物史观为指导，相继发表关于中国社会史的系列文章，提出了由群到氏族的原始社会、殷商氏族社会、西周封建社会、东周及秦以后是变相的封建社会等有关社会形态的观点。程憬的这一研究路径不仅与郭沫若、吕振羽基本一致，而且在研究时间上也不晚于他们。此外，他致力于“唯物史观之中国哲学史”，不仅从思想学说与历史时代的关系角度对先秦哲学史进行探讨，还从思想渊源和演变的角度考察中国近世哲学史。这与侯外庐研究中国思想史的基本原则和方法接近。因此，程憬能够跻身中国马克思主义史学先行者的行列。

Cheng Jing’s research path and achievements attracted considerable attention in the Republican-era academic world. For example, Gu Jiegang highly praised Cheng Jing’s “The Clan Society of the Shang People,” saying it “gained a profound and clear understanding of the history of the Shang people.” Hu Houxuan emphasized: “Cheng Jing was the first to apply historical materialism, based on oracle bone inscriptions, to argue that the Shang dynasty was a clan society.” However, contemporary academia has not given sufficient attention to or assessment of his academic achievements. Only in recent years did the compiler of *The Collected Works of Cheng Jing* succinctly point out that Cheng Jing, “under the guidance of historical materialism, conducted an extraordinary study of ancient Chinese history from the perspective of social life,” and “understood traditional philosophy through materialism.” This judgment shows some insight, but the compiler did not elaborate specifically, and Cheng Jing’s study of ancient history was not limited to the perspective of social life, nor was his understanding of traditional philosophy confined to materialism. Therefore, this article intends to outline, from the perspective of intellectual history, the course of Cheng Jing’s path toward Chinese Marxist historiography, and then examine his academic achievements in related fields of Chinese Marxist historiography, in order to objectively assess his position in the history of Chinese Marxist historiography.

对于程憬的研究路径及成就，民国学界颇为关注。例如，顾颉刚高度评价程憬的《商民族的氏族社会》，“对于商民族的历史得到深彻的明了”。胡厚宣强调：“程憬首先应用唯物史观，根据甲骨文，说商朝是氏族社会。”但是，当代学界未能对其学术成就予以充分的关注与估量。直至近年，《程憬文存》的整理者才言简意赅地指出，程憬“在唯物史观的指引下，从社会生活的角度对中国古代史进行了非同寻常的研究”，并“以唯物论来理解传统哲学”。这一评断有一定见识，但这位整理者未作出具体阐述，且程憬的古代史研究并不限于社会生活的角度，其对传统哲学的理解也不限于唯物论。因此，本文拟从学术史的角度勾勒程憬走向中国马克思主义史学之路的历程，进而考察他在中国马克思主义史学相关领域取得的学术成就，以期客观估定其在中国马克思主义史学史上的地位。

I. Embarking on the Path of Marxist Historiographical Research

一、走上马克思主义史学的研究之路

The rise of the New Culture Movement, especially the outbreak of the May Fourth Movement, brought new vitality to Chinese thought and culture. Cheng Jing grew up precisely in this era. In the spring of 1920, he was admitted to the then-renowned Zhejiang First Normal School. Influenced by the new trends within the school, he joined the Chenguang Society literary group, published vernacular poetry, and together with Hu Guanying, Cao Chengying, Hu Siyong, and other Chenguang Society members, jointly wrote to Hu Shi, hoping he would “quickly change *Endeavor* to be like *Weekly Review*,” so that “on the one hand it discusses politics, and on the other hand it discusses various issues in literature, thought, and other aspects.” This proposal also received a positive response from Hu Shi.

新文化运动的兴起，尤其是五四运动的爆发，使得中国思想文化呈现新气象。程憬正是在这种时代背景下成长的。1920年春，他考入当时颇负盛名的浙江第一师范学校。受校内新思潮影响，他参加了晨光社文学团体，发表白话诗作，还与胡冠英、曹诚英、胡思永等晨光社成员联名致信胡适，希望“赶快把《努力》改照《每周评论》一样”，“一方面谈政治，一方面谈文艺和思想方面的种种问题”。这一提议也得到胡适的积极回应。

However, Cheng Jing did not subsequently devote himself specifically to the creation of new literature; instead, he followed Hu Shi in turning to the study of the history of Chinese philosophy. As is well known, after Hu Shi advocated “literary revolution” and thereby stirred popular culture, he publicly published *An Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy* in 1919, impacting elite culture. The study of the history of Chinese philosophy then became all the rage. In 1923, Cheng Jing followed Hu Shi north to pursue his studies, gradually developing a strong interest in the study of the history of Chinese philosophy.

不过，程憬此后并没有专门致力于新文学的创作，而是跟随胡适转向中国哲学史研究。如所周知，胡适继提倡“文学革命”而触动通俗文化后，又于1919年公开出版《中国哲学史大纲》，冲击上层文化。中国哲学史研究遂风靡一时。1923年，程憬跟随胡适北上求学，逐渐对中国哲学史研究产生了浓厚的兴趣。

After going north, Cheng Jing gradually came into contact with Marxism. While auditing classes in the English Department at Peking University, he read the works of classical Marxist writers and related studies, and began to “believe in and uphold historical materialism.” In 1926, he published “A Brief Explanation of Historical Materialism,” which systematically expounded historical materialism from aspects such as “changes in technology and economy,” “the determining force of the means of production,” “productive forces and relations of production,” “the relationship between material productive forces and social organization,” “the material explanation of human spiritual life,” and “necessitarianism and individual effort,” to a certain extent promoting the dissemination of historical materialism at that time.

北上之后，程憬逐渐接触到马克思主义。他在北京大学英文系旁听时，阅读了马克思主义的经典作家著作及相关研究，并开始“信持唯物史观”。1926年，他发表《唯物史观略释》，从“技术和经济的变化”“生产机关的决定力”“生产力和生产关系”“物质生产力和社会组织的关系”“人类精神生活的物质说明”“必然论和个人的努力”等方面对唯物史观进行了较为系统的阐发，在一定程度上助推了唯物史观在当时的传播。

Through his exposure to Marxist theory, Cheng Jing also began to attempt to break through the empirical paradigm of the study of the history of Chinese philosophy pioneered by Hu Shi. In September 1925, he was admitted to the Tsinghua Academy of Chinese Learning, studying under Liang Qichao. Moreover, he was “a student who brought his own skills,” and his initial research topic was set as “The Materialist View of Ancient Philosophical Thought.” According to his roommate Wu Qichang’s recollection, Cheng Jing during this period “in a five-minute conversation would always mention Marx three times,” and was regarded as a “Marxist scholar freak.” The Tsinghua Academy of Chinese Learning did not limit the number of research topics or even graduation thesis topics. Subsequently, Cheng Jing added two more research topics. In June 1926, he passed the graduation assessment with theses titled “The Philosophy of the Cheng Brothers,” “The Materialist View of Pre-Qin Philosophical History,” and “Notes on the Philosophy of the Wei-Jin Period.” Later, his published papers such as “The Philosophy of the Cheng Brothers,” “The Yin-Yang School and Ancient History,” and “The Way and Technique of Lao Dan” were all revised versions of his graduation theses.

程憬还通过接触马克思主义学说，开始尝试突破胡适开创的中国哲学史研究的实证范式。1925年9月，他考入清华国学研究院，师从梁启超。而且，他是“带艺投师”，其最初研究题目定为“上古哲学思想的唯物观”。据其室友吴其昌回忆说，这一时期的程憬“在五分钟的谈话内，总得有三声是马克斯”，被认为“马列学者的怪物”。对于研究题目乃至毕业论文题目的数量，清华国学研究院并不以一个为限。此后，程憬又增加了两个研究题目。1926年6月，他以“二程的哲学”“先秦哲学史的唯物观”“记魏晋间的哲学”作为论文题目，通过毕业考核。后来，其发表的《二程子的哲学》《阴阳家与古史》《老聃之道与术》等论文，都是在毕业论文基础上修改而成的。

After graduating from the Tsinghua Academy of Chinese Learning, Cheng Jing gradually shifted his research focus to social history. This shift was closely related to the “doubting antiquity” trend of thought in the historical circles at that time. In February 1919, Hu Shi published *An Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy*, proposing the “theory of suspending judgment on the pre-Eastern Zhou period.” In May 1923, Gu Jiegang published “A Letter to Mr. Qian Xuantong on Ancient History,” further proposing the “theory of accumulation,” sparking a powerful “doubting antiquity” trend. Cheng Jing not only understood the above views but also participated in them. In November 1926, Gu Jiegang wrote to Cheng Jing, asking “why Confucius’s doctrine was applicable to society from the Qin-Han period onward.” In December, Cheng Jing replied, answering this question from the perspective of historical materialism. Influenced by this question, Cheng Jing began to explore changes in the social formations of ancient China. In April 1927, he completed “The Situation of Social Change during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods,” embarking on the path of using Marxism to study Chinese social history.

从清华国学研究院毕业后，程憬将研究重点逐渐转向社会史研究。这一转向与当时史学界的“疑古”思潮密切相关。1919年2月，胡适出版《中国哲学史大纲》，提出“东周以前存疑论”。1923年5月，顾颉刚发表《与钱玄同先生论古史书》，进一步提出“层累说”，掀起了一场声势浩大的“疑古”思潮。程憬不仅了解上述观点，还参与其中。1926年11月，顾颉刚致函程憬，询问“孔子学说何以适用于秦汉以来的社会”。12月，程憬回信，从唯物史观的角度对这一问题作了回答。受此提问的影响，程憬开始探索中国古代社会形态的变化。1927年4月，他完成《春秋战国时代的社会变动情况》，走上运用马克思主义研究中国社会史之路。

However, unlike the scholars of the “doubting antiquity” school, who stopped at the study of post-Eastern Zhou ancient history due to “limitations of historical materials,” Cheng Jing systematically expanded his research to include pre-Eastern Zhou history. Of course, before Cheng Jing, some scholars had already initiated this research. In particular, Wang Guowei successively published “A Study of the Ancestors and Former Kings Seen in Yin Oracle Bone Inscriptions,” “A Further Study of the Ancestors and Former Kings Seen in Yin Oracle Bone Inscriptions,” and “On the Institutions of the Yin and Zhou Dynasties” in 1917, and later taught at the Tsinghua Academy of Chinese Learning in 1925, lecturing on “New Evidence for Ancient History,” greatly advancing the study of Yin-Shang history. Cheng Jing was precisely a member of the first cohort of students after Wang Guowei began teaching at the Academy, systematically attending Wang Guowei’s courses such as “New Evidence for Ancient History,” and even regarding Wang Guowei as his “former teacher.” Cheng Jing believed that Wang Guowei “used new materials and new methods to study ancient history, thereby opening up a new dimension in the study of ancient history and gaining a new path.” However, Wang Guowei’s research basically belonged to “external research.” Cheng Jing “went further to conduct internal research,” completing “The Clan Society of the Shang People” in May 1927, exploring the social nature of the Shang people from the perspective of historical materialism.

然而，程憬并没有像“疑古”派学者一样，因“史料的限制”而止步于东周以后的古史研究，而是有计划地将自己的研究扩大到东周以前的历史。当然，在程憬之前，已有学者启动了这一研究。尤其是王国维于1917年先后发表《殷卜辞中所见先公先王考》《殷卜辞中所见先公先王续考》《殷周制度论》，又于1925年任教清华国学研究院，讲授“古史新证”，极大推进了殷商史的研究。程憬正是王国维任教该院后的第一届学员，系统听过王国维的“古史新证”等课程，甚至视王国维为“先师”。程憬认为，王国维“利用新材料，新方法去研究古史，于是古史的研究遂别开生面，而获得一新途径”。不过，王国维的研究基本上属于“外部的研究”。程憬“进而作内部的研究”，于1927年5月完成《商民族的氏族社会》，从唯物史观的角度探讨了商民族的社会性质。

Thereafter, Cheng Jing continued to advance along this path, entering the field of research on the history of primitive Chinese society. He believed that in the 1920s, scholars such as Johan Gunnar Andersson, Davidson Black, and Pei Wenzhong, through archaeological surveys and research, discovered the remains of “proto-Chinese people,” causing China’s “prehistoric history—the cultures of the Stone-Copper Age and the Neolithic Age—to begin to emerge.” Subsequently, systematic excavations by the Academia Sinica, and the publication of articles such as Li Ji’s “Xiaotun and Yangshao” and Xu Zhongshu’s “Re-discussing Xiaotun and Yangshao,” gradually established “certain connections between China’s prehistoric history and the beginning of recorded history.” However, the above research still emphasized factual explanation and lacked theoretical awareness. Cheng Jing further grounded himself in historical materialism, and based on these new materials and research results, published *China’s Primitive Society* in 1933, exploring the social conditions of the prehistoric era.

此后，程憬再接再厉，继续沿着这一路径向前推进，进入中国原始社会史研究领域。他认为，20世纪20年代，安特生、步达生、裴文中等学者通过考古调查与研究，发现“原形中华人”遗骸，使得我国之“史前史——石铜时代及新石器时代之文化乃始显露”。之后，中央研究院的系统发掘，以及李济的《小屯与仰韶》、徐中舒的《再论小屯仰韶》等文章的发表，逐步使我国“之史前史与有史之初的关系已获得若干连络”。不过，上述研究尚偏重于事实的说明，缺乏理论的自觉。程憬进一步立足唯物史观，根据这些新材料与研究成果，于1933年推出《中国的原始社会》，对史前时代的社会状况进行了探讨。

As can be seen from the above, as a “New Youth” of the May Fourth period, Cheng Jing kept pace with the times and moved toward Marxism through the new trends of thought brought about by the New Culture Movement. Thereafter, he did not stop at the level of theoretical acceptance, but applied this theory to guide concrete historical research, especially research on the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of Chinese society, embarking on the path of Marxist historiography.

由上可知，作为五四时期的“新青年”，程憬紧跟时代的步伐，经由新文化运动带来的新思潮而走向马克思主义。之后，其并未停留在学理的接受层面，而是运用这一学理指导具体的历史研究，尤其是中国哲学史研究与中国社会史研究，走上马克思主义史学的研究之路。

2. An Early Application of Marxism to the Study of Chinese Social History

二、较早运用马克思主义研究中国社会史

In the history of Chinese Marxist historiography, Cheng Jing’s main contribution lies in his relatively early application of Marxism to the study of Chinese social history. From 1928 to 1933, he published several articles on Chinese social history, employing historical materialism to put forward a complete set of views on the evolution of ancient Chinese social formations from primitive society through to the post-Qin period, thereby enriching Marxist research on Chinese social history.

在中国马克思主义史学史上，程憬的主要贡献在于较早开始运用马克思主义研究中国社会史。1928年至1933年，他发表数篇关于中国社会史的文章，运用唯物史观，提出了一整套从原始社会到秦以后中国古代社会形态演变的观点，丰富了马克思主义中国社会史研究。

First, primitive Chinese society developed from the herd into the clan. In November 1928, Guo Moruo published “The Historical Stages of Development of Chinese Society,” [4]4 Guo Moruo (1892–1978), a leading Marxist historian and writer in China, published this article in the journal *Thought Monthly*. regarding the Shang dynasty and the period before it as “primitive communal society.” This study is considered to have been the first to affirm, from the perspective of historical periodization, the existence of a “primitive communal clan society,” breaking through the “maze of ‘historical skepticism.’” [5]5 A reference to the early 20th-century “Doubting Antiquity School” (yigupai) led by Gu Jiegang, which critically reexamined traditional Chinese historical narratives. In 1934, Lü Zhenyu published *Research on Prehistoric Chinese Society*, [6]6 Lü Zhenyu (1900–1980), a pioneering Chinese Marxist historian. arguing that the period before the Shang dynasty was a primitive society, and that China’s primitive communal society had successively passed through a “primitive horde” stage and a “clan society” stage. This study is regarded as having “fulfilled a pioneering task.” [7]7 A phrase commonly used in Chinese academic discourse to describe pioneering scholarly work.

首先，中国原始社会是由群发展为氏族的。1928年11月，郭沫若发表《中国社会的历史的发展阶段》，将商代与商代以前视为“原始公社社会”。这一研究被认为是首次从历史分期上肯定了“原始公社制的氏族社会”的存在，冲破了“‘历史的怀疑主义’的迷魂阵”。1934年，吕振羽出版《史前期中国社会研究》，认为商代以前是原始社会，中国原始公社制的社会顺次存在过“原始群团”阶段和“氏族社会”阶段。这一研究被认为“尽了一个开辟的任务”。

In fact, in his 1933 work “China’s Primitive Society,” Cheng Jing was among the first to apply historical materialism, using a method of mutual corroboration between old and new historical sources, to systematically explore China’s primitive society. He first relied on the archaeological findings of Andersson and others to describe “the general conditions of life of China’s primitive humans—Peking Man and the Ordos Man,” arguing that they already possessed “the ability to use fire,” could grind “crude stone tools,” and lived by “hunting and gathering.” This “form of life” determined the “superstructure” of the time, namely “a specific social relation—the ‘herd.’” By “herd,” he meant “an organization without blood ties, intermediate between the grouping of higher animals and the true ‘clan.’” He further drew on “scattered fragments and incomplete texts” from ancient Chinese books to discuss the mode of production and social organization of China’s primitive humans, arguing that as humanity entered the Neolithic Age, labor tools continuously improved, agriculture and animal husbandry gradually took shape, “human life became increasingly settled, and groups gradually expanded,” causing a change in humanity’s “labor methods” and a corresponding transformation of “social relations among people.” The most notable sign was the emergence of “villages.” Within villages, under the “principle of mutual aid,” the concept of “private ownership” had not yet arisen; “property was collectively owned,” so society was classless. However, with the expansion of groups and the emergence of public affairs, leading figures such as “chieftains (or clan heads), warriors, and shamans” appeared. In addition, he used transmitted texts to discuss “the clan system as the foundation of primitive social organization” and the “totemic” worship of nature in primitive society. In summary, he believed that “the society of primitive people developed from the ‘herd’ into the ‘clan.’” Although this study by Cheng Jing was not as deep or broad as Lü Zhenyu’s, it was not overlooked by the academic community. Not only was it excerpted and reprinted in *Book Review*, [8]8 A Chinese academic journal founded in the 1930s that published book reviews and summaries. but its views were also cited by scholars such as Yin Da and Li Dongfang. [9]9 Yin Da (1902–1980), a Chinese archaeologist and historian; Li Dongfang (1907–1998), a Chinese historian.

其实，程憬在1933年发表的《中国的原始社会》中就率先运用唯物史观，以新旧史料相互印证的方法，较为系统地探讨了中国的原始社会。他先是依藉安特生等人的古物学研究成果，阐述了“中国原始人类——北京人和河套人——的生活之大略状况”，认为他们已有“使火的能力”，能打磨“粗劣的石器”，以“游猎”为生活基础。这种“生活的形式”决定了当时的“上层建筑物”，即“一种特定的社会关系——‘群’”。所谓“群”，是“介于高等动物的结合和真正的‘氏族’之间的一种无血统关系的组织”。他又根据中国古书的“若干零文残简”进一步论述中国原始人类的生产方式与社会组织，认为随着人类进入新石器时代，劳动器具不断改进，农业、畜牧业逐渐形成，“人类的生活遂日渐安定，团体遂日渐扩大”，人类的“劳动方法”为之一变，人与人之间的“社会诸关系也随着变异”。最显著的标志便是“村落”的出现。村落中的人在“互助的原则”下，还未发生“私人所有权”的观念，“产业是全体共有的”，故社会不分阶级。但是，随着团体的扩大和公共事务的发生，出现“首长（或氏长），武士和巫觋”等领袖人物。此外，他还根据传世文献论述了“氏族制度是原始社会组织上的基础”与原始社会中“图腾”式的自然崇拜。总之，他认为，“原始人的社会是由‘群’而发展为‘氏族’。”程憬的这一研究尽管在深度与广度上不如吕振羽，但并未被学界所忽视，不仅被《图书评论》摘要转载，其中的观点还被尹达、黎东方等学者征引。

Second, the society of the Shang people was a patrilineal clan society. It is generally held in historiographical circles that Guo Moruo, in his 1929 manuscript “Ancient Society in Oracle Bone Inscriptions,” [10]10 This work was later included in Guo Moruo’s *Research on Ancient Chinese Society* (1930). was the first to apply historical materialism, combining oracle bone inscriptions and ancient texts, to explore the nature of Shang society, proposing that the Shang dynasty was still a clan society. In 1934, Lü Zhenyu of the same camp offered a dissenting opinion, initiating the “Shang dynasty as a slave society” thesis. [11]11 Lü Zhenyu’s argument that the Shang dynasty was a slave society became a standard position in Chinese Marxist historiography. In fact, Cheng Jing’s 1928 published article “The Clan Society of the Shang People” [12]12 Published in the journal *Zhongshan University Language and History Institute Weekly*. had already applied historical materialism, using a method of mutual corroboration between oracle bone inscriptions and ancient texts, to systematically explore Shang society. First, he provided an overview of the Shang people’s clan society, arguing that “there was a clan system in ancient Chinese social history.” The clan system was “an organization that gathered a group of blood-related kin to engage in common social life.” From the oracle bone inscriptions, it could be seen that Shang society was a “patrilineal clan society.” Second, he systematically examined the social conditions of the Shang people, arguing that they had entered an “era of extensive agriculture,” supplemented by animal husbandry, fishing, and hunting. However, due to the low level of agricultural development, the Shang people only knew how to practice slash-and-burn and shifting cultivation, so the land at that time was probably “the common property of a clan.” Third, he analyzed the social organization and social classes corresponding to the material base. According to the oracle bone inscriptions, the “clan” was “the main unit of social organization” at the time, “a form of social organization based on a combination of military, labor, and daily life.” The phenomenon of Shang people having “many fathers and many mothers” reflected the kinship relations of the clan organization. At the same time, Shang society already had “two classes with different status and standing”—slaves and masters. Therefore, from the perspective of economic and social development history, “the era of the Shang people was already an era of a slave economy,” and “their society was already a slave society.” Fourth, he examined the “religious spiritual life” of the Shang people. In terms of nature worship, the Shang people “revered Heaven the most”; the terms “Di” and “Shangdi” in the oracle bone inscriptions both referred to Heaven. In terms of ancestor worship, the majesty of ancestors in the “Pan Geng” chapter and the solemnity of ancestral sacrifices in the oracle bone inscriptions indicated that the Shang dynasty was “an era of the most intense ancestor worship,” precisely because “the central concept of clan social organization was the concept of blood ties.” In summary, Cheng Jing believed that Shang society was both a patrilineal clan society and a slave society. The depth of this study was no less than that of Guo Moruo and Lü Zhenyu. The academic community at the time recognized this to some extent. Apart from Gu Jiegang’s high praise for this article, scholars such as Tao Xisheng, Wan Guoding, Wang Yucun, Ma Chengfeng, and Liu Yenan, in their respective works on economic history, either cited Cheng Jing’s views or further investigated Shang society on his basis. [13]13 Gu Jiegang (1893–1980), a leading historian of the Doubting Antiquity School; Tao Xisheng (1899–1988), a Chinese historian and sociologist; Wan Guoding (1897–1973), an agricultural economist; Wang Yucun (dates unknown), Ma Chengfeng (1906–1960), and Liu Yenan (dates unknown) were scholars active in the 1930s social history debates.

其次，商民族的社会是父系制的氏族社会。史学界一般认为，郭沫若在1929年脱稿的《卜辞中的古代社会》中率先运用唯物史观，结合甲骨卜辞与古代文献等材料，对殷商社会性质进行了探讨，提出殷代还是氏族社会。1934年，同一阵营的吕振羽提出商榷意见，首创“殷商奴隶说”。实际上，程憬于1928年公开发表的《商民族的氏族社会》就运用唯物史观，以甲骨卜辞与古代文献相印证的方法，对商民族的社会进行系统探讨。一是对商民族的氏族社会进行概说，认为“中国古代社会史上有一种氏族制度”。所谓氏族制度是“一种集合一群血族的团体，而藉以营作共同的社会生活的组织”。由卜辞可知，商民族的社会是一种“父系制的氏族社会”。二是对商民族的社会状况进行系统探讨，认为商人已进入“粗耕的农业时代”，且辅以畜牧业、捕渔与狩猎，但因农业发展水平较低，商人只知道选择焚田、换耕，所以当时的土地大概是“属于一民族的共同的产业”。三是对与物质基础相适用的社会组织与社会阶级进行分析。根据卜辞的记载，“族”是当时“社会组织的主要单位”，“是一种基础于军事的，工作的，生活的联合之社会组织”。商人“多父多母”的现象体现了氏族组织的亲族关系。同时，商人的社会已有奴隶与主人“两个身份与地位不同的阶级”。因此，从经济社会发展史来看，“商人的时代已是一种奴隶经济的时代”，其“社会已是一种奴隶制度的社会”。四是考察商人“宗教的精神生活”。在自然崇拜上，商人“最崇敬的是天”，卜辞中的“帝”“上帝”均指天。在祖先崇拜上，《盘庚》中祖先的威严与卜辞中祭祀祖先的隆重表明商代是“一种最崇拜祖先的时代”，这正是由于“氏族社会的组织中心观念是血族观念”。总之，程憬认为商族的社会既是一种父系制氏族社会，又是一种奴隶制度的社会。这一研究的深度并不亚于郭沫若、吕振羽二人。当时学界对此即有所认识，除顾颉刚对此文高度评价外，陶希圣、万国鼎、王渔村、马乘风、刘烨南等学者在各自的经济史论著中，或征引程憬的观点，或在其基础上进一步考察殷商社会。

Third, the Western Zhou dynasty was a feudal society. It is generally held in historiographical circles that Guo Moruo, in his November 1928 article “The Historical Stages of Development of Chinese Society,” was the first to examine the nature of Western Zhou society, proposing that the Western Zhou was a slave society, a view he later elaborated in detail in *Research on Ancient Chinese Society*. [14]14 Guo Moruo’s *Research on Ancient Chinese Society* (1930) was a foundational text of Chinese Marxist historiography. In 1936, Lü Zhenyu, in *Chinese Society in the Yin and Zhou Periods*, [15]15 Published in 1936. questioned Guo Moruo, and is regarded by the academic community as “the first to argue, starting from an analysis of the mode of production, that the Western Zhou was a feudal society,” thereby initiating the “Western Zhou feudalism” thesis. [16]16 The “Western Zhou feudalism” thesis became a major position in Chinese Marxist debates on ancient Chinese social periodization.

再次，西周是封建社会。史学界一般认为，郭沫若于1928年11月发表的《中国社会的历史的发展阶段》，率先对西周的社会性质进行了考察，提出西周为奴隶社会的观点，此后在《中国古代社会研究》中进行了详细论证。1936年，吕振羽在《殷周时代的中国社会》中对郭沫若提出质疑，被学界认为“最早从分析生产方式入手论证西周是封建社会”，首倡“西周封建说”。

In 1929, Cheng Jing published “The Situation of Social Change in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods,” offering an initial exposition of the social nature of the Western Zhou. He argued that “the feudal system has two forms: one is the primitive feudal system; the other is a disguised form of the feudal system.” The primitive feudal system was “a transformation of the clan society of ancient tribes,” which in economic terms was “fief-based” and in political terms was “decentralized.” “The feudalism of the Western Zhou was primitive feudalism.” This view was not original but derived from Mei Siping’s “The Politics of the Spring and Autumn Period and Confucius’ Political Thought.” However, Mei Siping’s view still remained within the traditional category of “enfeoffing states and establishing fiefs,”[17]17 “Enfeoffing states and establishing fiefs” (封邦建国) is a classical Chinese phrase describing the Zhou dynasty practice of granting land and titles to relatives and allies, creating semi-autonomous states. whereas Cheng Jing initially expounded the “theory of Western Zhou feudalism” from the perspective of social classes and the economic base. First, in terms of social classes, Western Zhou feudal society was built upon the two classes of landlords and peasants. The Son of Heaven and the feudal lords “were all landlords,” “each possessing the power to allocate and directly rule over their own land and peasants.” The peasants, “though not slaves, were also unfree and lacked legal personality”; “they had only the right to use the land, not ownership of it.” Second, in terms of the economic base, the Western Zhou land system probably “divided land into public fields and private fields.” Public fields were “the landlords’ own fields,” while the “ownership of private fields belonged to the landlord,” but their harvest “belonged to the peasants.” It should be said that Cheng Jing’s views already carried the significance of a new theory of social formations. In 1932, Cheng Jing sharply criticized Guo Moruo’s “theory of Western Zhou slavery” and reaffirmed the “theory of Western Zhou feudalism” from the perspective of social classes and the mode of production. Thus, although Cheng Jing’s research on the social nature of the Western Zhou came slightly later than Guo Moruo’s, it was undoubtedly earlier than Lü Zhenyu’s “theory of Western Zhou feudalism” advanced from the perspective of social classes and the mode of production.

1929年，程憬发表《春秋战国时代的社会变动情况》，对西周的社会性质进行了初步阐述。他认为，“封建制度有两种形式：一种是原始的封建制度；一种变相的封建制度。”原始的封建制度是“古代部落的民族社会的一种蜕变”，其在经济意义上是“采地”的，在政治意义上是“分权”的。“西周的封建，是原始的封建。”这一观点并非原创，而是源于梅思平的《春秋时代的政治和孔子的政治思想》。不过，梅思平的观点尚停留在传统的“封邦建国”的范畴，程憬则从社会阶级与经济基础的角度初步阐述“西周封建说”。其一，在社会阶级上，西周的封建社会建立在地主和农民两个阶级之上。天子、诸侯“都是地主”，“对于自己的土地和农民各有分配授与权和直接统治权”。农民“虽不是一种奴隶，但亦不自由，且无法律上的人格”；“对于土地只有使用权而无所有权”。其二，在经济基础上，西周的田制大概是“分公田与私田两种”，公田即“地主的自用田地”，私田的“所有权虽属于地主”，但其收获“为农民所有”。应该说，程憬的观点已具备新的社会形态学说的意义。1932年，程憬重点批评了郭沫若的“西周奴隶说”，并从社会阶级与生产方式的角度重申“西周封建说”。可见，程憬对西周社会性质的研究虽稍晚于郭沫若，但无疑早于吕振羽从社会阶级与生产方式的角度提出的“西周封建说”。

Finally, the period from the Spring and Autumn and Warring States onward was a disguised feudal society. In April 1929, Guo Moruo published “Social Changes in the Age of the Book of Songs and Book of Documents and Their Reflection in Thought,” proposing that the Spring and Autumn period was the era when Chinese society “transitioned from a slave system to a genuine feudal system,” which the scholarly community regarded as the starting point for a “specialized discussion” of the social nature of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. In 1934, Lü Zhenyu published *A Study of Prehistoric Chinese Society*, dividing the entirety of Chinese feudal society into the initial feudal system of the lordly system and the variant feudal system of the landlord system—that is, from the Western Zhou to the Warring States as the initial feudal system, and from the Qin to the Opium War as the variant feudal system—which the scholarly community regarded as the earliest proposal for a periodization within Chinese feudal society. However, in 1926, in his “Reply Letter” to Gu Jiegang, Cheng Jing had already used historical materialism to initially expound the social changes of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. He believed that during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States, “the relations of production gradually changed from a serf system to free tenant farming,” “political relations gradually changed from a feudal system to a semi-feudal state form,” and society “gradually changed from an opposition between landlords and serfs to an opposition between the rich and the poor.” Society from the Qin and Han dynasties down to the end of the Qing was “a society built upon the same economic structure,” that is, a “semi-feudal society.” In 1929, in “The Situation of Social Change in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods,” Cheng Jing further refined the above views. He also pointed out that “the feudalism that emerged during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States was disguised feudalism,” that is, “a transitional legal system adopted by autocratic monarchs when centralizing their monarchical power.” This feudal system was in economic terms “fief-of-enfeoffment-based” and in political terms “centralized.” This understanding also derived from Mei Siping. However, Mei Siping’s view still remained within the traditional category of “conferring titles without governing the people,”[18]18 “Conferring titles without governing the people” (封爵而不治民) refers to a later imperial practice where nobles held titles but did not directly administer the population on their estates, unlike the earlier feudal lords. whereas Cheng Jing argued his view from the perspective of economic change and class change. From this, it can be said that Cheng Jing’s research not only predated Guo Moruo’s exploration of changes in the social nature of the Spring and Autumn period but also preceded Lü Zhenyu’s study of periodization within feudal society, and his core views were closer to Lü Zhenyu’s.

最后，春秋战国及秦以后是变相的封建社会。1929年4月，郭沫若发表《诗书时代的社会变革与其思想上的反映》，提出春秋时代是中国社会“由奴隶制变为真正的封建制度的时期”，被学界认为是对春秋战国时期社会性质进行“专题讨论”的起点。1934年，吕振羽出版《史前期中国社会研究》，将整个中国封建社会划分为领主制的初期封建制和地主制的变种封建制，即西周到战国为初期封建制，秦到鸦片战争前为变种的封建制，被学界认为是最早提出中国封建社会内部分期的见解。但是，1926年，程憬在回复顾颉刚的《答书》中，就已运用唯物史观初步阐述春秋战国的社会变动。他认为，春秋战国时“生产关系由农奴制度渐渐的变为自由的佃户”，“政治关系由封建制度渐渐的变为半封建的国家形式”，社会“渐渐的由地主和农奴之对立阶级而变富的和贫的之对立阶级”。自秦汉以下直至清末的社会是“一个基础在同一的经济构造上建立而成的社会”，即“半封建的社会”。1929年，程憬在《春秋战国时代的社会变动情况》中对上述观点作了进一步完善。他还指出，“春秋战国间所发生的封建，是变相的封建”，即“专制君主于其君权集中时所采用的一种过渡的法制”，这种封建制度在经济的意义上是“食邑”的，在政治的意义上是“集权”的。这一认识同样源于梅思平。不过，梅思平的观点尚停留在传统的“封爵而不治民”的范畴，程憬则从经济变动与阶级变动的角度论证其观点。由此而言，程憬的研究不仅早于郭沫若对春秋社会性质变动的探讨，而且先于吕振羽对封建社会内部分期的研究，其核心观点与吕振羽更为接近。

In summary, Cheng Jing was relatively early in using historical materialism as a guide to propose a relatively complete theory of Chinese social formations. Compared with Guo Moruo and Lü Zhenyu, Cheng Jing’s research path and method were basically consistent with theirs; his specific views differed considerably from Guo’s but were closer to Lü’s. Of course, the depth of Cheng Jing’s research was generally inferior to that of Guo and Lü, but the timing of his achievement of these research results was not later than theirs, and even earlier than Lü’s.

综上所述，程憬较早地以唯物史观为指导，提出了比较完整的中国社会形态学说。相较于郭沫若、吕振羽，程憬在研究路径与方法上与他们基本一致，在具体观点上与郭有较大不同，而更接近于吕。当然，程憬的研究深度总体上不及郭、吕二人，但取得这些研究成果的时间并不晚于他们，甚至要早于吕。

III. Using Marxism to Effectively Advance Research on the History of Chinese Philosophy

三、运用马克思主义切实推进中国哲学史研究

In addition to using Marxism to study Chinese social history, Cheng Jing also made many achievements in the study of the history of Chinese philosophy. From 1928 to 1946, he published several articles on the history of Chinese philosophy, not only exploring certain issues in pre-Qin philosophy from a social history perspective but also examining the history of modern philosophy from the perspective of the origins and evolution of thought.

除运用马克思主义研究中国社会史外，程憬还在中国哲学史研究方面多有建树。1928年至1946年，他发表多篇中国哲学史方面的文章，不仅从社会史的视角对先秦哲学史的若干问题进行了探讨，还从思想源流和演变的角度对近世哲学史进行了考察。

Pre-Qin philosophy was an important field in which Cheng Jing used Marxist theory to explore the history of Chinese philosophy. In 1919, Hu Shi published *An Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy*, establishing an empirical paradigm for the study of pre-Qin philosophy. Starting in the late 1920s, Marxist historians such as Guo Moruo and Lü Zhenyu, guided by historical materialism, explored the study of pre-Qin intellectual history from a social history perspective. Similar to them, Cheng Jing also broke through the empirical paradigm established by Hu Shi, exploring several issues in pre-Qin philosophy from a social history perspective.

先秦哲学史是程憬运用马克思主义学说探讨中国哲学史的重要领域。1919年，胡适出版《中国哲学史大纲》，建立了先秦哲学史研究的实证范式。从20世纪20年代末开始，郭沫若、吕振羽等马克思主义史学家以唯物史观为指导，从社会史的视角对先秦思想史研究进行了探索。与他们相似，程憬也突破了胡适建立的实证范式，从社会史的视角探讨了先秦哲学史的若干议题。

First, the origins of Laozi’s philosophy. In 1919, Hu Shi, in *An Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy*, expounded on issues such as Laozi’s political philosophy and fundamental concepts from the perspective of “the circumstances of the times,” arguing that the social order was chaotic and politics corrupt and disorderly in the late Spring and Autumn period, and that Laozi arose from these circumstances, becoming “the founder of Chinese philosophy,” and that “the fundamental concept of Laozi’s philosophy was his concept of the Way of Heaven.” Hu Shi’s argument was insightful but rather general. In 1944, Cheng Jing discussed this issue on the basis of Hu Shi’s work, publishing the article “Lao Dan’s Way and Technique,” arguing that Laozi “once served as a historian of the Eastern Zhou royal court” and was “an important intellectual of the feudal era.” The origin of Laozi’s thought was due to the stimulus of the changes of the times. The so-called “changes of the times” referred to “the increasing collapse of the typical feudal system.” For example, Laozi advocated “opposing ritual,” because ritual, as the way of life of the feudal aristocratic class, had “become impure from pure,” “not only difficult to follow, but its traces had also become close to hypocrisy.” Another example: Laozi advocated “rejecting ornamentation,” because in the late Spring and Autumn period, the “signs of collapse of the typical feudal system became increasingly evident,” and “capable scholars from various states rose up in succession to provide relief and propose countermeasures. Some created institutions and established laws; others spoke of benevolence and righteousness.” Yet “Laozi regarded all this as futile, harmful to the people, and useless for governance.” Another example: Laozi also advocated “rejecting cunning and profit,” because during the Spring and Autumn period, “the production of material goods in society advanced daily,” “commerce accordingly flourished,” and “goods were accumulated and circulated,” yet “with exotic objects displayed before them, desires for competition arose; with the division between rich and poor, banditry emerged.” In short, Cheng Jing believed that the emergence of Laozi’s philosophy was directly related to the collapse of the typical feudal system. This research, emphasizing the perspective of changes in social nature, was undoubtedly more profound than Hu Shi’s general theory of “the circumstances of the times.”

第一，老子哲学的起源。1919年，胡适在《中国哲学史大纲》中从“时势”的角度阐述了老子的政治哲学、根本观念等问题，认为春秋末年的社会秩序混乱，政治腐败纷乱，老子因势而起，成为“中国哲学的始祖”，而“老子哲学的根本观念是他的天道观念”。胡适所论颇有见地，只是较为笼统。1944年，程憬在胡适的基础上讨论了这一议题，发表《老聃之道与术》一文，认为老子“曾为东周王室之史”，是“封建时代之重要知识分子”。老子思想的起源乃由于时变所激。所谓“时变”，即“典型之封建体制日趋崩坏”。比如，老子主张“非礼”，乃是由于作为封建时代贵族阶级之生活方式的礼“由纯而杂”，“不仅其事难以循从，且其迹亦近于虚伪”。再如，老子主张“去文”，则是由于春秋后期，典型封建体制“崩坏之象日益显著”，“各国智能之士更纷起救济，讲求对策。或创制立法，或讲仁说义。”然“老子视之，此皆徒劳，不利于民，无益于治”。又如，老子还主张“绝巧及利”，这是由于春秋时“社会物质之生产日益进跃”，“商业乃随而兴盛”，“积居时遂，货通物流”，然而，“奇物陈前，争欲乃生；贫富既分，而盗贼是起矣”。总之，程憬认为老子哲学的出现与典型封建制度的崩溃直接相关。这一侧重社会性质变动视角的研究无疑比胡适笼统的“时势”说更为深入。

Second, “why Confucius’s doctrine was able to adapt to society from the Qin and Han dynasties onward.” In 1920, Li Dazhao published “An Economic Explanation of the Causes of Changes in Modern Chinese Thought,” raising the question of “why Confucius’s doctrine was able to dominate the Chinese mind for over two thousand years.” He argued that Confucius’s doctrine “was a product reflecting the agricultural economic organization that had remained unchanged in China for over two thousand years,” and possessed the economic base to “dominate the Chinese mind for over two thousand years.” However, due to the limitations of his topic, Li Dazhao did not elaborate on this point. In December 1926, in response to an inquiry from Gu Jiegang, Cheng Jing provided an answer to this question. He pointed out that “after the mid-Spring and Autumn period, the ancient feudal society gradually began to shake, and politics and law also gradually changed. Consequently, ancient morality could no longer establish a foothold at all.” Although the “rule by virtue” and “ritualization” advocated by Confucius were a “reaction” against the traditional thought of ancient feudal society, “the material conditions on which they relied had not yet been established,” so his ideas could not be realized at that time. Society from the Qin and Han dynasties to the end of the Qing dynasty was organized on the basis of two classes, the “rich” and the “poor.” “In this kind of social state, there was indeed a need between the classes, a need for a morality capable of disciplining class struggle.” Confucius “recognized class society,” using “contentment with one’s station and adherence to one’s role” as the “organizational principle of morality.” This doctrine precisely “met the needs of the power-holding faction in this society of two thousand years.” Therefore, Confucius’s doctrine was able to adapt to society from the Qin and Han dynasties onward. Compared with Li Dazhao, Cheng Jing offered his interpretation from the perspective of changes in the nature of Chinese society.

第二，“孔子学说何以适应于秦汉以来的社会”。1920年，李大钊发表《由经济上解释中国近代思想变动的原因》，提出“孔子的学说何以能支配中国人心有二千余年”的问题，认为孔子学说“是适应中国二千余年来未曾变动的农业经济组织反映出来的产物”，有“支配中国人心有二千余年”的经济基础。不过，由于论题所限，李大钊并没有具体展开论述。1926年12月，程憬在顾颉刚的询问下，对这一问题作了回答。他指出，“春秋中期以后，古代的封建社会便逐渐的动摇了，政治和法律也逐渐的变了。于是古代的道德也根本不能立足了。”孔子所主张的“德治”“礼化”虽是对古代封建社会传统思想的“反动”，但“所依据的物质条件还没有成立”，故其思想在当时不能实现。秦汉至清末的社会，组织在“富的”和“贫的”两个阶级之上。“在这种社会状态里，其阶级间确有一种需求，一种能制裁阶级的争夺的道德。”孔子“承认阶级的社会”，用“安名守分”来做“道德的组织法”。这一主张正“吻合这二千年的社会的权力派的需求”。因此，孔子学说能够适应于秦汉以来的社会。与李大钊相比，程憬是从中国社会性质变化的角度进行诠释的。

Third, the origins of the Yin-Yang school. In 1923, Liang Qichao published “The Origins of the Theory of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements,” arguing that the theory of yin-yang and the five elements “originated with the fangshi [masters of esoteric arts] of Yan and Qi.” In 1930, Hu Shi completed his *Draft History of Medieval Chinese Thought*, and in its first chapter, “The Learning of Qi,” he further proposed that “the worship of yin and yang was part of the ancient religion of the Qi people,” while “the theory of the five elements was probably a viewpoint within the common knowledge of the ancient folk.” It was only in the hands of the great masters of Qi learning that it “combined with the concept of yin and yang to form a system.” However, Hu Shi’s account remained somewhat sketchy. In 1935, Cheng Jing published “The Yin-Yang School and Ancient History,” continuing to explore this issue. He first analyzed the “ancient traditions” that the Yin-Yang school “relied upon,” based on the *Guoyu* [Discourses of the States] and the *Zuozhuan* [Zuo Commentary]. He pointed out that the Yin-Yang school’s theory of “the waxing and waning of yin and yang” was related to phenomena of “rare occurrences” that brought calamities or auspicious omens, while the five elements “were the five substances constituting the earth,” and “the *Zuozhuan* records that there were five spirits governing these five substances.” He inferred that “the theories of the Yin-Yang school actually originated in the fetishistic thought of ancient shamans and invocators,” because “shamans and invocators were the wise men of primitive and more ancient times. They created religion, devised sacrificial rituals, and transmitted myths.” To use the authority of spirits as a tool to constrain people, they spoke of taboos, calamities, anomalies, and auspicious omens to explain “the interaction between Heaven and humanity.” Hence, “the main argument of the Yin-Yang school—so-called ‘tallying responses’—was probably derived from the religious thought of ancient shamans and invocators.” In short, Cheng Jing believed that the theories of the Yin-Yang school originated in the fetishistic thought of primitive-era shamans and invocators. This understanding further revealed the social roots of the Yin-Yang school’s doctrines.

第三，阴阳家学说的起源。1923年，梁启超发表《阴阳五行说之来历》，认为阴阳五行说“起于燕齐方士”。1930年，胡适撰成《中国中古思想史长编》，其在第一章“齐学”中进一步提出“阴阳的崇拜是齐民族的古宗教的一部分”，而“五行之说大概是古代民间常识里的一个观点”，到了齐学大师手里，才“和阴阳的观念结合成一个系统”。但是，胡适所说仍显疏略。1935年，程憬发表《阴阳家与古史》，继续探讨这一问题。他先是依据《国语》《左传》分析阴阳家所“案”的“往旧”传闻，指出阴阳家的“阴阳消息”论与降灾祸或祥瑞的“物之罕至者”现象相关，五行则“是地之所以构成的五种物质”，而“《左传》又记司此五物者有五神”。他推论“阴阳家之说实源渊于古代巫祝的拜物思想”，因为“巫祝是原始和较古时代的智者。他们创造宗教，制作祭仪和传述神话”，为利用神灵的威权做约束人们的工具，他们讲述禁忌、灾异、祥瑞用以解说“天人感应”，故“阴阳家主要的论调——所谓‘符应’大概便是脱胎于古代巫祝的宗教思想的”。总之，程憬认为阴阳家的学说源于原始时代巫祝的拜物思想。这一认识进一步揭示了阴阳家学说的社会根源。

The history of modern philosophy was another field in which Cheng Jing applied Marxist theory to explore the history of Chinese philosophy. In 1919, Hu Shi, in his *Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy*, proposed the concept of “modern philosophy,” arguing that the combination of Indian philosophy and indigenous Chinese thought gave rise to China’s “modern philosophy.” From the 1930s onward, Marxist historians such as Ji Wenfu and Tan Pimo first studied the history of modern philosophy from the perspective of social history, and then pushed this research toward Sinicization. It is noteworthy that in 1936, Zhang Dainian published “A Possible Synthesis in Philosophy,” pointing out that philosophy since the Song dynasty included the theories of qi-only, principle-qi, and idealism. He later refined this thesis in works such as his *Outline of Chinese Philosophy*. Therefore, the academic community generally believes that Zhang Dainian was the first to propose the three-system theory of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, an important creation in the study of Chinese philosophy through dialectical materialism. In fact, Cheng Jing had also explicitly proposed that modern Chinese Dao-learning could be divided into three schools—the theory of principle as fundamental, the theory of mind as fundamental, and the theory of qi as transformative—and conducted specialized studies of these three schools.

近世哲学史是程憬运用马克思主义学说探讨中国哲学史的又一领域。1919年，胡适在《中国哲学史大纲》中提出“近世哲学”的概念，认为印度哲学与中国固有思想的结合催生了中国“近世的哲学”。20世纪30年代以来，嵇文甫、谭丕模等马克思主义史学家先是从社会史的视角来研究近世哲学史，进而又将研究推向中国化。值得关注的是，张岱年于1936年发表《哲学上一个可能的综合》，指出宋代以来的哲学有唯气论、理气论与唯心论，其后又在《中国哲学大纲》等论著中不断完善这一学说。因此，学界一般认为张岱年首先提出宋明理学三系说，是辩证唯物论研究中国哲学的重要创造。实际上，程憬也曾明确提出中国近世的道学可分为理本论、心本论以及气化论三派的观点，并对这三派进行了专题探讨。

First, “the theory of principle as fundamental, with the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi as its main representatives.” In 1928, Cheng Jing published “The Philosophy of the Two Cheng Brothers,” expounding on the philosophical thought of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi. Many of the views in this article derived from Hu Shi’s research. For example, Cheng Hao “used objective principle to resist the purely subjective mind of Chan Buddhism,” and his arguments were no different from “the naturalism of the Daoist school”; Cheng Yi’s intellectual program was “self-cultivation requires reverence; advancing in learning requires the extension of knowledge.” He regarded “governing the mind as the most important matter in life, and therefore advocated reverence,” and, influenced by Chan Buddhism, placed great emphasis on “the extension of knowledge”; Cheng Hao’s arguments were influenced by Daoist naturalism, while Cheng Yi was influenced by the Chan Buddhist spirit of “seeking good knowledge.” However, Cheng Jing was not confined to Hu Shi’s views. He not only analyzed the “theory of principle as fundamental” within the context of the origins of modern philosophy, arguing that “the establishment of modern Chinese philosophy was influenced by the thought of Chan Buddhism and Daoism,” but also pointed out that “the school of Lu Xiangshan tended toward Cheng Hao, while the school of Zhu Xi tended toward Cheng Yi.” Because Cheng Hao’s concept of “benevolence” was the embodiment of the Heavenly principle, and because “the ten thousand things are one body,” “all possess this principle,” and “I too am one part of the ten thousand things,” understanding the ten thousand things meant “nothing is not oneself.” Hence, the later school of Lu Xiangshan tended toward Cheng Hao; Cheng Yi advocated the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge, so the later school of Zhu Xi tended toward Cheng Yi. Cheng Jing’s view can be considered an original opinion, and it received recognition from Feng Youlan and Zhang Dainian.

第一，“理本论，以程朱为大宗”。1928年，程憬发表《二程子的哲学》，对程颢与程颐的哲学思想进行了阐述。此文的许多观点源于胡适的研究。比如，程颢是“以客观的理来反抗禅宗纯粹的主观的心”，其论调和“道宗的自然主义”没有什么分别；程颐的思想纲领为“涵养须用敬，进学须致知”，其把“治心看作人生的最重要事，所以主敬”，又受禅宗影响，十分重视“致知”；程颢的论调受到道家的自然主义影响，程颐受到禅宗“求善知识”的精神影响。但是，程憬并没有囿于胡适的观点。他不仅将“理本论”置于近世哲学的源流中进行分析，认为“中国近代哲学的成立，是受了禅宗和道家的思想的影响”，还指出“陆象山一派趋向于程颢，而朱熹一派趋向于程颐”。因为程颢所说的“仁”便是体会天理，又因“万物一体”，“皆有此理”，“我也是万物之一份”，故认识万物“莫非己也”，所以后来陆象山一派趋向于程颢；程颐主张格物致知，所以后来朱熹一派趋向程颐。程憬的看法堪称一家之言，受到冯友兰、张岱年的认可。

Second, “the theory of mind as fundamental, with Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming as its main representatives.” In 1936, Cheng Jing published “The Philosophy of Wang Shouren,” exploring Wang Yangming’s philosophy of mind as fundamental. In this article, Cheng Jing first traced the influence of Song Confucians on Wang Yangming’s doctrine from three aspects: the theory of mind, the theory of the unity of all things, and the doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action. He then pointed out that Wang Yangming explained these matters more thoroughly than his predecessors and “was able to fuse various theories in his own specially crafted crucible into a single whole, leaving no trace.” In short, Wang Yangming’s philosophy was “a kind of absolute idealism, with the strongest monistic character.” His philosophy started from “mind,” and was “light, free, and extremely simple.” Many of these insights by Cheng Jing were inherited from Huang Zitong’s *The Philosophy of Wang Shouren*. However, he was not confined to these views. In 1946, he published “New Trends of Thought in the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties,” examining Wang Yangming’s philosophy within the evolutionary process of modern philosophy. He argued that “Wang Yangming was dissatisfied with the Cheng-Zhu theory of principle as fundamental and inclined toward Lu Xiangshan’s theory of mind as fundamental; from the perspective of the completeness and simplicity of their methodologies, the latter represented an advance over the former.” However, some of Wang Yangming’s disciples “vehemently denounced the thought of the Cheng-Zhu school, sweeping away sensory knowledge to illuminate the mind, ‘acting on their own authority and creating their own transformations,’ and the previously fragmented and rigid academic atmosphere underwent a change. But while one can start from the path of the wild and the upright, one cannot stop there; letting the mind run free while neglecting effort leads to self-inflicted ignorance. Consequently, in the course of its own development, this school was negated by another kind of thought—the theory of qi as transformative.”

第二，“心本论，以陆王为大宗”。1936年，程憬发表《王守仁的哲学》，探究王阳明的心本论哲学。程憬在文中首先从心论、万物一体论、知行合一学说三个方面追溯了王阳明学说受到的宋儒影响，而后指出王阳明比前人都说得更透彻，且“能溶化各说于自己特制的炉中，成了一片，毫无痕迹”。总之，王阳明的哲学是“一种绝对唯心论，一元的色彩最浓厚”，其哲学从“心”出发，“轻快洒脱，极其简易”。程憬的这些认识多承袭黄子通《王守仁的哲学》。不过，他并未囿于这些认识。1946年，他发表《明清之际的新思潮》，将阳明哲学置于近世哲学的演变过程中进行考察，认为“阳明不满意程朱的理本论，而倾向于陆象山的心本论；从他们的方法论之圆融简切这一点看去，后者是比前者进了一步”。不过，有些阳明的门徒“痛斥程朱一派的思想，扫闻见以明心，‘自做主张，自裁生化’，而前此支离固陋之学风，为之一变。但从狂狷起脚，不可以从狂狷歇脚的，任心而废工夫，会自陷于不知的，因之其自身在发展进程中又被另外一种思想——气化论所否定了”。

Third, “the theory of qi-transformation, with Zhang Zai as its forerunner, was developed and expanded by Wang Fuzhi.” In 1946, Cheng Jing pointed out in *New Trends of Thought at the Ming-Qing Transition* that “the emerging theory of qi-transformation was a reaction against the late trends of Wang Yangming’s school,” but “it not only negated the mind-essence theory of the Lu-Wang school” but also negated “the traditional authority of the Cheng-Zhu school” and “the various idealist philosophies of the Northern Song.” Of course, “this theory of qi-transformation, though ‘created,’ was in fact ‘inherited’; it originated with Zhang Zai.” However, because Zhang Zai’s “system of thought still contained elements of idealist philosophy, it was exploited by Zhu Xi, the systematizer of the principle-essence theory,” and “it was not until Wang Fuzhi that it recovered its original form.” Wang Fuzhi “attacked Lu-Wang from the standpoint of the theory of qi-transformation, criticized Cheng-Zhu, and opened a new path for the modern intellectual world.” Thereafter, “Yan Yuan and Li Gong also made considerable efforts in this regard. Dai Zhen followed; although he was not as profound and comprehensive as Wang Fuzhi, he had already become the great master of this school.” These views were not new at the time. Zhang Dainian, in his *Outline of Chinese Philosophy* written in the 1930s, had already systematically sorted out and expounded the theory of qi-essence. However, Cheng Jing also focused on excavating the “forerunners of the revival of the theory of qi-transformation,” such as the Donglin scholars and Liu Zongzhou. Of course, this excavation largely derived from Ji Wenfu’s *Historical Treatise on Late Ming Thought*, but their perspectives differed: Ji Wenfu proceeded from the angle of “nominalism,” while Cheng Jing, from the angle of the theory of qi-transformation, paid attention to and recognized the intellectual value of the Donglin scholars and Liu Zongzhou, thereby perfecting the academic genealogy of the theory of qi-transformation in the history of modern philosophy.

第三，“气化论，张载为其前驱，至王夫之始发挥而光大”。1946年，程憬在《明清之际的新思潮》中指出，“新兴的气化论为王学的末流之反动”，但“它不仅否定了陆王一派的心本论”，还否定了“程朱的传统的势力”，“北宋的各种唯心哲学”。当然，“这气化论虽‘创’而实‘因’的，它是导源于张载”。但因张载“思想体系中还包含着唯心哲学的质素，遂为理本论的组成者朱熹所乘”，“直到王夫之，才恢复了它本来的面目”。王夫之“站在气化论的立场攻击陆王，非议程朱，为近世思想界开了一条新路”。之后，“颜元与李塨于此，亦多所尽力。戴震继之，虽博大精深之处尚不及夫之，然已俨然为此派之大宗。”这些看法在当时并非新识。张岱年在写于20世纪30年代的《中国哲学大纲》中即对气本论进行了较为系统的梳理与阐述。但是，程憬还重点挖掘了东林诸子、刘宗周等“复兴气化论的前驱者”。当然，这一挖掘多源于嵇文甫的《晚明思想史论》，但二者角度不同，嵇文甫是从“唯名论”的角度出发，程憬则从气化论的角度关注并认识到东林诸子与刘宗周的思想价值，从而完善了近世哲学史中气化论的学术谱系。

In summary, Cheng Jing not only explored the history of pre-Qin philosophy from the perspective of the relationship between intellectual doctrines and historical eras but also examined the history of modern Chinese philosophy from the perspective of the evolution of intellectual origins. This research path and method were very close to Hou Wailu’s basic principles and methods for studying Chinese intellectual history. His answer to “why Confucius’s doctrines adapted to society from the Qin-Han period onward” and his view of dividing modern Neo-Confucianism into three schools possessed considerable theoretical value. Therefore, the author believes that Cheng Jing, by applying Marxism, effectively advanced the development of research on the history of Chinese philosophy.

综上所述，程憬不仅从思想学说与历史时代的关系角度对先秦哲学史进行了探讨，还从思想渊源演变的角度考察了中国近世哲学史。这一研究路径与方法非常接近侯外庐研究中国思想史的基本原则与方法。其关于“孔子学说何以适应于秦汉以来的社会”的回答、将近世道学分为三派的看法，又有着相当的理论价值。因此，笔者认为，程憬运用马克思主义切实推进了中国哲学史研究的发展。

IV. A Relatively Unique Academic Value

四、较为独特的学术价值

Through the above investigation, we can place Cheng Jing in the ranks of the pioneers of Chinese Marxist historiography, and his achievements possess a relatively unique academic value.

经过上面的考察，我们可以将程憬置于中国马克思主义史学研究先行者的行列，其成绩有着较为独特的学术价值。

First, he broke through the limitations of Chinese positivist historiography from within its own camp. During the Republican period, positivist historiography became the mainstream of the historical field. In 1919, Hu Shi published *Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy*, establishing the positivist paradigm for research on the history of Chinese philosophy. Directly influenced by Hu Shi’s scholarly methods, Gu Jiegang further proposed the famous “theory of accumulated layers,” sparking a “Movement to Doubt Antiquity” marked by “skepticism toward antiquity.” Wang Guowei’s articles, such as “A Study of the Ancestral Kings and Lords Seen in Yin Oracle Bone Inscriptions,” opened a path of “new evidence for antiquity.” Thereafter, Fu Sinian emphasized the mutual use of old and new historical materials, embarking on a path of “reconstructing antiquity.” It can be said that scholars represented by Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, and Wang Guowei established a complete set of principles and methods for historical research, achieving outstanding results comparable to those of the Qian-Jia school. [22]22 The Qian-Jia school refers to the textual research (kaozheng) tradition of the Qianlong and Jiaqing reign periods (1736–1820) of the Qing dynasty, known for its rigorous philological methods. Almost simultaneously with the rise of positivist historiography, Chinese Marxist historiography began to emerge in the historical arena and gradually matured in the process of criticizing positivist historiography. In 1919, Hu Hanmin published “A Materialist Study of the History of Chinese Philosophy,” breaking through the positivist paradigm for research on the history of Chinese philosophy established by Hu Shi. Since the late 1920s, Guo Moruo published *A Study of Ancient Chinese Society*, and Lü Zhenyu published *A Study of Prehistoric Chinese Society* and *Chinese Society in the Yin and Zhou Periods*, breaking through the “blockade line” on ancient history set up by positivist historians. Unlike the above scholars, Cheng Jing had been Hu Shi’s secretary, studied under Liang Qichao and Wang Guowei, and was on good terms with Gu Jiegang; he was originally a member of the positivist historiography camp. However, he was dissatisfied with positivist historiography and, on its basis, applied Marxist theory to “go one step higher,” not only conducting early research on Chinese social history but also effectively advancing research on the history of philosophy. A similar case to Cheng Jing’s was at least that of Wu Han, a disciple of Hu Shi. This breakthrough from within the positivist historiography camp can better demonstrate the scientific nature of the Marxist historiographical path.

第一，从阵营内部突破了中国实证主义史学的限制。民国时期，实证主义史学成为史学界主流。1919年，胡适出版《中国哲学史大纲》，建立了中国哲学史研究的实证范式。受胡适治学方法的直接影响，顾颉刚进一步提出著名的“层累说”，引发了一场以“疑古”为标识的“古史辨运动”。王国维发表的《殷卜辞中所见先公先王考》等文章，则开出了一条“古史新证”的道路。此后，傅斯年强调新旧史料的互相为用，走上了“古史重建”道路。可以说，以胡适、顾颉刚、傅斯年、王国维等为代表的学者建立了一整套历史研究的原则与方法，取得了不让乾嘉的卓越成绩。几乎在实证主义史学兴起的同时，中国马克思主义史学开始在史坛崛起，并在批判实证主义史学的过程中逐渐成熟起来。1919年，胡汉民发表《中国哲学史之唯物的研究》，突破了胡适建立的中国哲学史研究的实证范式。20世纪20年代末以来，郭沫若出版《中国古代社会研究》，吕振羽出版《史前期中国社会研究》《殷周时代的中国社会》，冲破了实证主义史学家设下的古史“封锁线”。与上述学者不同，程憬曾是胡适的书记员，问学于梁启超、王国维，且与顾颉刚交好，本是实证主义史学阵营中的一员。然而，他又不满足于实证主义史学，而是在其基础上运用马克思主义学说“更上一层”，不仅较早开展了中国社会史研究，还切实推进了哲学史研究。与程憬情况相类似的，至少还有胡适的弟子吴晗。这一来自实证主义史学阵营内部的突破，更能证明马克思主义史学道路的科学性。

Second, he advanced the academic orientation of Chinese Marxist historiography. Broadly speaking, the rise and formation of Chinese Marxist historiography were directly related to social reality. After the October Revolution, Li Dazhao, in order to save the nation from crisis, embarked on the Marxist path. His *My Marxist View of History*, *The Value of the Materialist Conception of History in Modern Historiography*, and *Essentials of Historical Theory* opened the prelude to Chinese Marxist historiography. After the failure of the Great Revolution, [23]23 The Great Revolution (1925–1927) refers to the first Kuomintang-Communist united front’s Northern Expedition against the warlords, which ended with the Kuomintang’s purge of the Communists. insightful people, in order to clarify the issues of the Chinese revolution and China’s nature, began to apply Marxist theory to study Chinese social history, sparking a large-scale debate on social history. Guo Moruo took the lead in emphasizing that “the prospect of a future society compels us to produce a need to settle accounts with past society.” At the end of the social history debate, He Ganzhi expressed a similar appeal in *The Debate on the Nature of Chinese Society*. Through the baptism of this social history debate, Chinese Marxist historiography initially took shape. In fact, the rise and development of Chinese Marxist historiography also had an internal academic logic. As early as the mid-1920s, influenced by the Marxist ideological trend, Cheng Jing consciously applied historical materialism to study the history of Chinese philosophy. Later, after Gu Jiegang asked “why Confucius’s doctrines adapted to society from the Qin-Han period onward,” he systematically studied Chinese society from primitive society to the Eastern Zhou period, and these social history studies were not influenced by the failure of the Great Revolution or the social history debate. Cheng Jing was not an isolated case. In the 1930s, “historical materialism was all the rage,” and many scholars consciously applied historical materialism to engage in academic research. For example, Feng Youlan, in his *History of Chinese Philosophy*, applied historical materialism to analyze the background of the emergence and evolution of philosophy, which was considered “written with a purely academic research attitude,” becoming another typical representative of the academic path. This Marxist historiographical research proceeding from internal logic may better reveal the academic connotation of Chinese Marxist historiography.

第二，推进了中国马克思主义史学的学术化路向。大体来看，中国马克思主义史学的兴起与形成，与社会现实直接相关。十月革命后，李大钊为挽救民族危机，走上了马克思主义的道路，《我的马克思主义史观》《唯物史观在现代史学上的价值》和《史学要论》揭开了中国马克思主义史学的序幕。大革命失败后，有识之士为弄清中国革命和中国性质的问题，开始运用马克思主义学说研究中国社会史，并掀起了一场声势浩大的社会史论战。郭沫若率先强调“对于未来社会的展望逼迫着我们不能不生出清算过往社会的要求”。社会史论战结束之际，何干之在《中国社会性质论战》中表达了类似的诉求。经过这场社会史论战的洗礼，中国马克思主义史学初步形成。其实，中国马克思主义史学的兴起与发展还有着内在学术理路。早于20世纪20年代中期，程憬受马克思主义思潮的影响，自觉运用唯物史观研究中国哲学史，后又在顾颉刚询问“孔子学说何以适应于秦汉以来的社会”后，系统研究从原始社会至东周以来的中国社会，且这些社会史研究并未受到大革命失败与社会史论战的影响。程憬也并非个例。20世纪30年代，“唯物史观风靡一时”，不少学者自觉运用唯物史观从事学术研究。如冯友兰在《中国哲学史》中便运用唯物史观分析哲学产生与演变的背景，被认为是“以纯粹学术研究的态度写作的”，成为学术化道路的又一典型代表。这一从内在理路出发的马克思主义史学研究，或更能彰显中国马克思主义史学的学术内涵。

(Author Biographies: Li Changyin, Researcher at the Collaborative Innovation Center for Confucian Civilization, Co-sponsored by the Ministry of Education and Shandong Province, Shandong University; Li Jiahuang, Doctoral Candidate at the Advanced Institute for Confucian Studies, Shandong University)

（作者简介：李长银，山东大学儒家文明省部共建协同创新中心研究员；李佳煌，山东大学儒学高等研究院博士研究生 ）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心