Li Zhen: The Modern Course and Theoretical Characteristics of Chinese Classical Studies
Since the convening of the first World Conference on Classics over a year ago, studies on the classics and classical scholarship have become a focus of intense academic interest. This has provided an opportunity to conduct an in-depth exploration of relevant theoretical issues. We believe that, regarding the next steps for research in Chinese classical studies, the work of theoretical clarification is indispensable. On one hand, it is necessary to historically trace the process through which classical studies was established as a modern academic discipline to clarify its research background and the trajectory of its problematics. On the other hand, it is necessary to indigenously recognize the theoretical characteristics of the classics as the foundation of Chinese civilization, thereby grasping the scholarship as a whole and the overall ideological landscape. Defining this history and these characteristics is of great significance for deepening research in Chinese classical studies.
The Emergence of Chinese Classical Studies in Modern Scholarship
The term "classical studies" (gudianxue) did not originally exist in traditional Chinese scholarship; rather, Chinese classical studies is a product of the modernization of traditional scholarship. Its formation can be roughly divided into three stages.
In 1923, Liang Qichao utilized the concept of "classical studies" in his Academic History of China During the Last Three Hundred Years to refer to the Qian-Jia [1] period’s philological investigations into historical objects and institutions during the Qing Dynasty. This was an early instance of the term "classical studies" in modern Chinese scholarship. However, Liang’s overly specialized definition limited the potential semantic boundaries of the concept. Moreover, the term appeared only a few times in Liang’s writing and was not endowed with particularly significant meaning. At that time, "National Learning" (Guoxue) [2] was the more distinctive and accepted designation for traditional scholarship.
It was not until the end of the 20th century that Chinese classical studies truly entered the vision of modern scholarship. In the mid-1990s, Chinese scholars of world history were among the first to propose that Chinese and Western classical studies should be advanced simultaneously through the perspective of comparative civilizational research. Subsequently, many scholars published articles in response and support, and the concept of "Chinese classical studies" was formally proposed. The characteristic of research during this period was that most scholars approached the classics from a comparative perspective or through the disciplines of literature and history, placing special emphasis on the role of excavated documents in the reconstruction of classical studies. Consequently, they regarded the pre-Qin and Han Dynasties as the primary period for Chinese classical studies. This constituted the second stage of the modern development of Chinese classical studies.
In the 21st century, particularly over the past 15 years, research in Chinese classical studies has flourished further and exhibited new characteristics. The first is "subject-orientation" (benweihua), wherein research in literature, history, and philosophy demonstrates a clear recognition of Chinese tradition in terms of concepts and values, with the study of the Confucian classics (jingxue) [3] becoming a popular topic. The second is "systematization," where classical studies is no longer limited to literary and historical investigations of the pre-Qin and Han periods but has expanded into a general exploration of the core questions of traditional Chinese civilization. The third is "institutionalization," in which several disciplines, including bibliography and philology, have actively adopted or accepted the name "Chinese classical studies." Relevant national academic organizations have been established, and the integration of classical studies into the disciplinary system has deepened daily. The fourth is "interaction," where the in-depth development of Western classical studies within China has provided a reference and impetus for the development of Chinese classical studies. Compared to the first stage, the consciousness of "the classical" has been markedly enhanced in this period. Compared to the second stage, the focus of research has shifted more toward transmitted texts, and the status of "the canon" (jingdian) as the primary carrier of classical studies has been highlighted. At the same time, however, accompanying the participation of multiple disciplines and perspectives, the academic spectrum has become increasingly complex, leading to theoretical questions about exactly "what is not classical studies."
As a form of the modernization of traditional scholarship, the century-long history of Chinese classical studies’ evolution from non-existence to its current state reveals an increasingly urgent search by the era for the root values of civilization. It also suggests the profundity and complexity of the adjustment and transformation of traditional scholarship between the ancient and the modern.
Classics, Canons, and Political Norms
Traditional Chinese scholarship is as vast as the sea. Within it, what exactly can be called "classical studies"? Or is classical studies simply the sum of traditional scholarship? We believe that Chinese classical studies has its own specific theoretical themes, primarily research into the fundamental principles, values, history, and texts of classical China. Its core textual scope is the "canon" (jingdian), and "canonicity" is a prominent theoretical characteristic of Chinese classical studies.
The so-called "canon" in China refers first to the "Classics" section of the four traditional divisions of literature (Classics, History, Philosophy, and Belles-lettres) [4]. Confucian classical studies is the backbone of traditional scholarship. The "Tianxia" chapter of the Zhuangzi states: "The Odes guide the will; the Documents guide affairs; the Rites guide conduct; the Music guides harmony; the Changes guide the yin and yang; the Spring and Autumn Annals guide names and duties." The tradition of sentiment and will, the narratives of sage-kings, the norms of conduct, the function of harmony, the philosophy of change, and the principles of "names and duties" found in the Six Classics jointly constitute the cultural core of classical China. In this sense, research on the Confucian classics and their ideological principles and historical evolution is naturally an inherent part of classical studies.
Furthermore, the "canon" is not limited to Confucian classics and classical studies but possesses a deeper and broader meaning across schools and eras. The "Tianxia" chapter of the Zhuangzi situates the Confucian classics within a totality where "the movement [of the Way] is nowhere absent," arguing that the Odes, Documents, Rites, and Music are but one aspect of the Way and must be combined with "histories of old laws transmitted through generations" and the "scholarship of the hundred schools." When discussing the origins of classical scholarship, the "Treatise on Literature" in the Book of Han proposed the famous theory that "the various masters originated from government officials" (zhuzi chuyu wangguan), suggesting that the "nine streams and ten schools" (including Confucianism and Daoism) were all offshoots of official institutions and regulations, and that the old classical canons of the Zhou government were the earlier source of all schools of thought. The discourses of the Zhuangzi and the Book of Han together convey a profound meaning: the fundamental principles and values upon which classical China was established possess a complete integrity that transcends the scope of any single school, sect, classic, or book. For this reason, Chinese classical studies today, taking the elucidation of these principles and values as its mission, cannot be limited to a specific discipline or school. Instead, it should unify and incorporate the scholarship of the Classics and the "Hundred Schools" into its vision to mobilize the entire ideological force of classical China. In this sense, one could say that any classical document that helps elucidate Chinese principles and values is a "canon" in the sense of classical studies; or rather, the canon in classical studies is the "words that carry the Way" (zaidao zhi yan), embodying Chinese principles and values.
The Shuowen Jiezi [5] explains the character dian (典, "canon" or "classic") as "the books of the Five Emperors." In its original sense, dian does not refer to ordinary books but to the condensation of the political and educational systems (zhengjiao) of an era. The "Canon of Yao" and "Canon of Shun," which open the Book of Documents, are records of the Way of Yao and Shun. In his General Meaning of Literature and History, Zhang Xuecheng proposed that "the Six Classics are all political canons (zhengdian) of the former kings," meaning that the Six Classics are the distillation of the former kings' "Way of Governance" (zhidao). Therefore, classical studies—which unifies the Classics and the Masters and aggregates the hundred schools—is neither a miscellaneous storehouse of everything nor the dogma of a single sect. Its essence always falls upon the principles of order in classical China. Classical studies highlights the characteristic of Chinese civilization that emphasizes the integration of politics and education and never departs from the humanistic; it is a scholarship concerning the "primary colors" of civilization.
Evolution of the Canon and the Renewal of Civilization
The canon is established in response to the maturity of a civilization and changes along with that civilization's renewal. From the pre-Qin period to the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the Chinese canonical system underwent a process of expansion and transformation, possessing a distinct character of the times.
In his History of Classical Studies, Pi Xirui once summarized the transformation of classical scholarship from ancient to modern times into ten eras; this was from the perspective of the rise and fall of Confucian classical studies. If we focus on the canon itself, the canonical system of classical China can be said to have undergone at least three major shifts. The first was the establishment of the Confucian canonical system during the Western Han Dynasty. From the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, the Odes, Documents, Rites, Changes, and Spring and Autumn Annals were formally established in the imperial academy. The system of "Erudites" (boshi) became the vehicle for the transmission of the canon. The Five Classics were used both to transmit scholarship and to govern affairs, thereby establishing the first stable canonical system of classical China. The second was the reform and inheritance of the canonical system during the Tang and Song Dynasties. Since the Han and Wei Dynasties, Buddhism had entered China; starting with the Northern Song, Neo-Confucianism (lixue) emerged. The immense ideological changes from medieval to early modern China were reflected in the canonical lineage: parts of the Five Classics became objects of pure academic research, while more philosophically profound texts became the new bearers of the spirit of the age. Mr. Qian Mu once spoke of the "New Seven Classics," arguing that the Analects, Mencius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Reflections on Things at Hand (Jinsilu), Instructions for Practical Living (Chuanxilu), and the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch together constituted the basic classics of Chinese culture from the Tang and Song onward. This statement emphasizes that the cultures of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism—represented by Neo-Confucianism and New Buddhism (Chan/Zen)—jointly established a new canonical lineage and ideological framework around the early modern period. The third shift was the radical change and reshaping of the canonical system since the late Qing Dynasty. The educational reforms of the late Qing and early Republic abolished the special status of Confucian classical studies, and the influx of new intellectual resources reshaped the fundamental perception of the world. In the 20th century, the canonical system of classical China not only lost its original institutional support but also faced the test of new history in terms of its theoretical principles. However, after undergoing such a complex historical process, traditional classics are still able to participate in history with a vital posture today and still possess the power to move people's hearts. This demonstrates not only the enduring vitality of the fundamental principles of classical China but also the profound connection between today’s China and its own historical tradition.
A phenomenon worthy of note is that every drastic adjustment of the Chinese canonical system occurred precisely at a macro-turning point in Chinese history: the rise and fall of Han Dynasty classical studies signaled the transition from antiquity to the medieval period; the reform of the Tang and Song classics marked the turn from the medieval to the early modern; and the deconstruction of late Qing classical studies stood at the threshold of the modern era. This is not coincidental but points to a fact: only the spirit of the age that can guide history toward a higher level can become a new canon. New canons are signs that the long river of civilization has entered a new reach. This naturally means that although the canonical system was established at the beginning of classical civilization, it can only maintain its "canonicity" through continuous self-renewal.
"Only my nation, from the ancient to the present, is both new and old." The reason Chinese classical civilization possesses enduring value is not because Chinese classics are old enough, but because the fundamental principles and values contained therein are always open to history and possess the capacity to "constantly be new." The reason research in classical studies has a vital function is not only because it investigates and recovers past events, but because classical studies aims to excavate resources from the classics to better respond to the questions of the era, seeking how civilizational initiative releases itself in each specific historical opportunity. The establishment of this sense of history and the attainment of this initiative are the true significance of classical studies between the ancient and the modern.
(The author is an Associate Researcher at the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Source: Guangming Daily (February 2, 2026) Editor: Huihui