William Hung's Unfulfilled Vision: A Pre-War Clash with Serge Elisséeff's Philology
Yichensyd
5
8-8Mia: You know, we often think of history's great rivalries in terms of nations or armies, but sometimes the most intense battles are fought quietly, in university halls, over ideas. These academic clashes can shape a field of study for generations.
Mars: That's so true. And a perfect example is the story of William Hung at Yenching University in the 1930s. It was this incredible intellectual showdown with Serge Elisséeff at the Harvard-Yenching Institute over the future and the very soul of Chinese studies.
Mia: Let's start by looking at the academic landscape of the 1930s. William Hung envisioned Yenching University as a leading center for Chinese humanities research, integrating Western scientific methods with Chinese historical traditions. This approach emphasized both detailed analysis and broader synthesis.
Mars: That's right, Mia. Hung's vision was quite ambitious, aiming to create a truly comprehensive understanding of Chinese history, but it was developing in an era dominated by the French Sinology school, which, while influential, often focused heavily on philology and textual criticism.
Mia: So, Hung was essentially trying to move beyond just textual analysis, aiming for a more holistic historical understanding that incorporated social sciences and broader interpretations, which was a departure from the more specialized, philological focus of the dominant French Sinology approach.
Mars: Exactly. This tension between Hung's integrative approach and the dominant French Sinology methods sets the stage for understanding the challenges he faced. So, Mars, how did the outbreak of the Pacific War complicate these academic ambitions and introduce new players into the picture?
Mia: Moving on, let's talk about Serge Elisséeff. After taking over the Harvard-Yenching Institute, he began to shift the focus towards strengthening East Asian studies at Harvard itself, especially with the onset of the war in China.
Mars: Yes, Elisséeff's background as a French-trained scholar of Japanese studies meant he brought a specific methodological framework, heavily influenced by the Paul Pelliot School, and saw an opportunity to build a leading East Asian studies program in the US, which naturally involved re-evaluating the institute's investments in China.
Mia: So, Elisséeff's strategic reorientation at Harvard-Yenching created a new dynamic, one that would put significant pressure on Hung's established vision at Yenching. This brings us to the core of the conflict. What were the specific points of contention that emerged between Hung's ambitions and Elisséeff's new direction?
Mars: The real tension emerged from their differing academic philosophies. William Hung advocated for a broad, interdisciplinary approach to Chinese studies, while Serge Elisséeff championed a more specialized, philological focus, heavily influenced by French Sinology.
Mia: Exactly. Hung's emphasis on synthesis and broader historical interpretation clashed with Elisséeff's prioritization of language and textual analysis. This led Hung to propose his ambitious Five-Year Plan to establish doctoral programs at Yenching, aiming to assert Chinese scholarly independence.
Mars: What's fascinating here is how Hung tried to leverage Elisséeff's own methodology against him. By proposing to establish doctoral programs that would require rigorous academic standards, Hung was essentially saying, We can produce world-class scholars here in China, trained in the methods you value, but on our own terms. It was a strategic move to reclaim agency.
Mia: It was a bold strategy, but ultimately, the Pacific War intervened, shutting down Yenching University and halting Hung's plan. This brings us to the final question: what was the ultimate impact of this conflict and the war on Hung's academic blueprint and the broader landscape of Chinese historiography?
Mars: The outbreak of the Pacific War ultimately brought William Hung's ambitious Five-Year Plan to a halt, leading to the closure of Yenching University and derailing his vision for Chinese humanities research.
Mia: Yes, the war was the final blow. Coupled with Elisséeff's strategic shift and the imposition of specific methodologies, Hung's comprehensive approach was effectively sidelined, and the momentum for a China-centric development of humanities research was significantly disrupted.
Mars: So, in the end, Hung's efforts to create a distinct Chinese approach to historiography, one that balanced analysis with synthesis and integrated various disciplines, were tragically cut short. This leaves us with a crucial takeaway about the resilience and challenges of academic development, especially during times of geopolitical upheaval.
Mia: So, Mars, if you had to boil it down, what are the key takeaways from this story?
Mars: Well, first, you have William Hung's groundbreaking vision for Yenching, blending Chinese and Western methods. Second, there was the methodological challenge from the dominant French school, which was all about deep textual analysis. Then, Serge Elisséeff enters and shifts the Harvard-Yenching Institute's focus toward Harvard, which puts pressure on Hung. This leads to Hung's bold Five-Year Plan as a move for academic independence. But ultimately, the Pacific War just stopped everything. It really highlights the fragility of these grand academic projects. It was truly a pre-war clash over ideas, with William Hung's ambitious vision for Yenching left unfulfilled because the war itself had the final say.