2023: The Tragic Fate of the Young Historian Shen Yuan

Shen Yuan was one of the “ten authorities in history” “历史学界十大权威” during the Cultural Revolution who must be defeated. This article from Yibao website makes me think about the campaign over the past several years against “historical nihilism” a label for historians and others who differ from the Party-approved version of history.

He Yuhuai: The Tragedy of a Young Genius — The Tragic Fate of the Young Historian Shen Yuan

何与怀 | 一位天才青年的悲剧——青年史学家沈元的悲惨无助的命运

Apr 14, 2023

Shen Yuan’s posthumous photo

On April 18, 1970, Shen Yuan was executed by firing squad in Beijing. During the Cultural Revolution, there were uncountable thinkers, famous and unknown, who were tragically killed. Shen Yuan, perhaps, was different from those martyrs who were killed such as Lin Zhaoge, Mian Luoque, Zhang Zhixin and Wang Shenyou. Shen Yuan’s case however people felt was especially tragic. It made a deep impression on many people.

ONE

On April 18, 1970, Shen Yuan was executed by firing squad in Beijing.

The day before, according to the recollection of those who were present, a “public trial meeting” was held at the Beijing Workers’ Stadium. At a shout, more than twenty people were escorted to the court and stood in a row in front of the stage. Although it was called a “public trial conference”, there was no public prosecution, and of course no defense was allowed, only a verdict, and almost all of them were sentenced to death. Twenty or so, one by one, upon hearing the verdict, they all fell to the ground. At the end of the conference, all the other people who were sentenced to death were dragged out, but this person was the only one who walked out of the conference hall by himself. When he reached the execution ground, this man shouted, “I still have a major problem to confess!” The executioners took him back. But in fact, this person did not give up any “major problems”, and the next day was taken to the execution ground …….

At the same time, the Military Control Committee of the Beijing Municipal “Public Prosecutor’s Office” (short for Public Security, Procuratorate, and Court, which were merged into one during the Cultural Revolution and controlled by the military) issued a bulletin that read as follows:

Shen Yuan, a 32-year-old man from Zhejiang Province, is a rightist, a trainee researcher at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and a counterrevolutionary traitor. His mother is a rightist and his brother has been sentenced for counter-revolutionary crimes. He attempted to commit treason and defect to the enemy. On September 1, 1968, he broke into a foreign embassy in China, dressed as a black man, and spread a lot of reactionary remarks, viciously attacking our Party and the socialist system and slandering the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Disguising himself as a black man? Breaking into a foreign embassy in China? That would have been too stupid, too dramatic, too unlikely to succeed, too mind-boggling in those days. But it’s true, although there are discrepancies in the specific circumstances. As the story goes, on that day, Shen Yuan bought a box of oil paint, smeared it on his face and pretended to be a black man, and tried to break into the embassy of an African country in China to apply for political asylum and ask for help to leave China. According to Guo Luoji, Shen Yuan was dressed as a black man and broke into the Soviet Embassy in China twice. The first time was in August 1968, carrying so-called “confidential documents”, but the Soviets did not take him seriously and did not admit him; the second time was on September 1 of the same year, when he was arrested without breaking in. The guard at the door pulled Shen Yuan to a halt, and the oil paint on his hands was wiped off, and he was found to be a fake black man, so he was arrested on the spot.

Shen Yuan was destined to die. He happened to come across the instruction of Mao Zedong on January 31, 1970 to “follow the instructions” issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on combating counter-revolutionary activities – and encountered the “severe crackdown”. By “crackdown”, it means to punish certain “criminals” from time to time in the form of political campaigns, especially “quickly and severely” according to political needs. This document, numbered “Zhong Fa [1970] No. 4”, instructed that:

The Soviet revisionists are intensifying their collaboration with the U.S. imperialists and plotting to launch a war of aggression against us; the domestic counter-revolutionary elements are also taking advantage of this opportunity and echoing it, which is a new trend worth noting in the current class struggle. This small group of counter-revolutionary elements is trying to restore their lost paradise by relying on the force of the empire, the revisionists and the rebels, and intensify their sabotage activities. Some are spreading war terror and disinformation; some are stealing state secrets and serving the enemy; some are taking advantage of the opportunity to overturn cases and disobey controls; some are secretly conspiring and plotting riots; some are embezzling and stealing, speculating and destroying the socialist economy; some are sabotaging the sending down to the countryside of young people and their insertion [Translator’s note: sending urban educated youth “to the mountains and going to the countryside” ] into People’s Commune production brigades and the sending of Party and government cadres and intellectuals to factories and villages to do manual labor.

The Beijing Municipal Public Law and Military Control Commission of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) issued three circulars on January 9, February 11, and March 24, 1970, regarding the “publication of criminal cases for discussion. This is the front page of the February 11 Notice.

Translation below.

Supreme Instruction

Resolutely suppress all counter-revolutionary elements and greatly consolidate our revolutionary dictatorship so that the revolution can be carried through to the end and the goal of building a great socialist state can be achieved.

In order to safeguard social order and the interests of the people, the dictatorship must also be exercised over thieves, swindlers, murderers and arsonists, hooligan groups and all kinds of bad elements that seriously disrupt social order.

Circular Notice

In order to strengthen the dictatorship over a small group of counterrevolutionary forces, to crack down on the existing counterrevolutionary and destructive activities, and to further improve the revolutionary order in the capital, a number of existing counterrevolutionaries have recently been sentenced again. The materials on the cases of fifty-five criminals, including Gu Wenxuan, are hereby sent to all units, requesting revolutionary committees at all levels, workers, and the Mao Zedong Thought Propaganda Team of the People’s Liberation Army to organize serious discussions among the revolutionary masses, put forward their opinions on handling the cases, and report them to the Municipal Public Law and Military Control Commission. This material is for internal discussion only and is not to be posted.

Beijing Municipal Public Law and Military Control Committee of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army

February 11, 1970

According to Mao Zedong’s instructions, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) launched the horrific “One Strike, Three Oppositions” campaign during the year. In order to set a “model” for the campaign, the Beijing municipal authorities held three public trials and public sentences from late January to mid-April, with tens to hundreds of thousands of participants, to sentence and execute the so-called “counter-revolutionary” criminals. In order to prepare for the public trials and sentences and to create public opinion, the executive unit, the Beijing Municipal Public Law Military Control Committee of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), issued three circulars on January 9, February 11, and March 24, 1970, to “publish the cases of criminals for discussion. On January 9, February 11, and March 24, 1970, the Beijing Municipal Public Law and Military Control Commission issued three “notices” for “discussion by the revolutionary public” and “opinions on sentencing”. All those executed in that year were on the list attached to this Notice. However, Shen Yuan was on this list twice in succession. The first time was on February 11, 1970, and the second time was on March 24, a month or so later. Not only in Beijing, but also in the whole country, Shen Yuan was the only person who had been on such a list twice.

Translation below

17. Counter-revolutionary traitor Yuan, male, 32 years old, a native of Zhejiang Province was caught red-handed. Yuan comes from a family of so-called officials. He is a rightist, and a research intern at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His mother was a rightist.

Shen wrote a lot of reactionary articles, actively planned to defect to the enemy, and on September 1, 1968, disguised as a black man, defected to a foreign embassy in China, spread a lot of reactionary remarks, and viciously attacked our Party and the socialist system and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. [Handwritten notation] Condemned to death ….

18. Counter-revolutionary traitor Dong Fengchun, male, 35 years old, native of Liaoning Province was caught red-handed. Dong is a landlord by birth, a rightist, and an assistant technician at the former Haihe Survey and Design Institute of the Ministry of Hydropower. His father and mother were both landlords.

On August 12, 1966, Dong crossed the border, betrayed important political information, and viciously attacked the socialist system of China. Later he was brought back to China. [Handwritten notation] Condemned to death by execution.

Translation below

19. The counter-revolutionary traitor Shen Yuan, male, 32 years old, from Zhejiang Province was caught red-handed. Shen is a phony official, a rightist, and an intern researcher at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His mother was a rightist, and his brother was sentenced for counterrevolutionary crimes.

Shen persisted in his reactionary stance, wrote a lot of reactionary articles and made a lot of counter-revolutionary arguments. He attempted to defect to the enemy. On September 1, 1968, he disguised himself as a black man and entered a foreign embassy where he spread a great deal of counter-revolutionary talk, viciously attacking our country’s socialist system and slandering the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

20. The counterrevolutionary criminal Jin Youzhong, male, fifty-two years old from he Hebei Province, is a capitalist by birth. His former occupation was staff worker. He did odd jobs at the Beijing quilt factory. He was sentenced to prison for embezzlement.

Prisoner Jin is extremely reactionary. Since 1954 he has been spread a lot of reactionary talk, making vicious attacks against China’s socialist system and the Three Red Flags. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution…

On two occasions, Shen Yuan was given “notices” for “discussion among the revolutionary masses” and “opinions on execution”. All of those executed in 1970 were given such notices.

In this terror-filled socio-political environment, Shen Yuan, a weak-willed scholar, was included in the list of those who “did all kinds of evil things and did great harm” and was sentenced to death for “counter-revolutionary crimes”. He was summarily executed under the severe “dictatorship of the proletariat”. He was sentenced to death for “counter-revolutionary crimes” and died under the gun of “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

The execution ground where Shen Yuan was shot.

II

Shen Yuan tried twice to save himself. However he was also too ignorant. He was just a very ordinary person, in the lower strata of society. Supposedly he “possessed confidential materials”, but nothing more than a few Red Guard newspaper. He had nothing, no information at all to sell, nothing. So what value could he have been to anyone? Why should they take him in? Why should the other side endure a diplomatic storm for his sake? In the case of Shen Yuan, to get such a heavy sentence, there should have been some evidence that he betrayed intelligence information and so on. This is just judicial common sense. That there was none did not not reduce his guilt in any way. This constitutes “treason and defecting to the enemy”, of course, he “deserved to die”.

Why would a scholar like Shen Yuan, who was so nerdy, choose to dress up as a black man and flee into a foreign embassy as a path of no return? This should be a very shallow question, but we still have to ask it, and keep asking it! When Yu Jie commented on this event almost forty years ago, he thought of the “performance art” that many people in mainland China are interested in today, and said that if this is a kind of “performance art”, it is enough to make all the performance artists in China today drop their jaws. It is a kind of “performance art” that would make all the performance artists in China today stand in awe. Of course, such a life-threatening event is never the result of artistic inspiration! Anyone can imagine that Shen Yuan must have gone through a painful struggle in his soul before making this decision! Besides, Shen Yuan was such a person – it was clear from his words and deeds that he was full of deep love, full of simple love, for his Chinese compatriots, for China, for Chinese civilization and for Chinese history.

At that time, Shen Yuan was really persecuted to the point of no return. There was just no escape for him. He had just gotten married, and the young couple had just started their days. His wife was his cousin, beautiful, pure and wise, and his childhood sweetheart. They were living with relatives, but when the Red Guard movement came, they were swept away and forced to constantly hide. Their workplace did not accept them, so they could not even get housing allocated to them. Shen Yuan asked his sister, who lived in Hangzhou, for help, but she was already too busy to take care of herself, so how could she make things even worse by accepting a “counter-revolutionary” into her home? The pain of being abandoned by friends and relatives, the desperation of not having anyone to call upon under the sky and upon the earth, is something that people who have not experienced the horrors of the Cultural Revolution can hardly understand. Even a mole cricket has to cherish life, let alone a young man with a spiritual life! As long as there is a little way out, as long as there is a star of hope, how could Shen Yuan have been so stupid as to embark on this almost doomed road to death?

How unwilling he was to end his life here. Even when he was being taken to the execution ground, if others had been desperate, he was still using his incredible resourcefulness to seek a chance to escape from death – his mind must have flashed through the various dynasties of history, “Save a man by the sword! The story, to live another day, an hour, even a minute, waiting for someone to shout out such a sentence. Very unfortunately, all that remains of Shen Yuan today is just a thought. But his last effort to survive was simply amazing, truly something that would make the ghosts and spirits weep!

THREE

Let’s start from the moment of excitement that Shen Yuan once had.

In 1955, at the age of 17, Shen Yuan passed the entrance examination for the history department of Peking University. In a country with so many students apply for university, this was an outstanding achievement. Guo Luoji, Shen Yuan’s classmate in the history department of Peking University at that time, recalled that Shen Yuan was a student of exceptional talent. Or rather, he combined genius with diligence. During his studies at Peking University, as he said in a letter to his teacher, he rarely rested. There were large numbers of reference books to read and notes to copy out. He ran to the library as soon as he finished each class, and after each meal he rushed to wait for the doors to open, otherwise he could not get a seat. “Once he entered the library, it was as if an old cow had reached the pasture”, a metaphor that vividly reproduced his study life back then. Shen Yuan told his classmates, “We are the future Fan Wenlan, Guo Moruo, and Jian Bozan.” He was a Marxist historian, a man of high ambition and high aspirations. (See Guo Luoji, “A Talented Man, Born in an Era of Talent Destruction – A Lament for Shen Yuan,” online article)

While working diligently as a determined, very scholarly student in the history department of Peking University, the bookish Shen Yuan suffered a catastrophe because of an unfortunate act that violated the rules of heaven – out of curiosity and because of his intelligence and childishness, he translated and discussed Khrushchev’s “secret report” against Stalin. report” against Stalin. Guo Luoji recalls that Shen Yuan found the report to contain many important issues and opinions, the most profound of which were two points that caused him to ponder deeply and discuss with his classmates.

The leak of Khrushchev’s secret report had been widely reported in the West.

First, how was Stalin able to hold the power of life and death? Why was he able to conceal his bad deeds for a long time? Khrushchev only attributed it to the cult of the individual, while Shen Yuan said bluntly – “fundamentally this is really a problem of the system”.

Second, why are the facts revealed in Khrushchev’s secret report not found in the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)  and in the History of the Soviet Union? Is that kind of history still a credible history? Shen Yuan asks: Why can’t the historians of the feudal dynasties of China write credible histories? Those who study and research history are, of course, particularly interested in how history is written. The question raised by Shen Yuan led to a lively discussion, and everyone could not help but think of their own mission: what kind of historian will they be in the future? Who will carry on the tradition of the Grand Historian Sima Qian?

During the 1957 Anti-Rightist Campaign, when Peking University was classified as rightist by the relatively high percentage of rightists there, Shen Yuan, who was devoted to his studies and buried deeply in his books, was branded as a “rightist” because he did not actively participate in the Party organization and because he argued with some radical Party members. His superiors even thought that “he had long been a rightist” and decided that the slogans he and his classmates posted outside the history department’s dormitory and the wall newspaper “Quasi-Fun Monthly” [Translator’s note: named after Lu Xun’s essay collection of the 1930s] were attacks on the Party. They even went back to attack his translation of Khrushchev’s secret reports and his comments on it, accusing him of “vicious attacks on the socialist era”. “This went even further – to characterize him as being on the “far-right”.

In that year, Shen Yuan was nineteen years old, just the right age to be vigorous. The following year, Shen Yuan was expelled from school and sent to the countryside for three years of reform through labor. This was a turning point in his very short life.

IV

In 1961, Shen Yuan returned to Beijing after his classification as a rightist was canceled. Fortunately, Shen Yuan’s aunt and uncle, who were high-ranking intellectuals at the time, were particularly fond of him and allowed him to live in their home in the east of Beijing. What made Shen Yuan special was that he studied behind closed doors. He paid no attention to what was going on outside the window, and devoted himself to the study of history, and actually has some surprising accomplishments.

In 1962, Shen Yuan was recommended by his aunt’s parents to their acquaintance Liu Guosheng, deputy director of the Department of Social Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Liu was in charge of the Institute of Modern History, and he knew that the historian Li Shu was looking for an assistant at that time, so he recommended Shen Yuan to Li Shu’s tutelage. It is said that Liu Guosheng asked Li Shu, “Don’t you want someone? Do you want a right-winger?” Liu handed him nine articles written by Shen Yuan. After reading them, Li Shu was overjoyed and said to himself, “This is the assistant I am looking for.” At that time, Shen Yuan was an unemployed youth without a work unit. Li Shu asked the Public Security Bureau for his file. He said, “Isn’t he just a rightist? What’s the big deal about that?” Then he decided to hire Shen Yuan as a trainee researcher. (See Guo Luoji, “Mourning Shen Yuan”郭罗基，〈哀沈元〉)

Liu Guosheng and Li Shu were both courageous leaders who loved and cherished talents. However, Shen Yuan was transferred to the Institute of Modern History of the Ministry of Social Science, mainly because it was during the adjustment period of the three-year difficulties, when Mao’s ultra-leftist practices were more or less criticized, and the policy toward intellectuals was relatively relaxed for a while. Otherwise, according to the personnel rules of the Communist Party, an expelled rightist student could not be transferred to the highest research institution even if his hat was removed.

Li Shu, who was also the editor-in-chief of the academic journal Historical Studies in Beijing at the time, selected among nine articles by Shen Yuan, “On Han Shiyu’s “The Book of Urgent Instructions,” 论汉史游的《急就篇》and published it in Historical Studies, No. 3, 1962 《历史研究》1962年第3期. This is a scholarly paper on the socio-cultural study of the Han Dynasty’s children’s enlightenment book, The Book of Urgent Instructions. According to scholars in this field, this article shows the author’s profound knowledge of history, phonetics and phonology and his novel perspective, which is a refreshing spring breeze amidst the prevailing national discourse of class struggle; the article also features historical materialism in analyzing social thought from economic life. It is a good piece of work in both national and Marxist historiography. It caused an instant sensation in the historiography of mainland China. Guo Moruo exclaimed, “This article is well written.” He even said, “I could not have written such an article.” Fan Wenlan said, “At least it is better than mine.” Zhou Yutong of Fudan University was so excited when he talked about Shen Yuan.

Shen Yuan’s “On Han Shiyu’s ‘The Book of Urgent Compliments'” was published in Historical Studies, No. 3, 1962.

Soon after Shen Yuan came to the Institute, the first issue of Historical Studies in 1963 published his full-length article of more than 50,000 words, “Hong Xiuquan and the Taiping Revolution” 1963年第1期《历史研究》又发表他全文五万多字的长篇文章〈洪秀全与太平天国革命〉. On February 12 of the same year, the People’s Daily devoted a full page to his article “On Hong Xiuquan” (i.e., a compressed version of the previous article of 10,000 words)1963年2月12日，《人民日报》用一整版刊载他的〈论洪秀全〉. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the People’s Daily had never published an academic article on a full page. Shen Yuan received such this favorable treatment and it won him a lot of applause. Shen Yuan’s article was not only valued by the academic community, but also appreciated by Deng Tuo, the secretary of the Beijing Municipal Party Committee 1958年，邓拓调任中共北京市委书记处书记 [Translator’s note: and People’s Daily editor. A qq.com article about Deng Tuo celebrates the achievements of Deng Tuo but doesn’t mention that he had been the chief editor of People’s Daily, was criticized, and committed suicide during the Cultural Revolution. Some things still best left unsaid. End note.] . Thus, it caused another sensation in the academic world. At one time, from the north to the south of the scholars, everyone competed to say Shen Yuan, thus deriving the “Shen Yuan Road”. For a time, it seemed that the path of Shen Yuan had been supported from above and Shen Yuan’s fate seemed to have turned around.

FIVE

However, at that time, insiders knew that there was a killing machine behind the so-called “turnaround”. Shen Yuan showed his talent, realized his ambition, and made his debut, impressing the authorities in Chinese history, but he also attracted jealousy.

The phrase “Shen Yuan’s path” came from Peking University. Soon, research institutions and colleges and universities were talking about the rightist star, and it became a “Shen Yuan incident” for a while. Some people in the history department of Peking University went on to charge the Chinese Propaganda Department that Shen Yuan was a rightist, and that by publishing his articles in this way, the press was openly promoting the “white [Note: rightist, counter-revolutionary] and expert” path (i.e., not the “red and expert” advocated by Mao Zedong) and opposing the Party’s education policy. In the Institute of History, opposition was even more vocal. People of the same generation as Shen Yuan had come to the Institute for several years without producing a single article, but Shen Yuan produced several articles a year which time and again made a sensation. This was the most damaging of all. However, once this “Shen Yuan Road” argument spread, the reaction was strong. Zhou Yutong claimed in his classroom that he was “strongly in favor of Shen Yuan’s path”. Li Shu said, “If there are ten Shen Yuan in the study of modern history, the outlook will be radically changed.” However, because of the turbulent currents, the leaders had to suggest that Shen Yuan not use his real name but a pen name to publish his articles. Later, Shen Yuan could not use his real name to publish his articles, and used the pseudonyms of “Zhang Yulou” (from the couplet in Li Shu’s room), “Gao Ziqiang”, “Zeng Wuxiu” and so on.

There is a story about Shen Yuan using a pseudonym. Under the pseudonym of “Zhang Yulou”, he wrote an article entitled “Marxist Class Analysis Method and Historical Research”, which was first published in “Historical Research”. Ding Shouhe, deputy editor-in-chief of Historical Research, sent it to the People’s Daily along with a paper written by Liu Danian, director of the Institute of Modern History, on “Several Issues in Modern History Research”. The People’s Daily, not knowing who “Zhang Yulou” was, used Shen Yuan’s article instead of Liu Danian’s. Shen Yuan’s article was a good example of how to make a difference. However, when some people found out that Shen Yuan was still using his pen name to publish articles, they still did not relent and sued again, even to Mao Zedong, accusing Li Shu and others of “touting the Rightists” and “reusing the Rightists ” (rightists who had had that label removed or rightists). One day, Mao Zedong’s secretary Tian Jiaying called Li Shu and said, “Someone sent Chairman Mao mimeograph materials exposing the ‘Shen Yuan incident. It’s a good thing it passed through my hands. I don’t know how Mao will criticize it when he sees it. Come quickly!” (See Guo Luoji, “Mourning Shen Yuan.”) The Central Propaganda Department also sent someone to investigate and gave instructions to “pay attention to the impact” and never let Shen Yuan publish articles again.

When the “Cultural Revolution” broke out in 1966, Shen Yuan was immediately included among the “ten authorities in history” “历史学界十大权威” to be defeated. He was the youngest of these “authorities”, being only twenty-eight years old at the time, and all the historians on the same list were his teachers. In the following two years, Shen Yuan was continuously criticized and accompanied by fighting, suffering all kinds of insults and losing all his human dignity, and in desperation, the aforementioned incident happened.

VI

Shen Yuan did not commit any heinous crime. After his arrest, Mrs. Shen still held out hope. She told the her mother with whom who was working together digging bomb shelters (at that time, all the people were digging holes to implement Mao Zedong’s supreme instruction of “digging deeper”), “I am determined to wait for him for another seven or eight years, and he will come out and be reunited.” One day, she was called to a mass sentencing meeting, where Shen Yuan was escorted to the stage with other “counter-revolutionaries” and announced to be sentenced to death for treason. Confronting the slogan-shouting crowd, Shen Yuan, his wife and cousin, fainted on the spot.

After the end of the Cultural Revolution, in 1981, there was finally a notice of his political rehabilitation. At that moment, Shen Yuan’s strong mother cried out for the first time since her son’s death: “I want the person, I don’t want paper, I don’t want paper! I sent away a living person, a brilliant, talented son, why now give me a piece of paper? I want a human being! I want the person! ……” There words tore at people’s hearts, her listeners were moved. But the mother could not get her son back – he was killed by another abstract “mother”. This was the sin of a dictatorship!

China is so big, why does it have no room for a Shen Yuan? There is much more to be said about the death of Shen Yuan. Shen Yuan, a Shanghai native, wearing a pair of glasses for his near-sightedness, thin, tall, fair-skinned scholar, from a scholarly family, cultured, shy and few words, somebody who always followed the rules, who never offended anyone, and never hurt anyone. He had just been quietly has only been quietly doing his job. Even when he was in prison, according to the memories of his former cellmates, he was also very well liked. “Although he was sick himself, he still shared his limited rations with others.” “He was very calm, cultivated and learned, and very well-respected.” But such a person as Shen Yuan, long before the “Cultural Revolution”, has made many people jealous because they could not compare with him. He had no grudge against those people, so why were they did that attack him so?

As the title of Guo Luoji’s article “Mourning Shen Yuan” indicates, Shen Yuan was “a talented person born in an era of destruction of talent”. Many years later, Guo Luoji visited Li Shu and Ding Shouhe. In his “Discussing Shen Yuan’s death, Li Shu outlined two reasons: “First, he died because many people were jealous of him. Secondly, he died because of his own ignorance and everyone’s ignorance.” Ding Shouhe, on the other hand, felt deeply guilty that they had “killed” Shen Yuan! He said, “Li Shu and I love talent, and tried every possible way to publish his articles, but we ended up doing him a disservice.” “Publishing his articles over and over again caused jealousy and drove him to his death. Had I known this, I would have been better off not publishing his articles back then.” The concept of “shared jealousy” or “group jealousy” is very profound, according to Guo Luoji. Jealousy is a bad point of individual people, but the common jealousy towards people of talent is a sickness of society. The cause of the sick society is an irrational system (see Guo Luoji, “Mourning Shen Yuan”).

During the “Cultural Revolution” years, when there was a lot of smoke and fire everywhere, Shen Yuan was even more pathetically isolated and helpless. He was forced to a dead end step by step. After his arrest, Shen Yuan’s case was handed over to his colleagues in various institutes of the Academy of Sciences to discuss his case. All those who experienced the Cultural Revolution knew that the purpose of calling the masses to discuss the case and how to sentence the “counter-revolutionaries” was not to ask people to express their opinions, but to intimidate people so that they would not express their opinions and to act as a deterrent. Some people did express their opinions, but they must have said in good conscience that the sentence was too light for someone, never that it was too heavy. At that time, people who knew or did not know Shen Yuan, none dared to come forward to help him say a word, even if they called for a suspended sentence of death. Perhaps some people still feel that Shen Yuan is ridiculous, or even “deserved it”.

This is the wound, sorrow and the shame of an entire generation of intellectuals.

In his essay “Facing the Highly Distinguished Dead,” Liu Zifu painfully dissects his own soul:

More than thirty years later, I still remember Shen Yuan’s name clearly, and the tragic story of a young outstanding scholar who was buried alive and destroyed…….When I think of his tragedy, I first of all think of the absurd years in the past when I was also mad, and I also criticized”rightists”and”counter-revolutionary revisionists ” with a strong voice. “I was also afraid of lagging behind in drawing a clear distinction between myself and “Shen Yuan’s path”and even joining the ranks of those who denounced them. I really felt that I had participated in creating a wrong era and that I was complicit in the murder of Shen Yuan.

People understand that tyranny can be twofold, not only the violent dictatorship of a dictatorship, but also the tyranny of the majority imposed by a dictatorially ignorant population. The Shen Yuan case provides a sad specimen of the vileness of human nature and the evil of the system.

When Guo Luoji, a classmate of Shen Yuan’s in the history department of Peking University, visited his family in Sydney in 2012, the author of this article met with him and presented him with a book entitled “Looking North at the Long Sky”.

(This article was originally part of the author’s long essay “They made all the survivors lose weight. …… – A Tribute to the Thinkers Killed in the Cultural Revolution”. It was originally published in my book “Looking North at the Long Sky” (Taipei, Xiuwei, November 2008) on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution in May 2006, but has later revised.)

[Please add the source and link: https: //yibaochina.com/?p=250041 ]

[The author’s views do not represent the position of the Journal]

---

---

何与怀 | 一位天才青年的悲剧——青年史学家沈元的悲惨无助的命运

Apr 14, 2023

沈元遗照

1970年4月18日，沈元在北京被枪决。文革中，惨遭杀害的思想者，有名的，无名的，不可计数。沈元，也许和那些被害的烈士如林昭、遇罗克、张志新、王申酉……等人有所不同，但是他悲惨无助的命运，使人们格外沉痛。

一

1970年4月18日，沈元在北京被枪决。

在前一天，据当时在场者回忆说，北京工人体育场召开“公审大会”。一声吆喝，押上二十多人，在台前站了一排。虽然名曰“公审大会”，可是没有公诉，当然更不准辩护，只有判决，而且几乎都是“从严”判决死刑。二十来个，一个个一听到宣判都瘫倒在地。只有一个，被判了死刑依然站立，大会结束时，其他所有被判了死刑的人都是被架着拖出去，也只有这个人是自己走出会场的。到了刑场上，这个人竟然又大喊一声：“我还有重大问题要交待！”行刑人把他押了回去。但实际上这个人并没有交待出什么“重大问题”，第二天又被押赴刑场……。

在这同时，北京市“公检法”（公安、检察院、法院简称，“文革”时合并为一，由军队管制）军事管制委员会签发了一份布告，行文如下：

现行反革命叛国犯沈元，男，三十二岁，浙江省人，伪官吏出身，系右派分子，中国科学院近代史研究所实习研究员。其母系右派分子，其兄因反革命罪被判过刑。沈犯顽固坚持反动立场，书写大量反动文章，大造反革命舆论，并企图叛国投敌，于一九六八年九月一日，化妆成黑人，闯入了外国驻华使馆，散布大量反动言论，恶毒攻击我党和社会主义制度，诬蔑攻击无产阶级文化大革命。

化妆成黑人？闯入外国驻华使馆？这种做法在那样的年代里实在太愚蠢，太戏剧化，太无成功可能，太让人匪夷所思了。但这的确是真的，虽然传出来的具体情节有出入。据一传说所描写，那一天，沈元买了盒油彩，涂抹在脸上身上假扮成黑人，企图闯进一非洲国家驻中国大使馆，申请政治避难，请求帮助离开中国。而经过郭罗基考证的说法是：沈元装扮成黑人闯的是苏联驻中国大使馆，而且闯了两次。第一次是在1968年8月，夹带着所谓的“机密文件”，但苏联人并不重视他，不予收留；第二次是在同年9月1日，没有闯入便被抓了。门口的警卫将沈元一把拉住，他手上的油彩被抹去，发现是个假黑人，于是当场逮捕……

沈元注定要命丧黄泉。他刚好踫到1970年1月31日毛泽东批示“照办”中共中央发出的〈关于打击反革命活动的指示〉——碰到“严打”。所谓“严打”，即根据政治的需要不时以政治运动的方式特别“从快从严”惩办某些特定的“罪犯”。这份编号为〈中发〔1970〕4号〉文件指示说：

苏修正在加紧勾结美帝，阴谋对我发动侵略战争；国内的反革命分子也乘机蠢动，遥相呼应，这是当前阶级斗争中值得注意的新动向。这一小撮反革命分子妄图仰赖帝、修、反的武力，复辟他们失去的天堂，加紧进行破坏活动。有的散布战争恐怖，造谣惑众；有的盗窃国家机密，为敌效劳；有的趁机翻案，不服管制；有的秘密串联，阴谋暴乱；有的贪污盗窃，投机倒把，破坏社会主义经济；有的破坏插队、下放，这些人虽然是一小撮，但无恶不做，危害很大。

中国人民解放军北京市公法军事管制委员会先后于1970年1月9日、2月11日、3月24日三次发出“公布罪犯案情供讨论”的相关《通知》。这是2月11日《通知》的首页。

根据毛泽东的批示，中共中央这一年开展恐怖的“一打三反”运动。为了给运动树立“样板”，北京市当局从1月底至4月中旬共开了三次全市性有数万至十万人参加的公审公判大会，判刑和处决所谓“反革命”罪犯。为给公审公判作准备及造舆论，执行单位“中国人民解放军北京市公法军事管制委员会”，先后于1970年1月9日、2月11日、3月24日，三次发出“公布罪犯案情供讨论”的相关《通知》，供“革命群众讨论”并提出“处刑意见”。所有那一年被处决者，都上过这种《通知》所附的名单。不过，沈元却是先后两次上了这种名单。第一次是1970年2月11日，第二次是一个多月之后的3月24日。不仅在北京市，也在全国范围，沈元是唯一两次上过这类名单的人。

沈元先后两次上了《通知》，供“革命群众讨论”并提出“处刑意见”。所有1970年被处决者，都上过这种《通知》。

在这种恐怖的社会政治生态环境下，羸弱书生沈元被列入“无恶不做，危害很大”之徒，以“反革命罪”被判处死刑，从快从严死在“无产阶级专政”的枪口下。

沈元被枪决的刑场。

二

沈元为保命两次闯关，但也太无知了。他一介布衣，身处社会低层，所谓“夹带机密材料”，不过是些红卫兵小报，他两手空空，没有任何情报可出卖，一无所有，有何价值？岂能被收留？对方又何必为他承担外交风波？而在沈元方面，要重判，至少要有出卖情报之类的证据，这是司法常识，可是这丝毫也没有减轻他的罪过。这是“叛国投敌”，当然是“罪该万死”。

为什么沈元这样显露十足书呆气的一介书生，竟然会破釜沉舟地选择装扮成黑人、逃入外国使馆的这条不归路呢？这应该是一个很浅白的问题，但我们还是要追问，而且要不断追问！余杰评论这个几乎四十年前的事件时，想到今天中国大陆许多人也饶有兴趣的“行为艺术”，说，如果说这是一种“行为艺术”的话，它足以让今天中国所有的行为艺术家们都瞠目结舌，甘拜下风。当然，这种性命攸关的事，绝不是艺术灵感冲动的结果！谁都可以想象得出，沈元在作出这一决定之前，其灵魂深处一定经历了痛苦的挣扎！况且沈元是这么一个人——从他一向的言行可知，他对中国的同胞、中国的土地、中国的文明和中国的历史充满深沉的爱，充满单纯的爱。

当时，沈元实在是被迫害得受不了，实在是走逃无路了。他刚结婚不久，小两口日子刚刚开始。夫人是他的表妹，生得美丽，既纯洁又贤慧，与他青梅竹马两小无猜。他们寄居在亲戚家，红卫兵运动一来，他俩被扫地出门，逼得到处躲藏，工作单位也不接纳，小两口连栖身之地也找不到。沈元曾向住在杭州的姐姐求救，但姐姐早已自顾不暇，又哪能再接受一个“反革命”呢？那种被亲朋故旧抛弃的痛苦，那呼天天不灵、呼地地不应的绝望，是没有经历过“文革”恐怖的人所难以体会的。蝼蚁尚且要惜生，又何况是一个有灵性的年青生命!只要有一点点出路，只要有一星星希望，沈元又何尝愚蠢到要走上这一条几乎注定的死路？！

他多么不甘心就此了结一生啊。即使已被押到刑场，要是别人早已绝望了，他还在运用不可思议的机智寻求死里逃生的机会——他脑海里一定闪过历史上各朝各代各种“刀下留人！”的故事，争取多活一天、一小时，哪怕一分钟，等待有人喊出这么一句。非常不幸，沈元现在是异想天开。但他最后的求生努力，简直惊天地，泣鬼神！

三

让我们从沈元曾经有过的兴奋的时刻说起。

1955年，年方十七的沈元考入了北京大学历史系，在全国这么多的考生中脱颖而出，这可是了不起的事情。沈元当时在北大历史系的同班同学郭罗基回忆说，沈元是一个才华出众的学生。或者说，他是天才加上勤奋。在北大学习期间，如他在给老师的信中所言：他几无片刻休息。大批的参考书要看，要做摘录。每次课一完就跑到图书馆去，每餐之后也尽速赶去等馆门之开，否则抢不到座位。“一进图书馆，好像老牛到了水草地”，他这个比喻形象生动地再现了他当年学习生活的情景。沈元对同学们说：“我们就是未来的范文澜、郭沫若、翦伯赞。”他以马克思主义史学家自许，真可谓意气风发，志趣高远。（见郭罗基，〈一个人才，生逢毁灭人才的时代——哀沈元〉，网上文章）

就在北京大学历史系勤勤奋奋当一名自许甚高的学子时，书生气的沈元竟因一个不幸的举动，触犯天条，遭受灭顶之灾——他出于好奇心，也因为并具的聪慧和幼稚所累，竟翻译并议论了赫鲁晓夫反斯大林的“秘密报告”。郭罗基回忆，沈元发现这份报告包含许多重大问题和看法，其中最深刻的有两点引起他深深思索，并和同学讨论。

赫鲁晓夫秘密报告泄露后曾被西方广泛报道。

一是斯大林为什么能够握有生杀予夺的权力？干了坏事为什么能够长期隐瞒？赫鲁晓夫仅归结为个人崇拜，而沈元却直言——“根本上还是制度问题”。

二是赫鲁晓夫秘密报告中揭露的事实，为何在《联共(布)党史简明教程》、《苏联史》中都是看不到的？那样的历史还是信史吗？沈元提出：中国封建王朝的史官还能秉笔直书，社会主义时代却为什么不能写信史？学习和研究史学的人对于如何书写历史，当然是特别在意的。沈元提出的问题引起热烈的讨论，大家不能不联想到自己的使命：自己将来做一个什么样的历史学家？谁来继承太史公的传统？

在1957年的反右运动中，北京大学按百分比划右派时，潜心做学问、深钻故纸堆的沈元，因为平时不积极向党组织靠拢，并与某些激进党员进行辩论，被打为“右派”。上级更认为“他早就是右派”，认定他和同学贴历史系宿舍外的鸣放标语以及墙报《准风月谈》是向党进攻，甚至追溯到他翻译赫鲁晓夫的秘密报告和私下的评论，指控他“恶毒攻击社会主义年代”，如此更进一步——将其定性为“极右”。

这一年，沈元十九岁，正是意气风发的年纪。翌年，沈元被开除学籍，遣送农村劳动改造三年。这是他极其短暂的一生的转折点。

四

1961年，沈元“摘帽”（摘去右派分子的政治“帽子”）之后，回到北京。幸好当时沈元有高级知识分子的姑母姑父特别疼他，允许他住到他们在北京东城的家里。也是沈元特别与众不同之处——他闭门读书，两耳不闻窗外事，潜心研究历史，居然做出人们意想不到的成绩。

1962年，沈元经姑父母推荐给他们的熟人中国科学院社会科学部副主任刘导生。刘主管近代史所，他知道当时历史学家黎澍意欲物色一位助手，便把沈元推荐到黎澍的门下。据说，刘导生问黎澍：“你不是要人吗？右派要不要？”刘把沈元写的九篇文章交给他。黎澍看罢，大喜过望，自言自语：“这就是我要找的助手。”那时沈元是没有单位的社会青年。黎澍向公安局要来了他的档案。他说：“不就是右派吗？已经摘了帽子，有什么了不得的？”便决定录用沈元为实习研究员。（见郭罗基，〈哀沈元〉）

刘导生和黎澍都是爱惜人才的有胆识的领导。但沈元被破格调入社科部近代史研究所，最主要的还因为那时正值三年困难的调整时期，毛泽东的极左做法多少受到非议，一时比较收敛，对知识分子的政策相对宽松了一些。不然，按共产党的人事常规，一个被开除的右派学生，即使摘了帽子，也不可能调进最高的研究机构的。

黎澍当时兼北京学术刊物《历史研究》杂志主编，他在沈元的九篇文章中挑出〈论汉史游的《急就篇》〉，发表在《历史研究》1962年第3期上。这是一篇对汉代儿童启蒙读物《急就篇》进行社会文化研究的学术论文。内行人评说，这篇文章展现了作者对史学、文字学和音韵学的深厚功底和新颖的视角，这在当时全国言必称阶级斗争的普遍论调中是一缕春风，使人耳目一新；该文从经济生活来分析社会思想，也颇具历史唯物主义的特色。无论从国学或马克思主义史学来考察都是一篇佳作。中国大陆史学界一时引起了轰动。郭沫若赞叹说：“这篇文章写得好。”甚至说：“这样的文章我也写不出。”范文澜说：“至少比我写得好。”复旦大学的周予同一说起沈元就眉飞色舞，兴奋不已。

沈元的〈论汉史游的《急就篇》〉，发表在《历史研究》1962年第3期上。

沈元来所不久，1963年第1期《历史研究》又发表他全文五万多字的长篇文章〈洪秀全与太平天国革命〉。同年2月12日，《人民日报》用一整版刊载他的〈论洪秀全〉一文（即是前文的一万字的压缩版）。中华人民共和国成立之后，《人民日报》从未以这样大的版面刊载学术文章，沈元得此优遇，博得满堂喝彩。沈元的文章还不单受到学术界重视，也得到了北京市委书记邓拓的赏识。于是在学术界又一次引起了轰动。一时间从北到南的学者，人人争说沈元，由此而派生出“沈元道路”一说。一时间，走沈元的路似乎得到了上面的肯定，沈元的命运似乎有了转机。

五

可是，当时知情人知道，所谓“转机”背后有杀机。沈元显示了才华，实现了自己的抱负，初试锋芒，既令中国史学界的权威人物刮目相看，但他也招来了忌恨。

这个“沈元道路”的说法来自北京大学。很快，研究机关和高等院校都在谈论右派明星，一时之间成了“沈元事件”。北大历史系有人进而向中宣部控告：沈元是右派，报刊这样发表他的文章，是公然宣扬“白专”道路（即不是毛泽东提倡的“又红又专”），对抗党的教育方针。在历史研究所内，反对之声更不绝于耳。和沈元同一辈的人，到所里来了几年不出一篇文章，沈元一年却出几篇文章，而且屡有轰动效应，一些不学无术但“根正苗红”之辈于是心生妒忌，群起而攻之——不是针对学术研究，而是从政治上提出问题，而这是最要命的。不过，这“沈元道路”的说法一传开，反响强烈。周予同在课堂上声称他“举双手赞成沈元道路”。黎澍说:“近代史研究要有十个沈元，面貌就能根本改观。”但是，由于有浊流翻滚，有关领导还是不得不建议沈元不用本名而用笔名发表文章。后来沈元发表文章就不能用真名了，用了“张玉楼”（取自黎澍室中的对联）、“高自强”、“曾武秀”等等的化名。

沈元用化名有这么一个故事。他以“张玉楼”化名写了一篇〈马克思主义阶级分析方法和历史研究〉，先在《历史研究》上发表了。《历史研究》副主编丁守和把它和近代史所所长刘大年写的〈关于近代史研究的几个问题〉一起送《人民日报》。《人民日报》不知“张玉楼”是何许人，采用了沈元的文章而没有采用刘大年的文章。沈元把所长比下去了，很让丁守和等一些爱才的人暗自高兴，可是，有些人得知沈元还用笔名发文后，仍然不依不饶，又再次告状，甚至联名告到毛泽东那里，指责黎澍等人“吹捧右派”，“重用右派”（脱帽右派还是右派）。有一天，毛泽东的秘书田家英打电话给黎澍，说：“有人给毛主席寄来了油印材料，揭发‘沈元事件’。好在落在我手里，毛见了不知会怎么批。你赶快来一趟！”（见郭罗基，〈哀沈元〉）中宣部还派人来调查，并发下指示“要注意影响”，再也不让沈元发表文章。

1966年“文革”爆发，沈元当即被列入要打倒的“历史学界十大权威”之一。他这个“权威”是其中最为年轻的了，当时才二十八岁，同一名单中的历史学家们都是他的老师辈。此后两年时间里，沈元被连续批斗陪斗，惨遭各种侮辱，丧失了全部人格尊严,在走投无路之下，发生了前文所说的事件。

六

沈元根本不是犯了什么滔天大罪。被捕之后，夫人仍抱着企望。她对一起挖防空洞（当时全民挖洞，落实毛泽东关于“深挖洞”的最高指示）劳动的老大妈说：“我决心再等他个七年八年，总会出来团聚的。”没想到有一天，她被叫去开群众宣判大会，在大会上沈元和其它“反革命分子”一起被押上台，并被宣布以叛国罪判处死刑立即执行。在万众口号齐呼之下，沈元这位夫人也是表妹当场晕了过去。

文革结束以后，到了1981年，终于有了一张带有尾巴的平反通知书。此时此刻，沈元坚强的母亲在儿子死后第一次放声大哭：“我要人，我不要纸，不要纸啊！我送走的是一个活生生的人，一个聪明绝顶、才华横溢的儿子，为什么现在还给我一张纸？我要人啊！我要人啊！……”撕心裂肺，闻者无不动容。可是，母亲再也要不来儿子了——儿子被另一位抽象的“母亲”杀死了。这就是专政独裁制度的罪过！

中国之大，何以容不得一个沈元？！关于沈元之死，可说的还可以很多很多。沈元这个上海人，一个戴着一副近视眼镜、瘦弱高挑、面皮白净的书生，出身书香门第，举止斯文，腼腆少语，循规蹈矩，从来没有得罪任何人，也没有伤害过任何人，一直只默默地做一份职上的工作。他即使在狱中，据昔日狱友们回忆，人缘也非常好。“自己病成那样，还把有限的口粮分给别人吃。”“他很安详，有修养有学问，很受尊敬。”但是这么一个沈元，早在“文革”之前，已为许多人所嫉妒所追堵所不容。他与那些人无冤无仇，他们何以这样咄咄逼人？

正如郭罗基〈哀沈元〉一文的标题所示，沈元是“一个人才，生逢毁灭人才的时代”。许多年之后，郭罗基拜访过黎澍和丁守和。谈起沈元之死，黎澍概括出两个原因：“第一，死于众人的共妒。第二，死于本人的无知和大家的无知。”丁守和则深为内疚地感到是他们“害死”了沈元！他说：“黎澍和我爱才，千方百计发表他的文章，结果帮了倒忙。”“一次一次地发表他的文章，引起群妒，把他逼上死路。早知道这样，当年不发表他的文章就好了。”郭罗基认为，“共妒”或“群妒”这一概念非常深刻。妒忌本是个体人的劣点，但众人对有才华的人产生共妒，则是社会的病态，病态社会的病因是不合理的制度（见郭罗基，〈哀沈元〉）。

在狼烟四起、遍地烽火的“文化大革命”年代，沈元更是可怜巴巴地孤立无助，一步步被逼上绝路。沈元被捕后，他的案例交给科学院各研究所的同事讨论。所有经历“文革”的人都知道，叫群众讨论案件，讨论如何判处“反革命分子”，其目的本来就不是要大家发表意见，正是为了吓得大家不敢发表意见，起震慑作用。也有人发表意见，那一定是昧着良心说对某人判得太轻，决不会说判得太重。当时认识或不认识沈元的人，没有一个敢于站出来帮他说一句话，哪怕说一句死刑缓办的也没有。也许有人还觉得沈元就是可笑之至，甚至是“罪有应得”。

这是一代知识分子的伤痛、悲哀和耻辱。

刘再复在〈面对高洁的亡灵〉一文中，痛切地解剖自己的灵魂：

三十多年过去了，我仍然清清楚楚地记得沈元的名字，记得这一个年青杰出学者被活埋、被毁灭的悲剧故事。……在想起他的悲剧时，我首先想到在过去那些荒诞岁月里，自己也曾发过疯，也振振有词地批判过“右派分子”、“反革命修正主义分子”，也唯恐落后地和“沈元之流”划清界线甚至加入声讨他们的行列。我真的感到自己参与创造一个错误的时代，真的感到自己也是谋杀沈元的共谋。

人们明白了，暴政可以是双重的，不仅有独裁政权的暴力专政，为独裁政权所愚昧的民众也可推波助澜施加多数暴政。人性的卑鄙，制度的罪恶，沈元案件提供了一个令人万分悲愤的标本。

沈元在北大历史系的同班同学郭罗基2012年到悉尼探亲时，本文作者曾与他聚会，并赠送《北望长天》一书。

（本文原为笔者长文〈他们让所有的苟活者，都失去了重量……——祭“文革”中惨遭杀害的思想者〉的一部分，初稿于2006年5月文革发动四十周年之际，曾收进拙著《北望长天》（台北，秀威，2008年11月）一书中，现有改动。）

【转载请加上出处和链接：https://yibaochina.com/?p=250041】

【作者观点不代表本刊立场】