“欣然同意”威尔逊责问说与五四运动关系考

Textual Research on Relations between Wilson’s Accusation of a “Gracious Agreement” and the May 4th Movement

威尔逊责问"欣然同意",中国外交失败,五四运动爆发,这是人们熟悉的五四运动叙事逻辑。然而对照中英文档案,在巴黎和会上威尔逊责问"欣然同意"之事根本没有发生。"欣然同意"威尔逊责问说的形成,先有陆征祥在巴黎对"英总理"责问说的编造,后有其回国后对"美总理"这一称呼的"笔误",更有后来者王芸生在写作《六十年来中国与日本》时对档案的篡改。威尔逊责问说为中国外交失败提供了最好的理由,出笼后迅速被国人"相信"和采用,作为导致五四运动爆发的直接原因进入国人的集体记忆。20世纪80年代相关中文档案开始汇编出版,威尔逊责问说破产,但是研究者依旧置档案于不顾,致使此说至今仍以讹传讹。威尔逊责问说虽属无中生有,但并非空穴来风,"弱国无外交"是其产生的最重要背景。

Wilson condemned the "gracious agreement", Chinese diplomacy failed, and the May 4 th Movement erupted. This is the familiar logic of the narrative on the May 4 th Movement. However, comparing the Chinese and English archives regarding the Paris Peace Conference, Wilson’s questioning of the "gracious agreement" did not happen at all. First, Lu Zhengxiang fabricated the "Prime Minister" in Paris, and then, after returning to China there was a "criminal error" in the title of the "Prime Minister of the United States". More recently, Wang Yunsheng wrote Falsifications in the Chinese and Japanese Archives During the Past Sixty Years. Wilson’s condemnation provided the best reason for the failure of Chinese diplomacy. This was quickly "believed" and adopted by the Chinese people, entering the collective memory of the Chinese as the direct cause of the outbreak of the May 4 th Movement. In the 1980 s, when the related Chinese archives began to be published, Wilson’s accusations became bankrupt. But researchers still ignore the archives, so there are rumors about this claim to this day.Although Wilson’s criticism came out of thin air, it was not groundless. The idea that "weak nations have no diplomacy" was the important background to its emergence.