庚子後士人對朝廷失去信任，乃試圖尋求一個可以「代表中國」而為全民族所認同的象徵，結果出現孔子紀年和黃帝紀年的競爭；同時，在國粹學派從中國學術源流中梳理「國粹」的嘗試中，因儒學定於一尊而落到邊緣的諸子學受到關注，子學與儒學也形成競爭局面。不過，這些努力的共同目標是因應中西之間的學戰，不論是從傳統中尋找還是乾脆「再造」一個象徵，都不能不具有開放性和包容性。結果形成一種「集各學之大成」的「國學」或「國魂」觀：它可以同時包容黃帝和孔子，既傳承了長期的學統，又提供了通過重新詮釋而再造屬於「民族國家」的新學術思想體系的空間。

After the Boxer Uprising of 1900, many Chinese intellectuals lost confidence in the Qing government and searched for a symbol of national identity that could represent the Chinese nation. This resu1ted in a contest between two chronologies, one marking time from Confucius and the other from the Yellow Emperor. At the same time, the attempt of the “national studies” school to find a “national essence” in the larger traditional learning turned attention to the thought of the various ancient schools (zhuzi) that had been marginalized with the establishment of Confucian orthodoxy. This led to a struggle between the intellectual systems of the various (non-Confucian) schools and Confucianism. All these efforts were a response to the “cultural war” between China and the West. A symbol of China, regardless of whether it was to be found in tradition or simply “invented”, had thus to be open and all-inclusive. The resu1t was a comprehensive intellectual amalgamation that included both the Yellow Emperor and Confucius. Such “national learning” or “national spirit” would not only inherit the long tradition of Chinese learning through reinterpretation of the past but also provide room for the re-creation of a new intellectual system appropriate to the modem nation-state.