不论时代怎样变换，五四都具有无比的重要性。《公言报》是五四新文化运动期间在北京刊行的一家日报。相比于所处的时代，这份报纸受到的关注远不及它在历史上的影响力。《公言报》的既有研究相对薄弱，而且被学界贴上与本身不相称的标签。事实上，该报与同一时代的重大事件均有不同程度的交集。本文尝试尽可能还原《公言报》的创办经过，并在时代语境下探究其派系底色和报界位置，进而关注它关于五四新文化运动的言说。洪宪帝制失败后，林白水、汪有龄、梁众异、徐佛苏等三五同志合计创办了《公言报》。在早期，《公言报》以相对独立的姿态表达鲜明立场，其言论攻击性强，对内支持段祺瑞，对外主张对德宣战。1918年安福俱乐部成立后，《公言报》从拥护段派的“旁观”者变为安福系发言人。在中国尚无全国性大报的时代，此报属于北京地区发行量较大的报纸，拥有一席显赫之位。虽然派系色彩始终挥之不去，但《公言报》早期的言说与处境同后来差异显著，仅冠以安福机关报的标签具有简单化倾向。关于五四新文化运动，《公言报》的言说与历史的选择不同。本文将《公言报》基本观点与《新青年》等同时期报刊比照，探究其在五四新文化运动中的参与情形。《公言报》因主战而反德，因反德而忌惮俄、德媾和，继而仇视十月革命，避讳社会主义，以一种反对者的姿态关注世界范围内的社会主义思潮。1918年，张厚载依靠《公言报》与胡适、钱玄同等《新青年》同人几番论辩，坚持对中国戏批判性继承发展，反对全盘性铲除旧戏，照搬西戏。五四运动发生后，《公言报》站在政府立场极力加以批判，随之与北京大学的关系也愈加不可调和。接近历史现场后可见，新旧的评判标准似乎不可简单地以《新青年》为界限，所谓新旧的边界也并非泾渭分明。《公言报》在某种意义上从对手的角度塑造了五四新文化运动的历史高度。探究《公言报》的庐山真面目，将有助于再细化和充实后人对五四新文化运动的理解。
No matter how times have changed, the May Fourth Movement is of paramount importance. THE KUNG YEN PAO was a daily published in Beijing from 1916 to 1920. Compared with its time, this newspaper has received far less attention than it has historically, with relatively weak research and disproportionate academic labels. The newspaper and the major events of the era have varying degrees of intersection. This paper tries to restore the founding process of THE KUNG YEN PAO as far as possible, and probes into its factional background, the position of the industry, and basic opinions on the May Fourth Movement in the context of its times.After the failure of Yuan Shikai's restoration, Lin Baishui founded THE KUNG YEN PAO with his comrades Wang Youling, Liang Zhongyi and Xu Fusu. In the early years, THE KUNG YEN PAO expressed its distinct position with a relatively independent attitude, and its remarks were highly aggressive. It supported Duan Qirui internally and advocated declaring war on Germany in 1917 externally. After the establishment of the Anfu Polical Club in 1918, the newspaper changed from an independent supporter of the Duan Qirui group to a spokesman of the Anfu Club. In the era when there was no nationwide newspaper in China, THE KUNG YEN PAO had a large circulation in Beijing and vicinities, thus had a prominent position. Although the factional background is always lingering, the reports and situation of THE KUNG YEN PAO in the early stage are significantly different from that of the later stage, thus, the label of Anfu Organ only tends to simplify the newspaper and its era.During the May Fourth Movement, the speech of THE KUNG YEN PAO was different from the choice of history. This paper compares the basic views of THE KUNG YEN PAO with those of other contemporary newspapers such as LA JEUNESSE (新青年) to explore its participation in the Movement. For supporting the Entente Countries, THE KUNG YEN PAO was afraid of the peace between Soviet Russia and Germany, and then hated the October Revolution and socialism, which was regarded as a worldwide dangerous ideological trend by this newspaper. In 1918, Zhang Houzai argued with Hu Shi, Qian Xuantong and other editors of LA JEUNESSE by THE KUNG YEN PAO, insisting on the critical inheritance and development of Chinese opera like Kun opera and Beijing opera, and opposing the overall eradication of Chinese traditional opera or copying western opera completely. When the May Fourth Movement happened, THE KUNG YEN PAO strongly criticized it on the government's side, and its relationship with Peking University became more and more irreconcilable. When closing to the historical scene, it seems that the old and new criteria cannot be simply defined by LA JEUNESSE, and the so-called boundary between the old and the new is not clear-cut. In a sense, THE KUNG YEN PAO shaped the historical height of the May Fourth Movement from the perspective of its opponent. It is helpful to refine and enrich the understanding of the May Fourth Movement by researching THE KUNG YEN PAO.
