陈寅恪的历史解释--以《柳如是别传》及《论再生缘》胡适眉批本为例的讨论

Revisiting Chen Yinke's Historical Explanations-The Cases of An Alternative Biography of Liu Rushi and Hu Shi's Annotated Version of On “ Love Destiny Reborn”

陈寅恪的历史解释,是为了“与立说之古人,处于同一境界”,重建古人面对各种情境时种种可能的做法以及表达的意向。通过“象征化过程”“隐形的条理”“诗文写作的机制”三种进路,或可了解陈寅恪诗史互证的工作。陈寅恪的历史解释相当重视历史的层次,常以出典追索具体情境,亦常以诗文写作的特定方式,追索人际网络的分合。这种对“心史”的解释,胡适似不完全同意。1958年,胡适在台北获读油印本《论再生缘》,并留下若干眉批。在陈寅恪用其非凡的想象力与“隐形的条理”进行历史推论之处,胡适每每打上问号,或径批为“穿凿”。陈寅恪认为研究者应与“通习古今事变之君子”为同一层次,他的解释既是个人情感世界的,也是历史的;而胡活认为“假设”可以大胆,但求证必须小心,其眉批正代表这方面的原则。这批未曾公布的材料,隐隐显示了民国历史考证学派对历史推论方法存在着两种不同的态度。

Aiming at“standing in the same realm wih ancient theory founders”,Chen Yinke(陈寅恪)formulated his historical explanations by reconstructing the historical actors’own repertoires of decisions and intentions.With the concepts of“symbolizing process”,“invisible order”(隐形的条理),and“literary writing mechanism”,this paper first captures the key features of Chen Yinke's approach to the integration of poctic evidence with historical evidence.In his historical hierarchical explanations,Chen not only traced specific contexts of his research subjects through allusions used in their verses and proses.Based on a comprehensive understanding of the social conventions of literary production,he also grasped the otherwise unscen centrifugal and centripetal forces in the social networks of history,Such an empathetic approach to historical explanation,however,could not fully convince Hu Shi(胡适),another towering figure renowned for evidential research.The second half of this paper begins with an under-research copy of Chen Yinke's article On“laome Destiny Reborn”(《论再生缘》)owned by Hu Shi.In 1958,shortly after obtaining this mimeographed copy in'Taipei,Hu Shi expressed his reservations and disagreements by annolating in the margins.As seen in these annotations—ranging from question marks to written comments,such as“speculative”—Hu Shi remained skeptical on Chen's imaginative approach to social conventions,which I call“invisible order”,in history.While Chen Yinke sought for explanations that were at once emotional and historical,and urged researchers to be intellectual equals with the traditional“gentlemen with comprehensive knowledge connecting past and present”,Hu Shi,regardless of his appreciation of bold hypotheses,maintained the prineiple of careful verification.These unpublished materials,I contend,reveal two significantly diflerent attitudes towards historical methods in historiography in the period of the Republic of China,that have been hidden under the umbrella term of evidential research.