“发现”章学诚与经史学的异轨分途——以张尔田、内藤湖南的交往为线索

“Discovering”Zhang Xuecheng and the Differences in the Historiography of Confucian Classics——Taking the Communication Between Zhang Ertian and Naito Konan as a Clue

张尔田与日本学者内藤湖南以章学诚为纽带,成为惺惺相惜的学术知音,旗帜鲜明地倡扬章学。作为彼时中日学界名望颇重的学者,他们有关章氏之学与中国经史传统的看法,构成一种潜在的跨文化对话关系,为讨论章氏之学的越境受容与思想学术的古今之变留下了空间。就思想理路而言,他们有关章氏之学的理解存在着根本性的差异,对中国经史传统的认知亦存在新旧之别。张尔田立足于中国传统学术脉络,持一种内生性的视角,对“六经皆史料”与“目光皆骛于外”的学风持鲜明的批判态度。内藤湖南怀揣现代学术意识,以“史料”论“六经皆史”,以对象化的、认识论的思维方式从外部打量、摆置中国学术,构成辨伪疑古风尚的先声。内藤的做法事实上是一种具有新型方法意识的“支那学”的体现,潜在地蕴含着“帝国”的视角,在中国现代学术建立的过程中产生了至关重要的影响。

Zhang Ertian(1874-1945,张尔田)and the Japanese scholar Naito Konan(1866-1934,内藤湖南)were linked by Zhang Xuecheng(1738-1801,章学诚),becoming good academic friends and jointly advocating Zhang Xuecheng's theory.As well-known scholars in the academic circles of China and Japan at that time,their views on Zhang Xuecheng's theory and the tradition of the historiography of Chinese Confucian classics formed a potential cross-cultural dialogue relationship,leaving room for discussing the overseas acceptance of Zhang Xuecheng's theory and its changes in thought and learning from ancient to modern times.So far as the way of thinking is concerned,there are fundamental differences in their understanding of Zhang Xuecheng's theory,and there is also a difference between the new and the old in their understanding of the tradition of the historiography of Chinese Confucian classics.Zhang Ertian was based on the traditional Chinese academic context,from the endogenous perspective.He held a distinct critical attitude towards the style of study that“The Six Classics are all historical materials”(六经皆史料)and“All eyes are focused on the outside”(目光皆骛于外).Naito Konan had modern academic consciousness and discussed the saying that“the Six Classics are all histories”(六经皆史)with“historical materials”(史料),and examined and arranged Chinese learning from the outside in an objectivized and epistemological way of thinking,which constituted a forerunning style of detection of the forgery and suspicion of the ancient.In fact,Naito's practice was the embodiment of“Chinaology”(支那学)with a new methodological consciousness,which potentially contained an“imperial”(帝国)perspective and exerted a vital influence in the process of modern Chinese academic establishment.