|
王国维曾总结有清一代学术,其中论及晚清者有云: 我朝三百年间,学术三变:国初一变也,乾嘉一变也,道咸以降一变也……道咸以降,涂辙稍变,言经者及今文,考史者兼辽、金、元,治地理者逮四裔,务为前人所不为,虽承乾嘉专门之学,然亦逆睹世变,有国初诸老经世之志。故国初之学大,乾嘉之学精,道咸以降之学新……道咸以降,学者尚承乾嘉之风,然其时政治风俗已渐变于昔,国势亦稍稍不振,士大夫有忧之而不知所出,乃或托于先秦西汉之学,以图变革一切,然颇不循国初及乾嘉诸老为学之成法。其所陈夫古者,不必尽如古人之真;而其所以切今者,亦未必适中当世之弊。其言可以情感,而不能尽以理究。如龚人、魏默深之俦,其学在道咸后虽不逮国初乾嘉二派之盛,然为此二派之所不能摄其逸而出此者,亦时势使之然也。② 如前文已经论及,王国维是有很强的经学经世取向的人,论及学术之“变”,王氏却一再以“时势”为解,耐人寻味。他很少经学今古文门户之见,所以能揭示龚自珍、魏源等“言经者及今文”的学者的学术贡献,颇为持平,又说他们的“经世之志”乃“时势使之然也”,尤为深透之论。此论堪当讨论此类问题的方法论根据。 ①钱玄同:《废话——原经》,《钱玄同文集》第2卷,第240页。②参见王国维《沈乙庵先生七十寿序》,王国维著,彭林整理:《观堂集林》,第720—721页。 作者刘巍,中国社会科学院近代史研究所副研究员、清华大学在读博士。北京,100006〕 TheDeclineoftheClassicsandtheRiseofZhangXuecheng’sTheorythat“theSixClassicsAreHistories”LiuWei SincethelateQingperiod,withtheinvasionofWesternpowersandintroductionofWesternlearninginChina,inthefaceofnationalcrisis,theclassicsceasedtobethebestintellectualresourcesforscholar-officialstogivefullplaytotheirpoliticalandculturalideals.Asaresult,theideathat“thesixclassicsarehistories”becameapopularview.Thisar-ticlebrieflydescribestheinfluencesonZhangXuecheng’stheorythat“thesixclassicsarehistories,”andchangesitwentthrough.Mainly,thisarticlelinksZhang’stheorywiththelateQingdebateovernew-textandold-textConfucianstud-ies,andwiththeslogan“thesixclassicsarehistoricaldata,”proposedbynewhistoriansintheRepublicanperiod.From“thesixclassicsarehistories”to“suborningthesixclassicstoancienthistory”andonto“thesixclassicsarehistoricalda-ta”,thegreatattentiongiventothistheorywasaprofoundreflectionofthefactthatclassicalstudieshaddeclinedinmod-ernChinaandhadbeensupplantedinitsleadingpositionbyhistoriography.Theclassicsthemselvesweredestinedtobe-comeanappendageof“historiography”intheroleof“historicaldata.”Thedeclineoftheauthorityoftheclassicswaspar-alleledbytheriseofthetheorythat“thesixclassicsarehistories.”Thesetwocontrarybutinternallyconnectedtrendsdeeplyreflectthepoliticalandsocialchangesofthetime. |
京公网安备11010202007521号