注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

demosthenes

读书记录

 
 
 

日志

 
 

Beyond East and West: Antiquarianism, Evidential Learning, and Global Trends in Historical Study 续  

2010-02-05 15:55:20|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank Yü Ying-shih, Georg Iggers, Benjamin Elman, Richard Vann, On-cho Ng, D. R. Woolf, Joy Wiltenburg, Scott Morschauser, James Heinzen, and Jerry H. Bentley for commenting on an earlier version of this article.

1.  Hu Shi (Shih), The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China (repr., New York: Paragon, 1963), introduction, p. 1.

2.  See John Dewey, Lectures in China, 1919–1920, trans. Robert W. Clopton and Tsuinchen Ou (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1973). Also Barry Keenan, The Dewey Experiment in China: Educational Reform and Political Power in the Early Republic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977).

3.  Hu Shi, “Qingdai xuezhe de zhixue fangfa” [The Research Methods of Qing Scholars]. See Hu Shi, Hu Shi zhexue sixiang ziliao xuan [Selected Sources on Hu Shi’s Philosophical Ideas], ed. Ge Maochun and Li Xingzhi (Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 1981), 1:184–211.

4.  For English works on Hu Shi as a modern scholar, see Jerome Grieder, Hu Shih and the Chinese Renaissance: Liberalism in the Chinese Revolution, 1917–1937 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); and Chou Min-chih, Hu Shih and Intellectual Choice in Modern China (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984). There have been a great number of Chinese works on Hu Shi and his position in modern Chinese intellectual history, such as Yü Ying-shih, Zhongguo jindai sixiangshi shangde Hu Shi [Hu Shi in Modern Chinese Intellectual History] (Taipei: Lianjing, 1984); and Chongxun Hu Shi licheng [Reevaluation of Hu Shi’s Career] (Taipei: Lianjing, 2004).

5.  Joseph Needham et al., Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954–2000). For recent attempts to go beyond Needham’s work, see Morris F. Low, ed., Beyond Joseph Needham: Science, Technology and Medicine in East and Southeast Asia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). For the Jesuits’ effort to introduce Western science to China, see Benjamin Elman, From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China, rev. ed. (Los Angeles: UCLA Asian Pacific Monograph Series, 2001), pp. 116–120, and his massive On Their Own Terms: Science in China, 1550–1900 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005); Joanna Waley-Cohen, “China and Western Technology in the Late Eighteenth Century,” American Historical Review 98, no. 5 (1993): 1525–1544; Du Shi-ran and Han Qi, “The Contribution of French Jesuits to Chinese Science in the 17th and 18th centuries,” Impact of Science on Society 42, no. 3 (1992): 265–276; D. E. Mungello, The Great Encounter of China and West, 1500–1800 (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999); and for the Jesuit scientific project in general, Mordechai Feingold, ed., Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003). For the Chinese hermeneutic tradition, see Ching-i Tu, ed., Classics and Interpretations: The Hermeneutic Traditions in Chinese Culture (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2000); and Lin Qingzhang, Mingdai kaojuxue yanjiu [A Study of Evidential Learning in the Ming] (Taipei: Xuesheng shuju, 1986).

6.  Cf. Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000), and R. Bin Wong’s China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997).

7.  With almost no exception, most well-known texts in the field of historiography have hitherto centered on the Western tradition, such as Eduard Fueter, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, rev. ed. (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1936); G. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon, 1959); James W. Thompson, A History of Historical Writing, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Georg G. Iggers, Historiography in the 20th Century (Hanover, N.H.: Wesleyan University Press, 1997); and Michael Bentley, Modern Historiography: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1999). Those who touched upon non-Western historiography, especially Chinese historiography, such as Herbert Butterfield in his Man on His Past: The Study of the History of Historical Scholarship (London, 1955) and J. H. Plumb in his The Death of the Past, rev. ed. (New York: Palgrave, 2003), all attempted to imagine China as a contrasting “other” to the Western model of historiography. There are texts that provide surveys of the field of historiography on a worldwide scale—such as Geoffrey Barraclough’s Main Trends in History (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1979); Georg G. Iggers and Harold T. Parker, eds., International Handbook of Historical Studies: Contemporary Research and Theory (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1979); Daniel Woolf, ed., A Global Encyclopedia of Historical Writing, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1998); and Rolf Torstendahl, ed., Assessment of 20th Century Historiography (Stockholm: Royal Academy, 2000)—but they are not studies of comparative historiography per se.

8.  See, for example, Arnaldo Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966) and The Classical Foundation of Modern Historiography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990); J. G. A. Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Donald Kelley, Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in French Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970); Anthony Grafton, Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450–1800 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991); and Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as Revelation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001); Joseph M. Levine, Humanism and History: Origins of Modern English Historiography (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987); and Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983).

9.  Arnaldo Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1977), pp. 9–24, and Studies in Historiography, pp. 127–142. It is worth noting that in more recent years, scholars have evaluated ancient historians in a more positive light, drawing attention to the literary effect of their works. Cf. John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983); and Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

10.  See Peter Burke, The Renaissance Sense of the Past (London: Edward Arnold, 1969); Nancy Struever, The Language of History in the Renaissance: Rhetoric and Historical Consciousness in Florentine Humanism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970); Eric Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); and Kelley, Modern Historical Scholarship.

11.  As late as nineteenth-century England, the antiquarian tradition remained quite alive. See Philippa Levine, The Amateur and the Professional: Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England, 1838–86 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

12.  In addition to Grafton and Momigliano’s works cited previously, recent studies of the Republic of Letters have included Anne Goldgar, Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995); and Peter N. Miller, Peiresc’s Europe: Learning and Virtue in the Seventeenth Century (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000).

13.  Momigliano, Classical Foundation, p. 54. A fuller development of Momigliano’s argument is found in Pocock’s Barbarism and Religion, vol. 2; and D. R. Woolf ’s The Idea of History in Early Stuart England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990).

14.  Momigliano offered a quotation by a seventeenth-century scholar, which is illuminating: “It is much safer to quote a medal than an author for in this case you do not appeal to Suetonius or to Lampridius, but to the emperor himself or to the whole body of a Roman Senate.” See his Studies in Historiography, pp. 14–15. Also, Grafton, Bring Out Your Dead; Kelley, Modern Historical Scholarship; and Joseph M. Levine, The Autonomy of History: Truth and Method from Erasmus to Gibbon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) and Humanism and History. Daniel Woolf’s The Social Circulation of the Past: English Historical Culture, 1500–1730 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) gives a detailed example how the antiquarians gradually dismantled the authority of classical authors.

15.  A discussion of Niebuhr’s importance in modern historiography is in G. Gooch’s History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 14–23.

16.  Grafton, Defenders of the Text, pp. 44–46. In his “Neo-Confucian Cultivation and the Seventeenth-century ‘Enlightenment,’” Wm. Theodore de Bary also compares the similar trajectories of European and East Asian history. See The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism, ed. Wm. Theodore de Bary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), pp. 141–216.

17.  Yü Ying-shih, Lun Dai Zhen yu Zhang Xuecheng [On Dai Zhen and Zhang Xuecheng] (Hong Kong: Longmen shudian, 1976), pp. 197–242; and Lishi yu sixiang [History and Ideas] (Taipei: Lianjing, 1977), preface, pp. 1–14.

18.  Yü, Lishi yu sixiang, pp. 87–120. For the Song revival of Confucianism and its influence in the Ming and Qing periods, see de Bary’s many works. A more recent discussion on the subject is found in Benjamin Elman, “Rethinking ‘Confucianism’ and ‘Neo-Confucianism’ in Modern Chinese History,” Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, ed. Benjamin Elman, John Duncan, and Herman Ooms (Los Angeles: UCLA Asian Pacific Monograph Series, 2002), pp. 518–554.

19.  On-cho Ng, “A Tension in Ch’ing Thought: ‘Historicism’ in Seventeenth-and-Eighteenth-Century Chinese Thought,” The Journal of the History of Ideas 54, no. 4 (1993): 561–583.

20.  Gu’s advocacy of phonological study was anticipated by such Ming scholars as Chen Di’s (1541–1617). For the prototypical evidential study in the Ming, see Lin Qingzhang, Mingdai kaojuxue yanjiu.

21.  Qi Yongxiang, Qianjia kaojuxue yanjiu [A Study of Evidential Learning in the Qian-long and Jiaqing Reigns] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998); Huang Aiping, Puxue yu Qingdai shehui [Unadorned Learning and Qing Society] (Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin chubanshe, 2003); Hamaguchi Fujio, Shindai kōkyogaku no shisō shi teki kinkyū [A Study of Intellectual History of Qing Evidential Learning] (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai, 1994); Kinoshita Tetsuya, Shinchō kōshōgaku to sono jidai [Qing Evidential Learning and Its Times] (Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1996); and Elman, From Philosophy to Philology.

22.  Chen Guying et al., eds., Mingqing shixue jianshi [An Outline History of the Practical Learning in the Ming and Qing] (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 1994) gives a general overview of the ebb and flow of this cultural trend, as does Principle and Practicality: Essays in Neo-Confucianism and Practical Learning, ed. Wm. Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979). Richard J. Smith has considered “practical learning” one of the main characteristics of the Qing culture in his China’s Cultural Heritage: The Ch’ing Dynasty, 1644–1911 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1994), p. 139, as has Wm. Theodore de Bary in his “Some Common Tendencies in Neo-Confucianism,” Confucianism in Action, ed. David Nivison and Arthur Wright (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959), pp. 25–49.

23.  For the use of the term “Qing learning” by ?ta Kinjō (1765–1825) and other Japanese scholars to delineate the change in Chinese scholarship from the Han, through the Song, to the Qing, see Nakayama Kyūshirō, “Kōshōgaku gaisetsu” [A Survey of Evidential Study], in Kinsei nihon no jugaku [Confucianism in Early Modern Japan] (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1939), pp. 1–2.

24.  Ng, “Tension in Ch’ing Thought,” 567f.

25.  See Benjamin Elman, “The Historicization of Classical Learning in Ming-Ch’ing China,” Turning Points in Historiography: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, ed. Q. Edward Wang and Georg Iggers (Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2002), pp. 101–146, and Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 69–70.

26.  Hamaguchi, Shindai kōkyogaku, 72ff. Hamaguchi argues that Gu Yanwu’s study of phonology and etymology contributed to a historical-mindedness in the Qing. Donald Kelley has noted the similar development in the case of Lorenzo Valla for Europe in his Modern Historical Scholarship, pp. 19–52.

27.  This “return” to Song neo-Confucianism was endorsed also by the Qing court at the time. See Chen Zuwu, Qingchu xueshu sibianlu [Reflections on Early Qing Scholarship] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1992), pp. 295–296. Also On-cho Ng, Cheng-Zhu Confucianism in the Early Qing: Li Guangdi (1642–1718) and Qing Learning (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001); and Gao Xiang, Jindai de chushu: 18 shiji zhongguo guannian bianqian yu shehui fazhan [The Dawn of the Modern: Conceptual Change and Social Development in 18th-Century China] (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2000).

28.  Benjamin Elman, “The Search for Evidence from China: Qing Learning and Kōshōgaku in Tokugawa Japan,” Sagacious Monks and Bloodthirsty Warriors: Chinese Views of Japan in the Ming-Qing Period, ed. Joshua Fogel (Norwalk: Eastbridge, 2002), pp. 166–171.

29.  Grafton, Defenders of the Text, p. 9.

30.  Hui Dong, for example, stated that “because the time comprises of the ancient (gu) and the modern (jin), [so that we] cannot mistake the modern pronunciation with the ancient one.” Quoted in Li Kai, Hui Dong pingzhuan [Critical Biography of Hui Dong] (Nanjing: Nanjing daxue chubanshe, 1997), p. 67.

31.  A series of recent studies have been done by Joseph M. Levine in his The Battle of the Books: History and Literature in the Augustan Age (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), Between the Ancients and the Moderns: Baroque Culture in Restoration England (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999), and Humanism and History.

32.  Grafton, Bring Out Your Dead, pp. 115–116.

33.  See Yü, Dai Zhen yu Zhang Xuecheng and Lishi yu sixiang, and Hamaguchi, Shindai kōkyogaku.

34.  See Zheng Jixiong, Qingru mingzhu shuping [Selected Readings of Famous Works of Qing Confucians] (Taipei: Da’an chubanshe, 2001), p. 268; and Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, p. 95.

35.  Levine, Humanism and History, p. 90. Donald Kelley has also made the same observation in his Modern Historical Scholarship.

36.  Translated and quoted in Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, p. 31, with modifications.

37.  For the hermeneutic tradition in Chinese culture, see Tu, Classics and Interpretations; John B. Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991).

38.  This is the main argument made by Hamaguchi in his Shindai kōkyogaku, though others, such as Qi Yongxiang in his Qianjia kaojuxue yanjiu, have also noticed the importance of phonological study in Qing evidential learning.

39.  The aphorism was given by Paul Hazard and cited in Donald R. Kelley, Faces of History: Historical Inquiry from Herodotus to Herder (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 210.

40.  Dai Zhen, Dai Zhen quanji [Complete Works of Dai Zhen] (Beijing: Qinghua daxue chubanshe, 1997), 6:504.

41.  Hamaguchi, Shindai kōkyogaku, p. 194.

42.  Dai’s and other Qing evidential scholars’ advocacy of a historicist approach to interpreting the classics, to certain extent, was comparable to the one advanced by the Antiochene school in the Christian hermeneutic tradition of the third and fourth centuries, whereas the approach of the Wang Yangming school could be compared with the allegorical, mystical reading of biblical texts advocated by the Alexandrian school, the antithesis of the Antiochene school. See Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, ed. and trans. Karfried Froelich (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984); Peter R. L. Brown, The Rise of Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, 200–1000 (Malden: Blackwell, 2003), and Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998); and Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary.

43.  See Qian Mu, Zhongguo jin sanbainian xueshushi [Chinese Intellectual History of the Last Three Centuries], 2 vols. (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1937); Yü, Dai Zhen yu Zhang and Lishi yu sixiang; Hamaguchi, Shindai kōkyogaku; and more recently, On-cho Ng, “The Epochal Concept of ‘Early Modernity’ and the Intellectual History of Late Imperial China,” Journal of World History, 14 (2003): 37–61.

44.  For the historicization of classical study, as shown in Zhang Xuecheng’s statement “All Six Classics are only histories” (liujing jieshiye), see Zhang Xuecheng, “Da Shao Eryun shu” [A Reply to Shao Eryun], Wenshi tongyi xinbian [A New Edition of the General Meanings of Literature and History], ed. Cang Xiuliang (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1993), pp. 553–555. Also Li, Dai Zhen pingzhuan, 415f.; and perhaps most expressively, Elman, “Historicization of Classical Learning in Ming-Ch’ing China,” Turning Points in Historiography, pp. 101–103.

45.  Ranke believed that the historian could “grasp the event itself in its human comprehensibility, its unity, and its fullness” and that he could “behold them [historical events] and observe them” and “develop a sympathy for them.” Wilhelm von Humboldt, who belonged in the same idealist philosophic tradition, stated more clearly that this epistemological ability was a priori given in humans: “When two beings are completely separated by a chasm, there is no bridge of communication between them; and in order to understand each other, they must, in some other sense, have already understood each other.” Leopold von Ranke, The Theory and Practice of History, ed. Georg G. Iggers and Konrad von Moltke (New York: Irvington Publishers, 1973), pp. 138, 100, and 16.

46.  For a brief discussion of the study of the mingwu in textual criticism, see Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 80–81. For the discussion on the definition of the mingwu and its broad implication for Qing scholarship, see Qianjia xuezhe de zhijing fangfa [The Method Used by the Scholars of the Qianlong and Jiaqing Reigns in Studying the Classics], ed. Jiang Qiuhua (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan, 2000), 2:1035–1036.

47.  Dai Zhen was involved in compiling local gazetteers, in which he implemented his antiquarian interest in using both material and written sources. See Li, Dai Zhen pingzhuan, pp. 245–278.

48.  Qian’s knowledge of Mongol is noted by Du Weiyun in his Qindai shixue yu shijia [History and Historians in the Qing Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988), p. 300.

49.  See Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, p. 109.

50.  Qian Daxin emphasized that the difference between history and the classics was anything but a later, unfortunate development. See his preface to Zhao Yi’s Nianershi zhaji (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1937), pp. 1a–2a.

51.  For Wang Mingsheng’s opinion on how historical study complements the study of the classics, see his Shiqishi shangque, in Xuxiu siku quanshu [Expanded Completed Library of Four Treasures] (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995), preface, 452:138.

52.  Georg G. Iggers, “The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought,” History and Theory 2 (1962): 17–40.

53.  Qian Daxin, “Tangshu zhibi xinli” [New Examples for Truthful Writing in the Tang History], Qian Daxin quanji [Complete Works of Qian Daxin] (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1997), 7:350. The last sentence, if translated literally, reads: “it is just like a silk weaver who burns his silk.”

54.  George Huppert’s The Idea of Perfect History: Historical Erudition and Historical Philosophy in Renaissance France (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970); and Lenore O’Boyle “Learning for Its Own Sake: The German University as Nineteenth-century Model,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 25, no. 1 (1983): 3–25.

55.  Joseph M. Levine offers a good discussion in his The Autonomy of History on how methodologically the antiquarian movement paved the way for the autonomy of history as an academic discipline in the West. For a general discussion on the role of historical study in Chinese tradition, see On-cho Ng and Q. Edward Wang, Mirroring the Past: the Writing and Use of History in Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005).

56.  Georg G. Iggers, The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1983), pp. 76–80.

57.  Cf. Michael Quirin, “Scholarship, Value, Method, and Hermeneutics in Kaozheng: Some Reflections on Cui Shu (1740–1816) and the Confucian Classics,” History and Theory 35 , no. 4 (1996): 34–53.

58.  The Japanese scholar Shimada Kan was said to have seen the remnants of Qian’s work on Yuan history. Wang Junyi and Huang Aiping, Qingdai xueshu wenhuashi lun [Essays on Qing Intellectual and Cultural History] (Taipei: Wenjin chubanshe, 1999), pp. 207–208.

59.  Qian Daxin, for instance, encouraged his friend Shao Jinhan to rewrite Song history, particularly the Southern Song history. See Zhang Shunhui, Qingru xueji [Studies of Qing Confucians] (Jinan: Qilu shushe, 1991), pp. 272–274; and Ng and Wang, Mirroring the Past, pp. 243–244.

60.  Liang Qichao has given a general discussion on the historical works of Qing scholars in his Zhongguo jin sanbainian xueshushi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985), pp. 270–296.

61.  In his preface to the Critical Study, Wang Mingsheng gives us a vivid description of how it feels to savor this learning experience. Wang Mingsheng’s preface to Shiqishi shangque, p. 138.

62.  Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, pp. 132–133.

63.  Elman, as well as some Japanese scholars mentioned by him, has done extensive study on the social origins of evidential scholars and how their research received official patronage from such scholar-officials as Ruan Yuan (1764–1849) who shared their interest. See From Philosophy to Philology, chapters 4–6.

64.  For the development of printing and book culture in late imperial China, see Kai-wing Chow, Publishing, Culture, and Power in Early Modern China (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2004); Printing and Book Culture in Late Imperial China, ed. Cynthia Brokaw and Kai-wing Chow (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); and Inoue Susumu, Chūgoku shuppan bunkashi: Shomotsu seikai to chi no fūkei [A Cultural History of Chinese Printing: Books and the Landscape of Knowledge] (Nagoya: Nagoya daigaku shuppansha, 2002).

65.  A general discussion of the project is in R. Kent Guy, The Emperor’s Four Treasures: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch’ien-lung Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987).

66.  Liang Qichao mentioned a number of individually authored books by Qing scholars in epigraphy, phonology, philology, lexicography, and history in his Xueshushi, 176f.

67.  There were of course other criteria used to evaluate a text, including even whether it discussed principles and meanings. But whether or not the text was valid and authentic remained the main concern for the project. See Elman, From Philosophy to Philology, p. 101. In her Impolite Learning, Anne Goldgar also stresses that in the Republic of Letters in Europe, there emerged a consistent pattern of behavior in how the antiquarians conducted research and communicated among themselves.

68.  Gu Yanwu, “Chunqiu shiyue bingshu” [The Spring and Autumn Annals Record Both Date and Month] and “Huangjin” [Gold], in Rizhi Lu [Records of Daily Learning] (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1968), 2:35 and 4:75–78.

69.  Qian Daxin, “Guo Yunbo jinshishi xu” [Preface to Guo Yunbo’s History of Epigraphy], Qian Daxin quanji, 9:395; “Teqin dongcong shike” [The Term “Teqin” in Epigraphy], 6:256–257 and “Famensi taimiaoji” [Notes on the Epigraph at the Famen Temple], 7:178.

70.  Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997).

71.  Gu Yanwu, “Jingyi lunce” [Discourses on the Meaning of the Classics], Rizhi Lu, 6:42–46. Wang Mingsheng, Shiqishi shangque, op. cit., 453:172.

72.  Quoted in Kelley, Faces of History, p. 207.

73.  Grafton, Footnote, passim.

74.  According to Pocock, narrative history figured centrally in the works of eighteenth-century European scholars for both religious and political reasons. See his Barbarism and Religion, vol. 2.

75.  For the connection between antiquarianism and nationalism, Huppert’s Idea of Perfect History has provided us with a case study in France. For the ways in which nationalism was forged in Europe, see Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); and Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).

76.  Levine, Humanism and History, pp. 101–106, 178–189; and Autonomy of History, 157f; Momigliano, Studies in Historiography, pp. 40–55; and Grafton, Footnote, pp. 95–98.

77.  In his massive Historiographiegeschichte als Historik (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1991), Horst Walter Blanke offers a detailed discussion on how German scholars and historians transformed the antiquarian enterprise into modern historical study while reacting and corresponding to the Enlightenment ideas.

78.  Though different in focus, Kenneth Pomeranz and R. Bin Wong have recently highlighted the differences between China and Europe in the eighteenth century and explained how the differences contributed to the divergent developments of the two regions’ history from the period forward. See Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000); Wong, China Transformed; and Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: The Silver Age in Asia and the World Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). A debate between them and their critics are found in the Journal of Asian Studies 61, no. 2 (2002). From the perspective of intellectual history, On-cho Ng’s “Epochal Concept of ‘Early Modernity’” also stresses the different trajectories of early modern European and Chinese history.

79.  See Classics and Interpretations: The Hermeneutic Traditions in Chinese Culture, Imagining Boundaries: Changing Confucian Doctrines, Texts, and Hermeneutics, ed. Kai-wing Chow, On-cho Ng, and John Henderson (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999); and Daniel Gardner, “Confucian Commentary and Chinese Intellectual History,” Journal of Asian Studies 57, no. 2 (1988): 397–422.

80.  Benjamin Elman argues that the New Text Confucian School not only supplied a more engaging interpretation of the classics from an identifiable presentist perspective, but also secured political backing at court. See his Classicism, Politics, and Kinship: The Ch’ang-chou School of New Text Confucianism in Late Imperial China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

81.  Hsiao Kung-chuan, A Modern China and a New World: K’ang Yu-wei, Reformer and Utopian, 1858–1927 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1975).

82.  In a case study, Joshua Fogel has analyzed this “rediscovery” attempt: “On the ‘Rediscovery’ of the Chinese Past: Ts’ui Shu and Related Cases,” Perspectives in a Changing China, ed. Joshua Fogel and William Rowe (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1979), pp. 219–235; Laurence Schneider, Ku Chieh-kang and China’s New History: Nationalism and the Quest for Alternative Traditions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971). For a more comprehensive study, see Q. Edward Wang, Inventing China through History: The May Fourth Approach to Historiography (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001). This kind of experience also occurred elsewhere. Gyan Prakash’s Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999) reveals how Indian intellectuals, in tandem with their Chinese counterparts, made the same attempt to rediscover a “scientific” tradition in India’s past.

83.  See Donald Kelley, “The Problem of Knowledge and the Concept of Discipline,” in History and the Disciplines: The Reclassification of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe, ed. Donald Kelley (Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 1997), p. 16.

84.  Hu Shi, Dai Dongyuan de zhexue [Dai Zhen’s Philosophy] (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1932) and Zhang Shizhai nianpu [A Chronological Biography of Zhang Xuecheng] (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1922); He Bingsong, He Bingsong lunwenji [Essays of He Bingsong] (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1990), pp. 27–50, 89–119, and 132–146. For the “revival” of Dai Zhen in modern China, see Qiu Weijun, Dai Zhen xue de xingcheng [The Rise of Dai Zhen Study] (Taipei: Lianjing, 2004).

85.  Hou Wailu, Zhongguo zaoqi qiming sixiangshi [An Intellectual History of the Early Chinese Enlightenment] (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1956). While a Marxist interpretation, Hou was inspired by Liang Qichao in making this observation. See Liang, Qingdai xueshugailun, in Liang Qichao shixue lunzhu sanzhong [Liang Qichao’s Three Historical Works] (Hong Kong: Sanlian shudian, 1980), pp. 207–209. Hamaguchi in his Shindai kōkyogaku has also compared Qing scholarship with the ideas and methods of the Enlightenment, pp. 240–241, as has de Bary, “Neo-Confucian Cultivation and the Seventeenth-Century ‘Enlightenment.’”

86.  David Nivison, The Life and Thought of Chang Hsüeh-ch’eng (1738–1801) (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1966).

87.  E. G. Pulleyblank, “Chinese Historical Criticism,” Historians of China and Japan, ed. W. G. Beasley and E. G. Pulleyblank (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 159–160. Inspired by Pulleyblank, with whom he worked at Cambridge, Du Weiyun published Zhao Yi zhuan [Biography of Zhao Yi] (Taipei: Shibao wenhua, 1983) and a chapter on Zhao in his Shixue yu shijia, pp. 369–390.

88.  For the influence of evidential learning in modern China, exemplified by the careers of such prominent twentieth-century scholars as Liang Qichao, Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang (1893–1980), Fu Sinian (1896–1950), and Chen Yinke (Yinque, 1890–1969), see Wang Fansen, Fu Ssu-nien: A Life in Chinese History and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Schneider, Ku Chieh-kang and China’s New History; Wang, Inventing China through History; and Wang Rongzu, Shijia Chen Yinke zhuan [A Biography of Historian Chen Yinke] (Taipei: Lianjing, 1997). For the recent revival of evidential, or empirical, trend in Chinese historiography, see Hou Yunhao, “20 shiji Zhongguo de sici shizheng shixue sichao” [The Four Schools of Empiricist Historiography in 20th century China], Shixue yuekan [Historiography Monthly] 7 (2004): 70–80; and Wang Xuedian, “Jin wushi nian de Zhongguo shixue” [Chinese Historiography of the Past Half a Century], Lishi yanjiu [Historical Research] 1 (2004): 165–190.

  评论这张
 
阅读(159)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017