张寿安 台湾中央研究院
Zhang, Shouan, Academia Sinica
原文Original
六经皆史？且听经学家怎么说——龚自珍、章学诚学术史观之异同
从学术发展的角度观察，清代学术最重要的贡献之一应是“学术史”学科的建立。也就是章学诚倡导的“辨章学术考镜源流”，目的在探讨先秦、秦汉的学术变迁，梳理经/史/子/文各种学问的畛域，归纳其理论、建立其独立价值。因为这门学问颇藉力于汉儒刘向、刘歆的校雠之学，学界遂有称“校雠学”者，亦有称“流略之学”者。民国以后学科分类确立，校雠之学三分为校勘学、目录学、学术史，“辨章学术考镜源流”，遂名为“学术史”。
在这四百余年的学术探源工作中，章学诚与龚自珍毫无疑问是最重要的一组人物。章学诚不仅建立了一套辨章学术的理论，他倡言六经皆史，使史学脱离经学，建立独立地位；龚自珍承袭章学诚的校雠学，却另有转进，划清经学与史学的界线，倡论五经大义，非史学所能涵盖。又因探溯经/史/子/文的演化关系，各持理论，对诸子之学亦各有别识：一主文章，一主思想。前者言诸子皆文，乃后世文章之大本；后者则阐扬诸子思想的独创性，开启六经之外的思想资源。对民初文学学术史及思想史的展开，都居关键意义。
本文即讨论章学诚、龚自珍“论学术流辨”之异同。先论经/史之辨，次论由经/史到子/文的学术变迁。其关键转折是两人都同意的：周末私人讲学兴起学术型态剧变，从官师治教合一、到官师治教分离。本文大致分两部分对举章、龚立论之异：六经皆史─五经大义，治教分离/诸子空言─治教分离/子学独立。
译文Translation
The Six Classics as History? The Views of Gong Zizhen and Zhang Xuecheng
In terms of the development of Chinese scholarship, the most important achievement of the Qing period was the establishment of the field of intellectual history. This field is what Zhang Xuecheng termed “to discern multiple intellectual currents and identify their origins,” and his purpose was to explore changes in pre-Qin and Qin-Han scholarship. He analyzed the boundaries among the distinct fields of the Classics, history, philosophy, and belles lettres.
In the last four centuries of the development of this kind of intellectual history, the most important pair of figures has been Zhang Xuecheng and Gong Zizhen. Zhang established a theory of intellectual change; furthermore, in proclaiming that the Six Classics were all history, he took history out of the Classics, thus turning history into a field in its own right. Gong modified Zhang’s approach when he traced the origins of the Classics to history, but also maintained that the uniqueness of the Classics lay in their subtle words and great meanings. In approaching the development of the Classics, history, philosophy, and belles lettres, Zhang’s and Gong’s views on philosophy—the “hundred schools”—differed. Zhang regarded the hundred schools essentially as literature, from which all later styles developed. But Gong emphasized the intellectual creativity of the hundred schools, as well as their differences from the Classics of Confucianism.
Thus, this article focuses on Zhang and Gong in terms of the differences and similarities of their views toward intellectual history. The article focuses on their different attitudes to the Classics and history, and then turns to their different evaluations of the hundred schools. Zhang’s and Gong’s views were critical to the development of literary and intellectual history in the era of the Republic.