李明滨 北京大学
Li, Mingbin, Peking University
原文Original
20世纪下半叶的俄罗斯汉学
延续五十年代以来苏联汉学大发展的势头，世纪后期研究机构数量剧增，以科学院系统的三大研究所——莫斯科的远东研究所、东方学研究所和圣彼得堡的东方文献研究所，以及莫斯大学亚非学院、圣彼得堡大学东方系“五强”为主，新增乌拉尔、新西伯利亚和海参崴的远东大学等高校，也已各自建成汉学中心。
汉学队伍改变了二十世纪前期仅有一位院士阿翰林（1881－1951）为整个汉学界领袖的局面，阿氏的门生、后辈已有四人当选为院士，分别成为汉学各分支学科的奠基人，即文、史、哲学科的领军人物。史学为齐赫文（С. Тихвинский，1918— ），和米亚斯尼科夫（В. Мясников，1931— ），哲学为季塔连科（М. Титаренко，1934— ），文学为李福清（Б. Рифтин，1932— ）。
还有几位通讯院士和大批具有博士副博士以上高级学衔的汉学家。其数量据统计，至2008年已有612人，比九十年代初的505人，增加了100多位。至于中级学衔以下和大批刚毕业的汉学专业学生，那是更大的一个数字了。
其中，五十年代以后出生的一批年轻汉学家开始崭露头角，如著有《中国古典哲学方法论》的科勃节夫（А. Кобзев），《孔子传》的作者马良文（В. Малявин），《高僧传》的译者叶尔马科夫（М. Ермаков），研究佛教文化的托尔琴诺夫（Е. Торчинов），《中国文化史》的作者克拉芙佐娃（В. Кравцова），写成专著《王维创作中的禅佛思想》的达革丹诺夫（Г. Дагданов），东方文献所所长波波娃（И. Попова），以及莫斯科大学的卡尔波尔（М. Карпов）、刘华夏，圣彼得堡大学的罗季昂诺夫（А. Родионов）副教授等，均已在八九十年代成名。他们给俄国汉学带来了新成果，新气象。
这一时期顺着五十年代的潮流，以更大的热情推进，竟致八九十年代兴起了“中国传统文化热”，直到二十一世纪初。
一、充分重视中国哲学研究
传统文化热的一个表现，是关注于古代哲学思想在当代的传承。远东所的汉学家们尤其重视考察儒学在当代中国的运用。他们在八十年代跟踪探索中国的改革开放，其成就、困难和问题。着眼于中国经验能否为俄国的改革提供借鉴。研究所组织力量赶译出版邓小平文集和传记资料，以及重要时文、报导，一再向当政者建言：俄国改革不宜走向西方，应该走东方即中国之路。当今的四位院士和科学院三大研究所主要人员，以及俄国新儒学的代表人物佩列洛莫夫（Л. Переломов）等八位资深汉学家曾被俄国头几任总统聘请为对华政策顾问，或先后为随总统访华团的成员兼顾问。佩氏以孔孟著作为据，不断著文解说：“小康”、“和谐”等词源于儒学，系“古为今用”，不但在中国有效，而且将儒家“为人”和“为政”的思想用于俄国社会也是“可行的”。他现为俄罗斯孔子基金会主席，最近翻译并组织出版了俄译本《四书》（2004年）。哲学家季塔连科（М. Титаренко，1934— ）的成就特别引人瞩目
二、史学领域人才杰出
八十年代完成了此前已开始的史学系列成果，即有通史，也有断代史，还有类别史（社会史、思想史直至史学史等）。近代史和中俄关系史则有齐赫文和米亚斯尼科夫的重要著作推出。史学家齐赫文（С. Тихвинский，1918— ）、史学家米亚斯尼科夫（В. Мясников，1931— ）成就最为杰出。
三、文学译介走向深广
文学家李福清（Б. Рифтин，1932— ）
译文Translation
Sinology in Russia in the Second Half of the 20th Century
Continuing the momentum of the great development of Sinology in Russia since the 1950s, there has been a recent surge in the number of research institutes. The so-called “Powerful Five” include the three big academies of science - Moscow’s Far Eastern Institute of Oriental Studies, St Petersburg Institute of Oriental Studies, and the Institute of Oriental Documentation also in St. Petersburg - in addition to the Oriental and African College of Moscow University, and the Oriental Department of St. Petersburg University. Other universities and colleges with their own newly established centers of sinology and departments of far eastern studies include the Urals, Novosibirsk (New Siberia), and Vladivostok.
The ‘academic team’ working in the field of Sinology has changed significantly over the years. In early 20th century there was only one academic, Ahanlin (1881-1951) who pioneered and led the field of Sinology. Four people, protégés of Ahanlin, became in turn founders of various branches of Sinology, namely, the leading figures respectively for literature, history and philosophy. S. Tikvinski (С. Тихвинский, 1918－ ) and Miasnikov (В. Мясников, 1931－ ) became the leading figures for historical studies, Tigarenko (М. Титаренко, 1934－ ) for philosophy, and B. Riftin (Б. Рифтин，1932－ ) for literature.
There are now a significant numbers of Sinologists with higher academic qualifications and degrees such as doctor’s degrees and associate doctor’s degrees. According to the statistics, by 2008 there were 612 of these people, an increase of over 100 from the 505 people who existed at the beginning of the 1990s. The number of the people with postgraduate academic qualifications and the large number of new sinology graduates is even larger.
Among the above-mentioned people, a number of young Sinologists born after the 1950s have begun to come up in the world. For example, A. Koyozev (А. Кобзев) who wrote The Methodology of Chinese Classical Philosophy, V. Maliavkin (В. Малявин), the author of Life of Confucius, M. Yermakov (М. Ермаков), the translator of The Hierarchical Life, Y. Tortsinov (Е. Торчинов) who studies Buddhist culture, V. Kravtsova (В. Кравцова) the author of A History of Chinese Culture, G. Dagdanov (Г. Дагданов) who wrote the monograph Zen Thoughts in Wang Wei’s Writing, I. Popova (И. Попова), Head of the Institute of Oriental Documentation, M. Karpov (М. Карпов) and Liu Huaxia of Moscow University, A. Rodionov (А. Родионов), Associate Professor of St. Petersburg University, and others, have all made names for themselves in the 1980s and the 1990s. They have brought with them new fruits of their labors and a new climate to the field of Sinology in Russia.
This period, along with the rising tide of the 1950s, has advanced with such force that “The Heat of the Chinese Traditional Culture” continued to rise in the 1980s and 1990s, and still has momentum now, in the beginning of the 21st century.
A. Attaching significance to Study of Chinese Philosophy
One manifestation of the heat generated traditional Chinese culture has been the focus given to ancient philosophical ideas in the modern era. The Sinologists from the Far Eastern Institute of Oriental Studies have focused particular attention on the importance of Confucianism in contemporary China. They explored the accomplishments, difficulties and problems of the Chinese reform and opening in the 1980s with a view to seeing whether the Chinese experience could provide Russia with some reference points for its own reforms. The institute focused its resources on translation and publication of data and bibliographies into the Collected Works of Deng Xiaoping, providing not only an important textual resource, but also policy advice to those in power. This advice posited that it was inadvisable for the Russian reform to follow the West but instead it should go along the road of the East, that is, the road of China. The four lead academics [S. Tikvinski, Miasnikov, Tigarenko and Riftin] in addition to the key staff of the three research institutes of the Academy of Sciences, plus eight senior sinologists such as L. Perelomov (Л. Переломов) were all deigned representative figures of Confucianism, and were even retained by the former presidents as consultants on China policy, becoming delegates or consultants to presidential delegations to China. Perelomov (Л. Переломов) wrote profuse numbers of articles on the works of Confucius and Mencius. His papers covered a number of concepts rooted in Confucianism such as xiao kang (well being) and he xie (harmony), each one of them ‘ancient ideas used in modern times’, suggesting that these ideas are effective not only in China but also in Russia, noting that it could be feasible to use the Confucian ideas of weiren (self-cultivation) and wei zheng (governance) in Russian society. He now works as the President of the Russian Confucian Foundation and translated and published the Russian edition of Si Shu (Four Books) in 2004. The philosopher M. Titarenko (М. Титаренко, 1934—) has also made considerable contributions.
B. Distinguished historians and personnel
In the 1980s a number of historical projects, all of which were begun in earlier years, came to completion. The fruits of these studies included not only a general history, but also a project divided into specific periods of history, in addition to a study which delineated different historical categories (e.g. social history, the history of ideas, historiography etc). Significant publications have been by the historians S. Tikvinski (С. Тихвинский, 1918－ ) and V. Miasnikov (В. Мясников, 1931－ ) in the fields of modern history and the history of Sino-Russian relations.
C. Literary translations: Going wider and deeper
The author B. Riftin (Б. Рифтин, 1932－ )
Riftin was granted superior academic status on 29 May 2008, but much earlier on 22 December 2003 he accepted the “Chinese Language and Culture Friendship Award” bestowed on him by the Chinese Ministry of Education. This award is given to those considered to be the most outstanding overseas educators in Chinese and researchers of Chinese language and culture. Riftin was the first Russian to receive such an honor.