福兰阁的汉学研究与当时之世界——论欧洲汉学研究的第一次范式转换

李雪涛
北京外国语大学

 

福兰阁1888-1901年出任德国外交部北京公使馆的翻译，期间亲历了中国的很多历史事件。1901年回到德国之后，他主要给《科隆报》（Kölnische Zeitung）等报刊撰写中国当代政治、经济、文化的报道和评论文章。1907年底他在柏林大学完成了教授资格论文（Habilitation）：《汉学研究的任务和方法》（Aufgaben und Methoden der Sinologie），之前他也完成了一系列与传统汉学研究密切相关的研究成果。1909年他被任命为汉堡殖民学院新成立的汉学系的主任教授，福兰阁将汉学系命名为：“中国语言与文化系”（Seminar für Sprache und Kultur Chinas）。

20世纪初，汉学研究进入了一个崭新的阶段，汉学家们都在尝试着将历史学的方 法和观念引入汉学研究领域：批判式的文本研究以及依据由其他社会科学学科所制定出来的原则而对这些内容进行着诠释。“中国语言与文化系”的建立，可以说正 是这一思潮的具体体现。尽管福兰阁非常重视传统的中国和欧洲的学术，这同时也是汉堡大学汉学研究的一个重要方面，但是他同样认为中国当代与传统的一致性。 当时殖民学院教授委员会的报告明确地指出了汉堡汉学系学术性与当代性的关系：

“中国——整个东亚文化的摇篮——当代的中国研究不再是与世隔绝的语文学 范畴。学习了解东亚的政治和社会发展是当代的重大任务之一，它只能通过深入东亚民族的精神生活、宗教、习俗、政治、哲学观才能实现。研究那些能够体现当代 中国人精神生活的古代文献，可以迈向这条道路。这些文献对于考察亚洲其他地区的历史和文化同样具有重大意义。当前汉学研究涉及到超越自身的语言和文字的困 难，运用欧洲的研究方法深入地、批判地探讨文化和历史……因此，教授的任务不仅仅在于提供中国语言课程，尤其要力图探讨东亚的文学与历史。”

范式转换（paradigm shift）概念的提出唤起了人们关注时代思潮的更深层次的结构。时代的进步是形成与过去的典范不相符的新学说，从而使一种标准的形态发生动摇，最终造成典范的转变。

福兰阁本人很少表现出对传教士的同情，他不会再像18、19世纪的学者 那样过分相信文本本身，而是以批判是的文本研究以及从语文学、历史学出发对汉学的内容进行阐释。除此之外，他也从社会科学的范畴和方法出发，对当时中国政 治、经济和社会的关注与研究。福兰阁大量的著作和文章是与当时的时政密切相关的。福兰阁的弟子白乐日（Stefan (Etienne) Balázs, 1905-1963）1930年的博士论文就是运用当代西方经济学的理论对《旧唐书》和《新唐书》中的“食货志”进行了翻译和分析。他所开创的用社会学方法研究中国社会、历史的范式，后来成为了美国中国学的主要研究范式，现在也已经成为了中国学研究的普遍共识。

因此，发生在上个世纪之初的欧洲汉学的范式转换，不仅使批判性汉学成为了汉学研究的主流，同时也孕育了下半叶异军突起的中国学研究。

 

Sinological Studies of Otto Franke (1862-1946) and His Time - On the First Paradigm Shift in European Sinological Research

Li Xuetao
Beijing Foreign Studies University

 

Between 1888 and 1901, Otto Franke was the official translator of the Ambassador of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing.  During his time, he witnessed many important changes in China. After returning to Germany in 1901, he wrote many articles about Chinese politics, economy, and culture – most of which were published in the “Koelnische Zeitung.” In 1907 he completed his post-doctoral dissertation, entitled Task and Methods of Sinology, at the University of Berlin, and attained the necessary qualifications for a professorship. Before that he had written a series of studies closely linked to traditional Sinology. In 1909 he was appointed the director of the newly established Department of Sinology of the Hamburgisches Kolonialinstitut, and named it the “College of Chinese Language and Culture.”

In the early 20th century, Sinology entered a new era. Sinologists tried to apply methods and concepts of historical research to Sinological studies: textual criticism and principles that had been found by other social sciences helped the interpretation of these texts. The “College of Chinese Language and Culture” can be seen as a typical expression of the tendencies of that time. Francke showed earnest respect for the traditional Chinese and European academic tradition, an important dimension of Sinology of Hamburg, but he also emphasized the continuity between Chinese tradition and contemporary China. The report of the Commission of Professors of the Hamburg Colonial Institute clearly points out the relationship between academic studies and modernity in its Department of Sinology.

 “China is the cradle of all the cultures of East Asia. Contemporary China studies no longer form a category of linguistic research that is isolated from the world. One of the important tasks today is to understand the political and social developments of East Asia in our time, and this development can only manifest itself as a result of the deeper layers of the spiritual life, religion, customs, policies, and philosophy of the peoples of East Asia. In this way we can study the classical texts in order to reveal the spiritual life of the Chinese today. These texts are also important for the study and research of the history and culture of other regions of Asia. The study of modern Sinology requires one to transcend one’s own language and the problem of the script, to use European methods to analyze culture and history thoroughly and critically… thus the task of a professor is not only to provide language courses, but also to try to present the literature and history of East Asia.”

This paradigm shift evokes a closer look at the deeper mental structures of the period. The progress of this era has formed some new academic approaches that no longer matched traditional models, and thus one kind of standard was shaken, and finally a paradigm shift was induced.

Francke himself very seldom showed sympathy for missionaries and did not put too much trust in the reliability of their writings as scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries previously had done. He used textual criticism, philology, and history to arrive at a textual interpretation. Besides that he also used sociological categories to study modern Chinese politics, economy and society. Many of Francke’s publications are closely related to contemporary politics. Francke’s student Etienne Balazs (1905-1963) wrote a PhD dissertation in 1930, in which he used modern western theories of economy to translate and analyze the “Reports concerning Food and Goods” (Shi Huo Zhi) of the Jiu Tang Shu and Xin Tang Shu. This approach of using sociological methods to understand Chinese society and history later became the main model of the research of American sinologists, and today it has become the generally accepted model of China studies.

Therefore, the paradigm shift that took place in the beginning of the last century in European Sinological circles has affected the critical study approach and has become the mainstream of Sinological research.  Moreover, it has also given birth to a sudden growth in China studies.