述评章实斋“《春秋》经世”观

【作者】 沈娟；

【导师】 林宏星；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 中国哲学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 章实斋学业归极“经世”之旨,自言其生平著作有二桩,文史争义例、校雠辨源流。辨源流者,其志乃在为天下学术立纲纪,别其源流,考其得失成败,以有所救补,故必溯其源于道之全体。相较于传统一般学者,应该说章实斋心中有着极为清醒的学术流脉,而他自觉靠依史学的学术人生,正在于他对“史学”的本质有着全新的认识,即唯有“史学”才得称经世之学的微旨——专门成家之“撰述”皆为“史学”。六艺中《春秋》是后世诸史之源。鉴于宋学末流独尊德性,不务考索实学,又轻视辞章,章氏批评宋学束书不观、空言制胜,非徒无益世教,又启门户之争。故而章氏表彰即事言理、即器明道的史学以救其弊而息门户之争。实斋所处的乾嘉时代,汉学风气浓厚,上之者以道在六经、通经必先明训诂为由,疲精费神于编纂、辑佚、考索等文字和专门技业之琐细小节；等而下者斤斤于征信考实而不惜瞽昧灭裂著述之宏旨。针对前者,章实斋提出六经不足尽穷变通久之道,而贵史家随时发明；针对后者,实斋提出善读书贵在心知其意、论古能恕,神会专门之学之“别识心裁”,也即“史义”也。史之为《春秋》家学不贵在史事、史文之有一定法度,而贵乎“史义”。但前此史家对“史义”的体会都是善恶褒贬,乾嘉考史学派虽然疵议褒贬自任、擅加予夺的行为,但并未能如章实斋那样从史学本身的性质上做出深刻反省。章氏不仅否定史家能以一己之好恶来评陟历史,而且强调即使史家有基本的是非之心,其“区区之明”也不足凭恃,故而慎重提出“史德”问题,认为史文虽成于史家之笔,但史之义本出于天,史家当慎辨天人之际而谨于“《春秋》因笔明削之旨”。因此之故,史家之“史德”、“史识”、“心术”问题被慎重提出来,而传统强调“《春秋》善善恶恶、褒贬与夺”之史义也被转换成强调“《春秋》谨严”,在考据派史学和义理派史家中求得一个中正公允的平衡点。由此可见,章氏正是站在学问“经世”的宏大立场上鸟瞰古往今来的学术流别,推究利病,从而对清世的宋学、汉学及辞章学都提出了建设性的批评意见而归宗史学。更多还原

【Abstract】 Zhang Shi-Zhai’s study is ascribed to the interest of "statecraft"; he said himself that his lifelong writings consisted of two:to argue about the righteousness and types in literature and history; to distinguish the origin and the thread in collation. To distinguish the origin and the thread was intended to establish the principle and discipline for worldwide scholarship, to separate their origins and threads, to examine their gain and loss, success and failure, and to do some saving and supplementing; thus, it must trace their origins to the entirety of Dao (道).In contrast to ordinary traditional scholars, Zhang Shi-Zhai should be said to have in mind supremely sober scholarly thread, and his scholarly life, which consciously depended on the study of history, was owing to his totally new recognition of the essence of the "study of history", i.e., the subtle interest that only the "study of history", which included all "writings and narratives" that especially contributed to mastership, could be called the study of statecraft.The Spring and Autumn Annals in the Six Books is the origin of all later histories. Since the late Songian study honored moral nature solely, did not engage in solid inquiries and overlooked rhetoric, Zhang criticized that the Songian study put aside books without reading them, tried to defeat each other with vain words, and not only did no good to worldly cultivation but also engendered conflicts of schools. In the Qian-Jia time, in which Shi-Zhai lived, the atmosphere of Hanian study was strong, and those who were better, on the pretext that Dao was in the Six Classics, the understanding of which presupposed clear exegesis, wearily occupied themselves with trivialities of literal and specialized techniques such as compilation, collecting idle materials, inquisition, etc.; those who were worse bothered themselves with inquiries for factuality, not hesitating to betray and destroy the grand interest of writing. Against the former, Zhang Shi-Zhai contended that the Six Classics were not adequate to exhaust the Dao of predicament, change, openness and lastingness; rather, its timely disclosure by historians was valued. Against the latter, Shi-Zhai contended that good reading was valued by "peculiar knowing and judging with heart", i.e., knowing books’sense with heart, capability of forgiveness when talking about the ancient and intellectually comprehending peculiar studies, which was "the righteousness of history".History as the esoteric study of The Spring and Autumn Annals does not value that historical affairs and historical writings have certain rules but values "the righteousness of history". Previous historians all understood "the righteousness of history" as praising the good and blaming the bad, and Qian-Jia Textology School, though criticizing behaviors of praising, blaming, entitling and divesting at one’s own will, did not like Zhang Shi-Zhai reflect in depth with respect to the characteristics of the study of history per se. Zhang not only denied that a historian could evaluate history according to his/her own taste but emphasized that, even though a historian had basic judgment on right and wrong, his/her "minor wisdom" was not adequate to be appealed to; therefore, he prudently raised the question of the "virtue of history" holding that, though the writings of history came from the pens of historians, the righteousness of history descended from Tian (天), and that a historian was bound to carefully discern the correlation of Tian and men and stick to the "interest of factual record and evident abridgment in The Spring and Autumn Annals". Consequently, the questions of the "virtue of history", the "knowing of history" and the "moral intention" of historians were prudently raised, and the traditional righteousness of history accentuating that "The Spring and Autumn Annals regards the good as good and the bad as bad, praises, blames, entitles and divests" was transformed into accentuating that "The Spring and Autumn Annals rigidifies", thus attempting a just and unbiased balance point between the textological study of history and the historians of philosophical connotations.Accordingly, standing in the grand position of the "statecraft" of study, Zhang got a bird’s-eye view on threads of scholarship from ancient times to the present, estimated their advantages and disadvantages, hence gave constructive critical advices to the Songian study, the Hanian Study and the rhetoric in the Qing Dynasty, and ascribed himself to the study of history.更多还原