專家與通識－章學誠的學術思路與錢穆的詮釋

Specialties and Comprehensive Understanding: Zhang Xuecheng's Approach to the Traditional Scholarship and Qian Mu's interpretation on It

10.6253/ntuhistory.2006.37.05

許松源(Song-Yuan Shu)

章學誠 ； 文史通義 ； 經史之學 ； 史學 ； 錢穆 ； Zhang Xuecheng ； Wenshi tongyi ； Jiaochou tongyi 校讎通義 ； Chinese traditional historiography ； Qian Mu

臺大歷史學報

37期（2006 / 06 / 01）

267 - 300

繁體中文

經、史關係問題一直是今人研究章學誠的盲點。論者習以歷史哲學或史學理論的觀念來詮釋章氏的「六經皆史」說，鮮能反省今天所謂歷史哲學與史學理論所預設的知識觀念，非但難以切合傳統史學的本質與特性，而且易於導致我們將經、史誤認為兩種對立的學術。筆者認為，錢穆以「專家與通識」之說總結章氏學術的要旨，特別有助於我們釐清上述問題。「專家」是章氏在「辨章學術，考鏡源流」上提出的重要學術觀念，章氏著述中許多言及經、史之處，其實是就經、史著作之中所蘊含的特定「專門家學」來討論，而非泛指經、史兩部而言。這些專門家學既用於治經，也用於治史，實即互通於經、史兩部，所以章氏論為學之道當本於專家，進而又講求擴充治學門徑，以期各門專業能交相為功，通達於學術大體。因此，錢穆指出《文史通義》最有價值的地方，正在章氏能從學術之整體來講一切學術。此即章氏所謂「道欲通方，而業須專一」，兼重專家與通識的學術思路。

The issue of the relationship between Jing (經, the Classics or classical scholarship) and Shi (史, Traditional historiography or historical scholarship) has been the blind spot in contemporary studies of Zhang Xuecheng's (章學誠) scholarship. Researchers, who are scarcely able to reflect on the concepts of knowledge that are presupposed by modern philosophies of history or theories of historical science, are inclined to interpret Zhang's doctrine ”The Classics are all the governmental documentation in high antiquity (六經皆史, Liujing jie shi)” by employing ideas they derive from modern philosophies of history or theories of historical science. Those ideas, however, do not dovetail with Chinese traditional historical scholarship in terms of intellectual essence and properties. By pitting one against another, they inevitably mislead us about Jing and Shi as opposed intellectual points of view. Qian Mu's (錢穆) interpretation of Zhang's scholarship, in my opinion, is most conducive to resolving the abovementioned issue because Qian Mu properly and profoundly grasps the main ideas of Zhang's scholarship by appealing to Zhang's own contentions about ”specialties (專家, Zhuanjia) and comprehensive understanding (通識, Tongshi)” ”Specialties” is a fundamental intellectual idea that Zhang formulates through his clarifying the essence and characteristics of every kind of traditional scholarship, and his working out their identical origin and diverse developments and changes of later times. In fact, in many paragraphs referring to ”Jing and Shi” in his writings, Zhang does discuss the various ”specialties” contained within Jing or Shi scholarly writings, not the so called Categories of Jing or Shi of later times, These various ”specialties,” through which scholars study not only Jing writings but also Shi writings, are actually shared by the two Categories of Jing or Shi. Because writings of diverse Categories share these specialties, Zhang pursues and argues for a principle of thinking and learning according to which men of learning should try studying various kinds of specialties, making use of one another in order to widen their scope of learning and extend their horizon of thinking, ultimately comprehending scholarship as a whole. What is most valuable in the writing of ”General Principles of Literaure and History” (《文史通義》, Wenshi tongyi), Qian Mu remarks, is that Chang can interpret and illuminate the meaning of every kind of scholarship from the viewpoint of scholarship as a whole. This underscores what Chang asserts: ”Comprehending Dao requires learning scholarship as a whole, and meanwhile, learning itself requires specializing in one certain kind or some different kinds of specialties,” (道欲通方, 而業須專一) which reveals that Zhang's approach to scholarship stresses the importance both of ”specialties” and ”comprehensive understanding.”

1. 汪榮祖(2000)。錢穆論清學史述評。臺大歷史學報，26
   連結：
2. 清章學誠著、王重民通解(1987)。校讎通義通解。上海:上海古籍出版社。
3. 清章學誠著、倉修良編(1993)。文史通義新編。上海:上海古籍出版社。
4. 清章學誠著、葉瑛校注(1985)。文史通義校注。北京:中華書局。
5. 清章學誠撰(1985)。章學誠遺書。北京:文物出版社。
6. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, (trans),Joel Weinsheimer,Donald G. Marshall(1990).Truth and Method.Taipei:Bookman Books, LTD..
7. Heidegger, Martin, (trans.),Joan Stambaugh(1996).Being and Time: A Translation of Sein und Zeit.Albany:State University of New York Press.
8. Nivison, David S.(1966).The Life and Thought of Chang Hsueh-Ch'eng (1738-1801).Stanford:Stanford University Press.
9. 方朝暉(2002)。「中學」與「西學」－重新解讀現代中國學術史。保定:河北大學出版社。
10. 王汎森、羅志田編(2001)。20世紀的中國：學術與社會·史學卷。濟南:山東人民出版社。
11. 王義良(1995)。章實齋以史統文的文論研究。高雄:復文圖書出版社。
12. 左玉河(2004)。從四部之學到七科之學－學術分科與近代知識系統之創建。上海:上海書店出版社。
13. 白壽彝(1962)。學步集。北京:三聯書店。
14. 朱維錚(1996)。求索真文明：晚清學術史論。上海:上海古籍出版社。
15. 江素卿、中山大學清代學術研究中心編(2001)。清代學術論叢第二輯。臺北:文津出版社。
16. 何佑森、中央研究院中國文哲研究所編委會主編(1994)。清代經學思潮。清代經學國際研討會論文集，臺北:
17. 余英時(1996)。論戴震與章學誠－清代中期學術思想史研究。臺北:東大圖書公司。
18. 宋家復(1996)。詮釋的歷史與（歷）史的詮釋：章學誠「六經皆史」說的再理解。九州學刊，7(1)
19. 汪學群(1998)。錢穆學術思想評傳。北京:北京圖書館出版社。
20. 周啟榮、劉廣京、中央研究院近代史研究所編(1984)。學術經世：章學誠之文史論與經世思想。近世中國經世思想研討會論文集，臺北:
21. 徐國利(2004)。錢穆史學思想研究。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
22. 張升、北京師範大學歷史系編(1992)。《史籍考》撰修考。史學論衡，2
23. 梁繼紅、中國歷史文獻研究會編(2004)。章學誠《文史通義》自刻本的發現及其研究價值。章學誠國際學術研討會論文集，北京:
24. 陳祖武(2002)。清儒學術拾零。長沙:湖南人民出版社。
25. 曾昭旭、國立中山大學中國文學系編(1989)。論王船山在學術史上之地位－兼論清代學術之性格與梁著、錢著《中國近三百年學術史》之觀點。第一屆清代學術研討會論文集，高雄:
26. 逯耀東(2000)。魏晉史學的思想與社會基礎。臺北:東大圖書公司。
27. 詹海雲、中央研究院中國文哲研究所編委會主編(1994)。清代浙東學者的經學特色。清代經學國際研討會論文集，臺北:
28. 劉韶軍、中國歷史文獻研究會編(2004)。「六經皆史」中的經、事、道。章學誠國際學術研討會論文集，北京:
29. 劉龍心(2002)。學術與制度－學科體制與現代中國史學的建立。臺北:遠流出版公司。
30. 鄭吉雄(1996)。論章學誠的「道」與經世思想。臺大中文學報，5
31. 錢穆(1997)。兩漢經學今古文平議。臺北:聯經出版公司。
32. 錢穆(1997)。中國史學發微：史學導言。臺北:聯經出版公司。
33. 錢穆(1997)。中國史學名著。臺北:聯經出版公司。
34. 錢穆(1997)。中國近三百年學術史。臺北:聯經出版公司。
35. 羅志田(1999)。權勢轉移：近代中國的思想、社會與學術。武漢:湖北人民出版社。
36. 羅志田(2003)。近代中國史學十論。上海:復旦大學出版社。
37. 龔鵬程、陳世華編(2005)。乾隆年間的文人史論－論章實齋的「文史學」。章學誠研究論叢：第四屆中國文獻學學術研討會論文集，臺北: