An Interpretation of Zhang Xuecheng's Idea

Abstract

Abstract: In Shijiao Zhang Xuecheng argues that "the philosophers and history failed, yet the collection flourished", using refined words to summarize the change of academic studies after Warring States. Not only does the argument describe the change of private writing's form, but also reveals its substantial change, which is the loss of purposes. In his discussion of the decline of history, Zhang Xuecheng especially emphasizes the loss of specialized subjects. This argument contains Zhang's academic ideal, and provides a frame of reference when it comes to other topics in Wenshi-Tongyi. The multiple dualities in this argument are consistent with the meaning of "write" ("zhuanshu") and "record" ("jizhu") in Shujiao. From his criticism to the art of writing, we could also see Zhang's pursuit of "yangong".

Key words: the philosophers and history, collection, writing, personal opinions, purposes, specialized subject

Fu Xu. An Interpretation of Zhang Xuecheng's Idea "the Philosophers and History Failed, yet the Collection Flourished"[J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2017, 37(2): 94-101.

References

郭庆藩:《庄子集释》。北京:中华书局,2004年。[Guo,Qingfan.Collected Interpretations of Zhuangzi.Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2004.]
刘师培:《汉魏六朝专家文研究》。北京:商务印书馆,2010年。[Liu,Shipei.The Research on Specialists'Writing of the Han,Wei and Six Dynasties.Beijing:The Commercial Press,2010.]
刘勰:《文心雕龙注》,范文澜注。北京:人民文学出版社,1958年。[Liu,Xie.Annotated Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.Ed.Fan Wenlan.Beijing:People's Literature Publishing House,1958.]
刘知几:《史通通释》,浦起龙释。上海:上海古籍出版社,2009年。[Liu,Zhiji.Complete Explanations of Generalities on History.Ed.Pu Qilong.Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,2009.]
倪德卫:《章学诚的生平及其思想》,杨立华译。南京:江苏人民出版社,2007年。[Nivison,David S..The Life and Thought of Chang Hsilehch'eng(1738-1801).Trans.Yang Lihua.Nanjing:Jiangsu People's Publishing House,2007.]
萧统编:《文选》,李善注。上海古籍出版社,1986年。[Xiao,Tong,ed.Anthologies.Annotated.Li Shan.Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,1986.]
王汎森:《权力的毛细管作用:清代的思想、学术与心态》。北京:北京大学出版社,2015年。[Wang,Fansen.The Capillary Use of Power:Thought,Scholarship and Mindset in the Qing Dynasty.Beijing:Peking University Press,2015.]
山口久和:《章学诚的知识论——以考证学批判为中心》,王标译。上海:上海古籍出版社,2006年。[Yamaguchi,Hisakazu.A Theory of Knowledge of Chang Hs(u|¨)eh-cheng.Trans.Wang Biao.Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,2006.]
章学诚:《文史通义校注》,叶瑛校注。北京:中华书局,1985年。[Zhang,Xuecheng.Annotated Wenshi-Tongyi.Ed.Ye Ying.Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1985.]
——:《文史通义新编新注》,仓修良编注。杭州:浙江古籍出版社,2005年。[---.Wenshi-Tongyi Newly Collected and Annotated.Ed.Cang Xiuliang.Hangzhou:Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House,2005.]
(1)详见钱志熙:“论章学诚在文学史学上的贡献”,《文学遗产》1(2011):112-22。钱氏认为,章氏论“后世之文”源于战国,“至战国而后世之文体备”的关键点有两个,一是情志,一是个人著述之事专,通过“情志”贯穿起来将“六艺之文”“战国之文”和“后世之文”,为文学史找到一条最合理的主线。
(2)章太炎在《文学略说》一文中,以“著作之文”和“独行之文”区分了写作形态,其中“著作之文”,略等于史部、子部二类,而后人文集,多“独行之文”,两者的区别在于一书中各篇互有关系还是各自独立,虽然章太炎先生亦指出了著作的衰落和宋代之后独行之文的兴盛,但似乎并未受到章学诚的影响。见《章太炎国学讲演录》(上海:中华书局,2013年)。有学者认为,诸子的性质与后代的文集并无不同,见余嘉锡:《秦汉诸子即后世之文集》,《古书通例》卷二(上海:上海古籍出版社,1985年),51-52;饶宗颐《论战国文学》第四节《散文中诸子书相当于后代的“集”》,载《文辙——文学史论集》(台北:台湾学生书局,1991年),211-13。吴光兴《以“集”名书与汉晋时期文集体制之建构》一文详细地梳理了文集编纂的历程及文集观念的发展,认为文集编辑的历史惯例在两汉以降形成,对学术史上将诸子与文集等同的说法,不无商榷之意,见《文学遗产》1(2016):43-52。
(3)从这段论述可以看出,在章学诚眼中,“文集”这种个人写作是不能称之为“著述”或者“著作”的,故而本文尽量避免使用“个人著述”“私家著述”之类的语汇来统一指代战国诸子及汉魏六朝文集这两种不同性质的写作形态,《经解上》有“至于官师既分,处士横议,诸子纷纷,著述立说,而文字始有私家之言,不尽出于典章政教也”之语,其中“私家之言”或可以用来概括战国诸子之下的写作。
(4)章学诚将《和州志》的《文征》部分分为奏议、征述、论著和诗赋四体,“诸子风衰,而文士集中乃有论说辨解诸体,若书牍题跋之类,则又因事立言,亦论著之派别也。”是与诗赋体之别。
(5)关于《史记》近于诸子的讨论,可以参考梁启超《要籍解题及其读法》一书《史记》部分之“《史记》著述之旨趣”,见梁启超:《要籍解题及其读法》(北京:清华周刊丛书社,1930年),34-35;钱穆《太史公考释》一文亦认为《史记》一书为司马迁一家言,见《中国学术思想史论丛(三)》(合肥:安徽教育出版社,2007年),19-29;台湾学者李纪祥以《(史记>之“家言”与“史书”性质论》一文申发钱穆之旨,见《<史记>五论》(北京:文津出版社,2007年),93-107。
(6)罗炳良在《传统史学理论的终结与嬗变——章学诚史学的理论价值》一书的第五章《章学诚的史家素养理论》第一节《史学家法与通史家风》,从史学家法的角度讨论了章学诚所划分的这三个阶段。参见《传统史学理论的终结与嬗变》(泰安:泰山出版社,2005年),189-96。
(7)如钱志熙在《论章学诚在文学史学上的贡献》一文中认为,“子史衰而文集之体盛,著作衰而辞章之学兴”,是说文集代子史而起,并且小部分继承子史的功能,大部分则发展为辞章之学。何诗海在《“文体备于战国”说平议》一文中认为:“章学诚将后世文集的内容分为经义、传记、论辩、辞章四大类,前三类分别为经、史、子等专门之学衰落的产物,由学术文体衍变而来”,参见《文学评论》6(2010):122。
(8)《和州志艺文书序例》亦指出:“魏晋之间,专门之学渐亡,文章之士,以著作为荣华”,“魏、晋之间,文集类书,无所统系,专门授受之业微矣。”参见《文史通义校注》,650-51;《和州文征序例》:“古人著述,各自名家,未有采辑诸人,裒合为集者也。自专门之学散,而别集之风日繁,其文既非一律,而其言时有所长,则选辑之事兴焉。”参见《文史通义校注》,695。
(9)根据叶瑛注,《诗教》上下二篇至晚完成于乾隆四十八年(1783年),而《书教》三篇约成于乾隆五十七年(1792年)。

[1]	Zhang Hongliang. Intelligent Writing Experiment and the Avant-Garde Tradition [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2023, 43(2): 203-209.
[2]	Yu Min. The Dilemma of Paid Writing and Its Solution： On Yuan Haowen’s Prose Production [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2023, 43(1): 196-205.
[3]	Zheng Tianxi. The View of “Qin-Han-Wen” in the Anthologies of Ancient Writings in the Middle and Late Ming Dynasty and Its Imperial Examination Orientation [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(6): 184-193.
[4]	Zhong Zhihui. The Institutional Nature of Texts: On the Reform of Yuan Zhen’s Imperial Proclamation Writing [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(5): 158-170.
[5]	Gu Wenbin. Rewriting the Classical: Contemporary Writers’ Reception of the Story “Goose Cage Scholar” [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(5): 217-226.
[6]	Tao Dongfeng. Beyond the Binary Opposition between Collectivism and Individualism: A Reflection on the Concept of Collective Memory [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(4): 1-10.
[7]	Qin Wei. Xu Fuguan’s Modern Interpretation of “Writings Are for Conveying Truth” [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(4): 62-69.
[8]	Hu Xu, Wan Yifang. A Textual Research on Du Fu’s Absorption of Elaborate Writing from Yin Keng and He Xun [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(4): 123-132.
[9]	Jiang Xiangyan. Allusivity or Explicit-Implicit Comparison: A Critical Review of the Tradition of François Jullien’s Indirect Writing [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(3): 100-109.
[10]	Zhuang Xuan. A Historical Critique on the Debate between “Poem Expressing Aspirations” and “Writings Conveying Ethics” in Zhou Zuoren’s Concept of Prose [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(2): 44-53.
[11]	Chi Leiming. Foreign Language Writing of Overseas Chinese and the “Re-writing” of the History of Modern Chinese Literature [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(2): 54-64.
[12]	Deng Wei. An Analysis of the Language Contact of the Late-Qing Diplomats and Its Historical Construction: With Reference to Huang Zunxian’s View of “Unity of Speech and Writing” [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(2): 156-165.
[13]	Xia Pengfei. Articles in the Ming Dynasty [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(2): 205-215.
[14]	Li Zhenling, Ha Jin. Where Are We and What to Write?: An Interview with Professor Ha Jin [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(1): 106-113.
[15]	Wei Guangji. Mourning, Vision, and Effusion: Georges Bataille’s Writing of Tears [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2022, 42(1): 165-171.

An Interpretation of Zhang Xuecheng's Idea "the Philosophers and History Failed, yet the Collection Flourished"

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments