摘要
章学诚提出"撰述"与"记注"的分别,后人多以此论上承刘知几"当时简/后来笔"之分。其实两人的分类项目并不对等,态度上也各有轻重。刘说倾向于"历史写作有两步骤",而章学诚欲强调"有两种人,兹有两种历史写作"。此说为近世所重,背景是"新史学"运动带来的"史料"观念革新,与章学诚发论时的情境已大异其趣。近代史学对"撰述/记注"的解读,基于"一手史料/二手史料"的价值高下差异,与章学诚担忧"书繁重而易失"的心态几乎相反。对这个过程加以考察,能呈现一个史学论点在不同学术史语境下的含义变迁。
With respect to the origin of Zhang Xuecheng's differentiation between 'composing'and 'recording'in historical writing,many scholars believe that he expanded on Liu Zhiji's ideas on how contemporary records tend to be terse and later writings verbose. But in fact,the two differed in ideas and attitude. Liu was more referring to the two steps in historical writing whereas Zhang to two types of historians. Zhang's discussion received attention in modern times because by then the attitude toward historical sources had become changed. Yet modern scholars' distinction between primary and secondary sources was not comparable to Zhang's differentiation between 'composing'and 'recording,'for phrases and ideas change over time as they are born in different intellectual context.
出处
《史学理论研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第2期77-85,159,共9页
Historiography Bimonthly
