论章学诚之“撰述”与“记注”

发布时间：2018-01-05 21:43

本文关键词：论章学诚之“撰述”与“记注”　出处：《史学理论研究》2016年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【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。
[Abstract]:Zhang Xuecheng put forward the difference between "writing stories" and "notes", and later generations discussed the difference between Liu Zhiji's "simple works at that time" and "notes". In fact, the classification items of the two people were not equal. Liu said that there are two steps in historical writing, while Zhang Xuecheng wanted to emphasize that "there are two kinds of people, and there are two kinds of historical writing." The background is the innovation of the concept of "historical materials" brought by the movement of "New historiography", which is quite different from the situation in which Zhang Xuecheng wrote his theory. Based on the difference in the value of "primary historical materials / second-hand historical materials", Zhang Xuecheng is almost opposite to Zhang Xuecheng's mentality of worrying about "heavy and easy loss of books". Can present a historical argument in the context of different academic history meaning changes.
【作者单位】：上海财经大学人文学院;
【分类号】：K092
【正文快照】： “撰述”与“记注”作为一组对举的历史学概念始见,始见于章学诚《文史通义》中的名篇《书教下》:“《易》曰‘蓍之德圆而神,卦之德方以智。’间尝窃取其义,以概古今之载籍。撰述欲其圆而神,记注欲其方以智。夫智以藏往,神以知来,记注欲往事之不忘,撰述欲来者兴起。故记注藏往

【相似文献】