《中国的思想与制度》书评

【转帖】schafer评Chinese Thought and Institutions

按：Edward H.Schafer和费正清同时为70年代美国汉学界两大巨头，也代表了两种不同的研究取向。人类学和语言学出身的Schafer，对费正清所谓“社会科学化”的研究方法，颇有异议。下面这则由jstor上搜来的书评便是一例。如今费正清的著述在中文世界铺天盖地，而Schafer至今鲜为人知，翻译成中文的著述，也不过《唐代的外来文明》（The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A study of Tang exotics ）而已，不免让人唏嘘。作者简介：Edward H.Schafer(August 23, 1913-February 9, 1991）本科就读于UCLA，后转入加大伯克利分校就读，修得人类学硕士和东方语言学博士学位，博士期间师从俄国汉学家Peter A. Boodberg。1947年开始在伯克利东方语言学部任教直至1984年退休。1975-1976年间任American Oriental Society 会长。其著述较为著名的有The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A study of Tang exotics 和 The Vermilion Bird: T'ang images of the South等等（其书目可参考此豆列http://book.douban.com/doulist/205084/）。生平还可参考http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb4t1nb2bd&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=div00060&toc.depth=1&toc.id=【发表于 Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1958】This volume is a collection of essays devoted to various problems of Chinese political and social history, ranging through ancient, medieval and modern times. The conception which purports to unify these very diverse papers (including such extremes as the political use of omens and portents in the second century B. C. [Eberhard] and the political significance of the " treaty ports " in the nineteenth century A.D. [Fairbank]) is the now popular one of " Intellectual History," or what is often called " Thought " in the modish but narrow apotheosis of that word. A thoughtful and liter- ate preliminary essay by Benjamin Schwartz attempts to give disciplinary dignity to this conception, but to me, at least, it remains, as Schwartz says, ". . . a particularly hazy area of human inquiry." At any rate, despite the variety of subject matter and treatment, a " social science 2' predilection is evident, in greater or less degree, in all of these studies. That is to say, abstractions (of relatively high level) about the history of some Chinese institutions appear to be the aim of the majority of the earnest contributors, as opposed to what John E. Fairbank, who has contributed an introduction to the volume, calls, ". . . the intimate and particular knowledge of the humanist." Fairbank's admirable tribute to knowledge of both sorts seems to me to have little other than theoretical and polite reference to most of the articles in this book. With some exceptions, they seem in this bloodless I am inclined to say " neo-scholastic." I find few traces of the " rhetoric and sentiment " (for instance) which Fairbank wants to find at the heart of this kind of scholarship. The " Thought " which is honored here is neither every- day thought (purposing, dreaming and reflecting by real individuals about the world of sensible objects in which they find themselves, e. g. erotic ephemera) nor " cultured " thought (purposing, dreaming and reflecting about the choice objects of their milieu, e. g. dinner party conversations), but is soulething much more grand. It is intellectual (subject matter which appeals to "thinkers ") and political (chiefly concerned with problems of power over human beings). So there is, after all, a kind of unifying principle, but the book is only humanistic by accident, as where an individual contributor has not been able to escape , his own character (e.g. Wilhelm). With a less imposing title, and without the idealistic introduction to live up to, the volume would still have been, and indeed is, a collection of very interesting articles about China by very competent writers, his own character (e.g. Wilhelm). With a less imposing title, and without the idealistic introduction to live up to, the volume would still have been, and indeed is, a collection of very interesting articles about China by very competent writers.

庞大野心的书名

外国人看中国的历史 总是理智有余激情不足，他们善于用数字来表征一个充满混沌文化国家的历史现象。他们的观点可能与国人研究的若有雷同，但是总是显得客观的多。我得承认，外文引进版的翻译肯定会是太监版，不过一本较好地重现他们观点的书，还是值得一看的。尤其费先生的笔法更为突出（谁让这本书是属于费正清文集的？）。不过看过了其中的几个部分，如儒家传统和宗教，中国社会结构的分析，条约共治下的中国，我忽然对我们自己文明的前途充满莫名的担心了.....

他者的眼光

这是由费正清先生主编的一本论文集，主要集中于美国汉学研究中对中国思想史的研究。或许是因为我一直偏重读海外中国研究作品，所以本书涉及的一些专题“至今已经觉不新鲜”，国外汉学家用社会学的方法来研究中国历史，读来，也已经不能带来冲击。但这本书仍是一本能提供借鉴的杰出的汉学研究著作，第一部分选取汉、隋、宋、晚明、清初、鸦片战争后这些在思想或政治制度面临大整合的时代来研究中国思想与国家权力的关联。秦晖先生称秦汉为中华第一帝国，汉承秦成为大一统的帝国，知识界如何应用这样的变化来回答“汉以何德据有天下呢”“如何证明人间事上应天命呢”，当时的人是否真的相信天命，或是以“天命”作为政治斗争的工具？《中国汉代天文学及天文学家的政治职能》作者埃伯哈德选取《史记》《汉书》中有所出现的征兆与当时人认为这些天象或灾异所对应的人事，对比这两天经典史书中不同的说法，来证明所谓天命与人事的联系，多数是出于政治目的而已，这些提出的人并不是发自内心的相信，工具罢了。《隋朝的意识形态的形成》，作者分析隋朝在大乱之后为隋文帝为凝聚人心有利江山一统如何根据时势而利用儒、道、释三家的思想。《宋初改革家范仲淹》《晚明东林运动》试图通过“庆历新政”与“东林运动”来分析儒家理想主义与中国君主专制权力结构上的不协调，儒家理想主义不可避免的失败悲剧。《从17世纪看中国君主专制与儒家思想》，仔细阐述黄宗羲著作《明夷待访录》所提出的改革思想，对比儒家思想的民本思想与西方民主思想的差异，指出黄的思想只不出是君主制度的理想的为民谋利的模式。费正清主笔的《条约下的共治》令人惊喜，分析满清入关主政中国与鸦片战争之后西方列强与清政权合作共治的区别，前一种共治仍是使用儒家思想，后一种共治带来的西方的思想与制度却不可避免地消弱和分裂啦中国，“中学为体，西学为用”是不可共存的矛盾体。可惜此文被阉割得太厉害，几乎看不出原貌。一个太监，我们仍知道他是男人，这篇文章，被割成碎片，不复成文。此书的第二部分“社会秩序中的思想与官僚”分析中国士阶层与被治阶层的意识形态、中国科举制诞生以来为达到地区均衡而使用的配额制、儒家与佛道思想的互相吸收，特别有趣几篇，角度选得非常巧的是是通过中国报恩思想来分析儒家的互惠思想、君子小人之分、通过汉赋的内容与突然兴趣与衰亡来分析“士”的不遇及不平则鸣，分析明清的画如何反映士大夫的际遇与思想。文化的差异，所受学术训练的差异，带来不同于传统中国史学家方法，费正清又一直主张史学研究的社会科学化，这本论文集体现啦这一特色，这异域他者的眼光，有助于我们更深认清本国史的研究要脱离单纯的政治人物与事物，而将之放入与环境的互动中去分析。这也算老生长谈啦：）除了“条约下的共治”这篇外，其他的论文多脱离不了对“士”这个阶层及其思想的研究。也许因为写书的人是知识分子，在分析的也不可避免着重于知识分子，就这点来看，不是他者，还是知识分子看知识分子：）