陈寅恪的文史之学 - 从1932年清华大学国文入学试题谈起 - 图文

has focused on this controversy and Chen’s theory on duiduizi from the perspectives of the cultural war among early 20th century Chinese intellectuals and Chen’s cultural conservatism, no serious attempt has been made to explain how Chen’s theory of duiduizi, especially the rule of creating a synthesis, can be applied to the actual duizi used in the exam, especially Sun Xingzhe. Why does the matching of Sun Xingzhe with Hu Shizhi create a synthesis beyond its playful parallelism? This is no small matter because an investigation in this direction helps us to understand Chen Yinke’s unique perspective on parallelism in classical Chinese writing. It also leads us to appreciate his scholarly transition in the beginning of the 1930s from a philological approach to Central Asian and Chinese translations of Buddhist texts to a more disciplinary approach in his study of the culture, religion and history of medieval China. Chen’s intended match of Sun Xingzhe with Hu Shizhi in fact paid intellectual tribute to Hu Shi, whose study of Xiyou ji had inspired Chen’s own investigation of this classical fantasy novel. During this period Chen’s scholarship responded to and competed with that of Hu Shih, especially in the field of medieval Chinese Buddhism. In contrast to Hu Shih’s concentrated efforts to eradicate fictitious elements in Chan historiography, Chen focused more on tracing its conceptual development within medieval Chinese Buddhism and identifying intellectual linkages between Buddhism and medieval Chinese culture. Methodologically Chen also became critical of the “Re-arranging the national heritage” (zhengli guogu 整理国故) movement” led by Hu Shih. He shared Feng Youlan’s （冯友兰） view that the intellectual and historical value of ancient text cannot be assessed solely on the basis of authorship. Chen’s view of the value of duiduizi also highlights his unique understanding of the significance of parallel style writing in classical Chinese literature. For Chen, the real charm of parallel style literature, whether poetry or prose, did not lie in its resplendent form, but in its creative use of allusion and classical precedents within the literary framework of parallelism. It could construct a historic vision that connected past with present, stimulated imagination, and, last but not the least, carried emotional power of persuasion. Achieving its full potential however required that writer have independent minds and free spirits. In this sense duiduizi was no different. His valuing duiduizi thus echoes his views on the essence of Chinese humanistic tradition and great historical writing, both of which similarly demonstrated independent thinking, historical imagination, and narrative skill.

（本文刊载于《文史哲》2015年第3期，［总第348期］）

29