争鸣还是立异?--从《史记》《汉书》关系的域外争论浅谈汉学史研究  

Debate or Disagree?--A Brief Discussion on the Study of the History of Sinological Studies from the Extraterritorial Debate on the Relationship Between Shih-chi and Han-shu

作　　者：庄亚琼 Zhuang Yaqiong

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院历史理论研究所

出　　处：《国际汉学》2022年第1期79-84,202,共7页International Sinology

摘　　要：20世纪70年代,荷兰学者何四维通过研究《史记·大宛列传》,认为《史记》该篇原文已佚,现本是后人依据《汉书》重构而成。之后的30年间,海外学界广泛讨论了这一有争议的观点。在此基础上,美国学者韩大伟的史汉《匈奴传》研究一方面为如何看待《史记》《汉书》的关系开拓了新思路,另一方面也同样强调《汉书》记载较之《史记》更为可靠。通过梳理、分析这段汉学史,反思海外汉学的长处与缺陷,有利于促进中外学术深度交流互鉴。In the 1970s,A.F.P.Hulsewé,a Dutch sinologist,argued that the original Shih-chi had been lost and the current version was reconstructed by later generations according to the Han-shu.For the next three decades,this controversial idea was widely discussed overseas.The studies on the Biography of Xiongnu by the American scholar David B.Honey,on the one hand opened up a new way of thinking about the relationship between the Shih-chi and Han-shu.On the other hand,his research also emphasized that the Han-shu records were more reliable than those in Shih-chi.By sorting out and critically analyzing the history of sinology and reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of overseas sinology,it is conducive to promote in-depth academic exchanges and mutual learning between China and other countries.

关 键 词：汉学史 何四维 韩大伟 《史记》 《汉书》 

分 类 号：K234[历史地理—历史学]