从经注与史注的变奏看裴松之《三国志注》的学术史地位  

Considering the Position of Commentaries on Standard History of the Three Kingdoms in Academic History from the History of Classical Annotation and Historiographical Annotation

作　　者：张瑞龙[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学历史系,北京100872

出　　处：《史学月刊》2004年第6期95-102,共8页Journal of Historical Science

摘　　要：在中国学术发展史上 ,史学是作为经学附庸的地位出现的 ,这时史注附属于经注 ;伴随着史学从经学的附庸地位摆脱出来 ,成为一门独立学科 ,史注也逐渐打破此前经注研究范式 ,探索适合史学这门学科本身特点的研究范式 ;裴注正是对这些探索成果的吸收和总结 ,并继承了经注研究范式的优长之处 ;裴注对后世的史注形式产生了深远的影响 ,并在近代获得了新生 ,它的出现标志着史注研究范式的确立 ;这种新的研究范式 ,反过来又影响了其所脱胎的经注研究范式。仔细研究二者关系的变化 ,就会发现其与学术史上经史关系的变化有着某种规律性的联系。In Chinese academic history,historiography emerged as a handmaid of Classics when historiographical annotation was subordinated to Classical annotation.Following historiography breaking away from Classics to become an independent discipline,historiographical annotation broke through the paradigm of Classical annotation and began to explore the paradigm adapted to itself.Commentaries on Standard History of the Three Kingdoms(Notes of Pei)was the summarization of these exploring achievements,and it also assimilated the advantages of Classical annotation.Notes of Pei made a profound and lasting influence on the form of historiographical annotation in late ages and got a new life in modern China.The emergence of Notes of Pei marked the establishment of the research paradigm of historiographical annotation.On the other hand the new paradigm of historiographical annotation influenced Classical annotation.If we look into the relation carefully,we come to the conclusion that there is a law between the relation of Classics and historiography and that of Classical annotation and historiographical annotation.

关 键 词：裴松之 《三国志注》 史注 经注 史注研究范式 学术分野 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]