发布时间 : 星期三 文章陈寅恪的文史之学 - 从1932年清华大学国文入学试题谈起 - 图文更新完毕开始阅读90f690d9e87101f69f319594
而非高阳等认为的“长庆体”1。《圆明园词》有一长序说明始末，《王观堂挽词》也先以序言阐明理念。《王观堂挽词》本身虽为七古，却著意对仗，即吴宓所谓“造语工妙”。相较于《颐和园词》，这也更是《圆明园词》的特点，只是在《王观堂挽词》中，世运下的学术兴替和学者个人运命的主题取代了以往借宫室之隳废叹朝代之盛衰。就意境视野而言，《王观堂挽词》超迈于二王作品之上。更不用说《圆明园词》叙述乖于史实处颇多，当时即为人诟病2。《王观堂挽词》用古今典极富，但除极个别例子外，大都有着学术般的严谨，且独具只眼，即便引起争议的地方，如将光宣之际比作开元盛世等，其实也具史家经验，强调历史转折的突发性和偶然性，这点笔者拟在讨论陈寅恪唐史研究贡献的文中再深入讨论。
最后让我们回到1932年8月清华入学考试国文试题的争议上来。陈寅恪在解释上等对子的境
界时，特别强调能达至这一境界的，必是思想通贯而有条理者，而且也是能通过想象而得字句之上的言外之意者。他在推重庾信、汪藻和陈端生的俪文韵语时，同样也强调这类作品“必思想自由灵活之人始得为之”。可见在他的精神世界里，思想之活跃与独立的重要性超越一切，同时也应该贯诸一切，即便对对子这样的俗事也不应例外。而鲜活的想象力是体现这种活跃与独立的重要表征,无怪乎他给国文考试出的作文题是《梦游清华园记》。在他晚年《附记》里，他解释说：“盖曾游清华园者，可以写实；未游清华园者，可以想象。此即赵彦卫《云麓漫钞》玖所谓行卷可以观史才诗笔议论之意”。这里“想象”这一语汇再度出现。当年在他答《世界日报》记者访问时，解释说：“所谓梦游云者，即测验考生之想象力imagination及描写力。”3他特意在汉语“想象力”旁标出英文词，无疑是为了确保对“想象力”一词的涵义不至发生误解，他希望考生能通过想象一心目中的理想大学来构思这篇作文。其实在陈寅恪出国文考试题的前一年，他发表了《吾国学术之现状及清华之职责》，指出：
国文则全国大学所研究者，皆不求通解及剖析吾民族所承受文化之内容，为一种人文主义之教育，虽有贤者，势不能不以创造文学为旨归。殊不知外国大学之治其国文者，趋向固有异于是也。4
可见陈寅恪将国文训练的重要性提升到了人文主义教育核心的高度，估计这篇谈话当时在清华产生了相当的影响，清华的主事者才特别邀请他来出国文试题。如果说清华国文入学考试是陈寅恪心目中的中国人文主义教育的重要路标，那么他希望未来能代表这一教育结晶的人物必须心灵独立自由而富有想象力。在这个层次上，中西的界限其实对他来说并不存在，所以他的看法可以和黑格尔暗
12
关于《王观堂挽词》的评价问题，可见胡文辉《陈寅恪诗笺释》上卷，第54-55页。 见姚大荣对《圆明园词》的批评，钱基博：《中国现代文学史》，第52-53页。 3
引自王震邦《独立与自由——陈寅恪论学》，第122页。 4
陈寅恪：《金明馆丛稿二编》，第362页。
25
合，西塞罗也可以和庾信对话。他提到的描写力或者叙事力也是史才的体现。独立的思想、充沛的想象和细腻的描写力恰恰是构筑不朽史学所须具备的重要条件，而这三者也是陈寅恪文史之学的核心所在。
2014年11月1日草于寅恪先生曾访海棠之燕京吴氏园
补记：此文付梓后数日，忽见网上登出嘉德15年春拍介绍，有陈寅恪写给傅斯年的书札，不见载于《陈寅恪集 书信集》。其中一封不属年月，唯记“廿一日”，嘉德据信内容介绍说是陈寅恪完成《支愍度学说考》后与傅斯年的交流，相当准确。《支愍度学说考》为中研院庆贺蔡元培六十五岁诞辰的颂寿文集而作，嘉德据此及信中信息，确定此书札作于1932年左右，这也不错，只是时间可以更为精确，因陈寅恪在信中提到“明日往清华阅卷如仍未印或暑假中不能印刷则拟取回而请研究所书记誊一清稿，然后呈公教定”云云，则此必指1832年8月间阅读清华国文试卷一事，可见该书札当作于1932年8月21日，即在陈寅恪关于国文试题的谈话见于《世界日报》和《清华暑期周刊》之后数日。书札中最重要的是如下一段自述：“日本人研究中国佛教史成绩是佳，中国史亦佳。而研究佛教史之徒大抵僧徒或语言学者。而于中国史之智识是彼国之浅薄。治中国史者又多不涉及此范围。故弟拟合倚此二者以与日人一较量。”(摘自嘉德介绍) 陈寅恪注意到日本佛教学界和中国史界之间学术隔阂，可谓敏锐，实际日本学术的这一泾渭现象至今仍未有根本改变。而他定出的目标恰是要打通两者，以期与日本学者竞争。这其实也基本是当时胡适选择的路径，葛兆光在《谁是六祖》一文中已基本指出此点，认为胡适走的历史学与文献学结合的道路才是中国学界的风气与长处，“把佛教史放在当时复杂的政治史背景之中讨论，更是中国学者擅长的路子”。（《文史》二O一二年第三辑，第265页）此信为陈氏在给清华国文考试出题之际的学术工作，提供了其意义和性质的具体而直接的说明，亦可与本文论说相参佐，故附记于此，2015年5月四日。
26
（陈寅恪致傅斯年书札，取自嘉德15春拍介绍）
27
Abstract
In August, 1932, Chen Yinke 陈寅恪(also Chen Yinkoh) was invited to design the Chinese entrance exam for the Westernized Tsinghua University. He surprised the public by adopting traditional duiduizi (对对子，“making antithetical couplets”) as a key component of the exam. Inclusion of examples like Sun Xingzhe (a nickname of Sun Wukong孙悟空, the Monkey King, from Xiyou ji 西游记) among the list of duizi questions was particularly controversial. In Chen’s own elaboration on the rationale behind his inclusion of duiduizi, he pointed to their ability to test students’ competence in four different skill sets: knowledge of parts of speech, tonality, vocabulary and the ability to think. While the first three are stylistic characteristics of parallel structured duizi, it is the fourth quality that sets the stage for a truly competent response, one in which the two antithetical parts are matched grammatically and connected in substance, together creating a unified poetic imagery or coherent narrative. This process, according to Chen, resembled the three stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in Hegelian logic. In his final years of life, Chen revealed that his intended match for Sun Xingzhe was Hu Shizhi 胡适之 (the studio name of Hu Shih), the leading figure of the New Cultural Movement and a friend of Chen. While current scholarship
28
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