文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：解释学视野下的《兰亭序》真伪之辨

英文题名：A Debate on the Authenticity of Orchid Pavilion Preface from the Perspective of Hermeneutics

作者：刘毅青[1]

机构：[1]绍兴文理学院人文学院

年份：2013

期号：5

起止页码：181

中文期刊名：浙江大学学报：人文社会科学版

收录：CSSCI2012_2013、CSTPCD、、北大核心2011、国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库、北大核心、社科基金资助期刊、CSSCI

基金：国家社会科学基金后期资助项目(10FZW027)

语种：中文

中文关键词：解释学;《兰亭序》;真伪之辨;艺术史研究;前理解

外文关键词：hermeneutics; The Orchid Pavilion Preface; debate of authenticity; research of art history ; pre-understanding

中文摘要：从解释学的理论来看,郭沫若在《由王谢墓志的出土论到〈兰亭序〉的真伪》一文中的考证明显观念先行,说明艺术史研究对史料的考证与风格的判断不可能脱离主观的前理解,以及由此而展开的循环论证。前理解在艺术史研究中的影响使艺术史研究必须意识到自身方法的限度,从而更客观地探索艺术史研究的方法,更谨慎地下判断。事实也证明,古史辨派的诸多辨伪其实均非古书为伪,而只是现代人不懂得古代的书体。就中国艺术史而言,善意的前见远比彻底颠覆传统的前见更为可靠与有意义。

外文摘要：Textual research and interpretation relevant to the history of art is an activity of hermeneutics. The discussion stirred up by Guo Moruo＇s article The Discovery of Wang, Xie Epitaph and the Authenticity of the Orchid Pavilion Preface has not ceased so far. The academic significance of this discussion goes far beyond the authenticity of the Orchid Pavilion Preface ,and constitutes an excellent example of hermeneutics. First of all, Guo Moruo＇s historical research method towards ancient historical data, his premise and assumptions on the counterfeit works in particular, has already contained a procedure of hermeneutics, in which an assumption is made in advance and then a collection of relating data follows up. This method depends mainly on hypothesis. The indirect historical data correlate with each other through logic and reasoning that rely on subjective imagination. Secondly, the historical dating method centering on stylistic and ideological histories depends on the circular argument and procedure of hermeneutics, too. That＇s why a textual research which applies basically the same materials tends to reach widely divergent, even opposed results. The collision of textual research proves a crisis it is faced with, because the so-called significance of historical materials and facts shows in organizing the messy historical facts to an overall layout and organic integrity, not in any new historical materials. History itself doesn＇t automatically present significance. The purely objective historical research builds on researchers＇ recognition to their limitations and their constant self-reflection. Then, a real sense of history is a comprehensible and meaningful diagram view constituted by a series of related historical documents. It is unnecessary to study the history, if the historical materials themselves can beings constantly rewrite historical truth. But every speak. Because historical materials need to be interpreted, human history. Generally, we claim that historical texts communicate real statement of facts is not the guarantee of a historical diagram view without distortion. Therefore, simple literature criticism can＇t restore the original truth of history. What we get from literary documents is fragments in the historical perpetual flow. How to collage historical fragments to the complete conception and thought and even a concrete thought is not only the task of textual criticism but it depends on ideologists＇ explanations. Actually, any textual criticism is impossible without explanation, and it shows certain tension in their relation. In the research of art history, textual criticism of historical materials and judgment of styles can＇t shake off the pre-understanding and circular argument from subjective value standpoint. Only when admitting the effect of pre-understanding in the research of art history, the researchers can be more conscious in the limitations of their research methods, more objective to explore methods of the research of art history and more prudent to make a judgment. As the fact proves, to distinguish between truth and fake in the ＂Ku-shih-pien＂ school fails to distinguish true ancient books from those fake ones, but to misunderstand ancient book＂ formats in modern perceptions. In other words, when we doubt ancient books, we would rather allow those ancient books change our concept than judge their authenticity. It is in this sense that the pre-knowledge with goodwill is more reliable and meaningful than the pre-knowledge with complete subversion of the tradition in the research of traditional culture.