Evidence2 + Evidence3 = Evidence5 ≡ Evidence = One (Double Evidence Plus Triple Evidence Equals Quintuple Evidence If and Only If Evidence Is Unitary) 證2 + 證3 = 證5 ≡ 證 = 一(二重證據法加三重證據法等於五重證據法當且僅當終應歸一的證據)
Further Remarks on the Evidential Method for Scholarship on Ancient China 再論中國古代學術證據法
Edward L. Shaughnessy
August 2014
116 pages
5.512" x 8.268", 6 color illustrations
HK$70 (Hong Kong, Macau, Mainland China, and Taiwan only)
US$11 (Other Countries)
Paperback 978-988-12977-1-6

王國維先生所提倡的「二重證據法」是整個二十世紀中國古代文化史上最有名的研究方法。然而,1982年饒宗頤先生又提出了「三重證據法」,就是在王國維「紙上之材料」和「地下之材料」以外,再加上物質文化證據。在2003年,饒先生又談了學術方法,又增加了兩種「間接史料」,即「民族學資料」和「異邦古史資料」。甚麼叫做證據,要怎樣利用證據,要怎樣判斷證據的輕重都是歷史學家的先決問題。王國維和饒宗頤的觀點可以算是現代史學的主流,在夏含夷合編的《劍橋中國古代史》裏,兩位編輯就採取了這個觀點作為該書的基本構造。雖然如此,該書出版了以後,編輯們發現不是所有的學者都接受這一觀點。有兩種書評發表,從兩個不同的立場提出尖銳的批評,一個說這個做法輕視了中國傳統文獻,一個說太重視傳統文獻的歷史性,因此是「不科學的、不客觀的」。在這本書中,夏教授先對二十世紀的史學觀點做一個簡單的總覽,然後比較詳細地討論《劍橋中國古代史》的編輯工作和讀者反應。

Throughout the twentieth century, the “Double Evidence Method” advocated by Wang Guowei was the most important research method for the cultural history of ancient China. However, in 1982, Jao Tsung-i proposed a “Triple Evidence Method,” adding material culture to the “paper sources” and “underground sources” of Wang Guowei. In 2003, Jao again discussed scholarly methods, and added two more “indirect” types of evidence: “anthropological sources” and “ancient historical sources of other countries.” What constitutes evidence, how to use evidence, and how to decide the weight to give to evidence are the first problems encountered by historians. The views of Wang Guowei and Jao Tsung-i can be considered as the mainstream of contemporary history, and in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, of which Edward L. Shaughnessy was co-editor, the editors adopted this methodology as the basic structure of the book. Nevertheless, after the book was published, the editors discovered that not all scholars accept this viewpoint. Two book reviews were published raising pointed criticisms from two different standpoints: one said that the editors had under-emphasized traditional Chinese literature, while the other said that they had over-emphasized the historicity of traditional Chinese literature, and because of this their results were “unscientific” and “non-objective.” In this book, Shaughnessy first provided a brief overview of twentieth century viewpoints regarding historical research methods, and then gave a more detailed discussion of the editorial work on and readers’ responses to The Cambridge History of Ancient China.

夏含夷是美國芝加哥大學東亞語文與文明系顧立雅講座教授。主要研究領域為西周及戰國時期的文化史、古文字學、《易經》等。重要著作包括《西周史料:銅器銘文》(1991)、《易經:馬王堆帛書本的首次英譯》(1996)、《溫故知新錄:商周文化史管見》(1997)、《孔子之前:中國經典的創造研究》(1997,2013中文譯本)、《古史異觀》(2005)、《重寫中國古代文獻》(2006,2012中文譯本)、《興與象:中國古代文化史論集》(2012)、《出土之易》(2014)等,與魯惟一(Michael Loewe)合編了《劍橋中國古代史:從文明的起源到公元前221年》(1999),也曾任著名漢學雜誌《古代中國》(Early China)主編。

Edward L. Shaughnessy is Creel Distinguished Service Professor of Early China in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago. His major fields of research are Western Zhou and Warring States cultural history, paleography, and the Classic of Changes. His major publications include Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (1991), I Ching: The Classic of Changes, The First English Translation of the Newly Discovered Second-Century B.C. Mawangdui Texts (1996), A Record of Reanimating the Old and Knowing the New: Studies in Shang and Zhou Cultural History (1997, in Chinese), Before Confucius: Studies in the Creation of the Chinese Classics (1997, Chinese translation 2013), A Different View of Ancient History (2005, in Chinese), Rewriting Early Chinese Texts (2006, Chinese translation 2012), Arousal and Image: A Collection of Essays on Ancient Chinese Cultural History (2012, in Chinese), and Unearthing the Changes (2014). He was the co-editor (with Michael Loewe) of The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilizations to 221 B.C. (1999), and also served as the editor of the journal Early China.