20世纪以来，中外学者不断对章学诚及其学术展开研究，从而构建起“章学诚研究”的领域。本文尝试在“知识生产”的概念视角下，用历史化的方法反思20世纪的章学诚研究，叙述一段中外章学诚研究的学术史，探究它在不同时空下具有的历史价值。这不仅有助于我们更好地把握中外学者在20世纪取得的章学诚研究成果，还能使我们以“章学诚研究”为棱镜去观察20世纪中国史学的历史变迁和中外学术交流。

本文由绪论、正文和结语三个部分组成，其中正文分五个章节回顾20世纪中外章学诚研究。绪论首先阐述“知识生产”的概念内涵和视角特征，接着明确研究的内容和意义，然后回顾与本文研究主题相关的已有成果，指出它们的特点和从中发现的问题，最后说明研究的重点、难点、创新点，以及研究采用的思路和方法。

    第一章论述章学诚及其学术在清代的境遇。作为一名生活在清代乾嘉年间的士人，章学诚一生辗转南北，主要以在书院中讲学或在官员幕府中编纂书籍为业。他交友广泛，拥有一个多层次的交友网络，其学术思想以《文史通义》为核心著述，主要包括“文史”和“校雠”两个部分，其中“文史”部分又可分为通论和方志学两端。章学诚去世后，他的著述和学术并未像胡适所说的那样被“完全埋没”。包括《文史通义》在内的章氏著述在晚清时期发生了传播、收藏和阅读。章学诚编撰的方志得到了晚清士人的关注和讨论。章学诚的部分学术还在一些著名晚清士人的思想中留下了痕迹。

    第二章论述民国时期的章学诚研究。民国学人关于章学诚及其学术的知识生产始于1922年，随后在章学诚生平、著述、学术研究三个方面均取得了丰硕成果。这一时期出现了“援引西学”和“回归传统”两种不同的知识生产路径。前者以援西释中的方式用西方话语概念来阐释章学诚的学术思想，使章学诚表现为了一个现代“学者”；后者以回归传统的方式用中国本土话语来理解章学诚的学术思想，使章学诚表现为了一个传统“士人”。这一时期关于章学诚学术的知识生产不仅促进了中国史学的近代转型，同时还带动了中国史学史、方志学、目录学等中国史学分支学科的提出，并推动了浙东学术研究的兴起。

    第三章论述20世纪后半期的中国大陆章学诚研究。这一时期的章学诚研究以1978年为界分为两个阶段。在1949到1978年的第一个阶段中，大陆学者运用马克思历史唯物主义理论和阶级分析方法进行知识生产，揭示出了章学诚学术中的“进步”和“反动”元素，从而丰富了章学诚的人物形象。在1978年之后的第二个阶段中，大陆学者在此前研究的基础上围绕章学诚的“史德”论发生分歧，提出了针锋相对但殊途同归的两种观点。与此同时，他们基于中国史学史学科的知识框架重构出了章学诚学术中的知识体系。这一阶段的章学诚研究给当时新兴的史学理论学科的发展注入了活力。不仅如此，中外学者们关于章学诚和浙东学术之间关系的讨论还推动了浙东学术向浙东文化的泛化发展。

    第四章论述20世纪后半期的中国港台章学诚研究。港台学者的知识生产在开始时延续了民国时期的章学诚研究，随后在20世纪70年代发生转向，迎来了新的繁荣。在这一延续和转向过程中起关键作用的学者是钱穆和余英时。港台章学诚研究中有着两种知识生产风格。一种是在不同学科视野下通过裁剪和重组的“剪刀加浆糊”方式从章学诚学术中总结和归纳出知识内容。另一种则通过历史考证和心理分析的“移情和重演”方式探索章学诚的内心思想世界，并对某些问题或现象作出历史解释。后者中的“内在理路”和“历史哲学”知识在当时掀起了一阵波澜，港台章学诚研究中出现了许多应和，并还在大陆章学诚研究中泛起了些许“涟漪”。

    第五章论述日本、韩国、西方三个域外国家和地区的章学诚研究。日本章学诚研究始于20世纪20年代，并以“细水长流”的态势持续不断。20世纪日本学者的知识生产发生了从中国史学史视角过渡到思想史视角、哲学诠释的历史变迁。韩国章学诚研究在20世纪70年代一度兴起，但很快便回落而变得冷清。与日本和韩国不同，尽管西方章学诚研究的成果较少，但西方学者的知识生产具有鲜明的西方文化色彩。这具体表现在两方面：一是在宗教文化视野下论述了章学诚的历史哲学，二是在二元论哲学传统中发见了章学诚思想中的冲突与困境。

    结语部分首先对20世纪中外章学诚研究取得的知识生产成就进行总结，指出了其中具有代表性的论著。然后对中外学者在不同时空下的知识生产进行整体比较，指出了它们之间的异同。最后就章学诚研究的当代价值展开思考，通过对章学诚通史思想的具体论述指出了章学诚研究对当前中国史学自主体系之建设的作用和价值。

Chinese and foreign scholars have been continuously conducting studies on Zhang Xuecheng (1738-1801) and his scholarship since from the twentieth century, thus constructing the field of “Studies on Zhang Xuecheng”. This dissertation intends to reflect on studies of Zhang Xuecheng in the 20th century with a historiographical perspective by the conceptual tool of “knowledge production”, aiming at narrating a history of researching Zhang Xuecheng and exploring the value of it in different historical contexts. It not only benefits us to understand the previous studies of Zhang Xuecheng, but also enables us to understand the history of Chinese scholarship and the communication between Chinese and foreign academics in the twentieth century through the studies of Zhang Xuecheng.

This thesis consists of three parts: introduction, main text, and conclusion, in which the main text is divided into five chapters reviewing the Chinese and foreign research on Zhang Xuecheng in the 20th century. The introduction firstly explains the meaning and characteristics of the “knowledge production” concept, then clarifies the research object, contents, and its value, then reviews past outputs related to the topic of the thesis by figuring out their achievements and defects, and finally describes the key points, difficulties, and innovations of the dissertation, as well as the research design and methodology.

The first chapter discusses the situation of Zhang Xuecheng and his scholarship in the Qing Dynasty. As a scholar who lived during the Qianjia period (1735-1820) of the Qing dynasty, Zhang Xuecheng moved around throughout his life, and was mainly engaged in lecturing in the academies or compiling books for officials. During his lifetime, he made a wide range of friends, forming a multi-level friendship network. The most crucial academic monography of Zhang Xuecheng is Comprehensive Understanding of Literature and History 文史通义. His scholarship is composed by “literature and history” and “Jiaochou 校雠”, of which the former includes “general theory” and “local historiography”. Zhang’s writings and scholarship were not “completely buried” after passing away as Hu Shi said. His monography and posthumous book were printed, disseminated, collected, and read by people living in the late Qing period. Zhang’s theories on local historiography were noticed and discussed by the late Qing scholars. And some of his ideas influenced several famous late Qing scholars to different extent.

The second chapter discusses the studies of Zhang Xuecheng during the Republic of China (1912-1949). The knowledge production of Chinese scholars began in 1922, and subsequently achieved fruitful results in studying Zhang Xuecheng's life, writings, and his scholarship. During the period, two different approaches of knowledge production emerged. The first applies Western discourses to interpreting Zhang Xuecheng's thoughts, depicting Zhang Xuecheng as a modern "scholar". While the second applies Chinese traditional discourses to understand Zhang Xuecheng's thoughts, retrieving Zhang Xuecheng’s image of a traditional Confucian. The knowledge production of Zhang Xuecheng's scholarship at the time not only promoted the modern transformation of Chinese historiography, as well as promoted the early development of historical sub-disciplines such as history of Chinese historiography, local historiography, and bibliography, but also encouraged the studies of the eastern Zhejiang scholarship.

Chapter three deals with studies of Zhang Xuecheng that were made in mainland China in the second half of the twentieth century. Such a period can be divided into two phases with 1978 as the boundary. In the first phase from 1949 to 1978, mainland scholars embraced Marxian historical materialism and methodology of class analysis in their knowledge production to discover the "progressive" and "reactionary" elements of Zhang Xuesheng's scholarship, thus enriching the images of Zhang Xuecheng. In the second stage after 1978, mainland scholars made two opposing arguments on interpreting the concept of “virtues in historians” proposed by Zhang. At the same time, they constructed intellectual systems of Zhang’s scholarship within the framework of the discipline of history of Chinese historiography. The knowledge production of mainland scholars after 1978 energized the development of the then emerging discipline of historical theory, and their discussion of the relationship between Zhang Xuecheng and Zhedong scholarship promoted the generalization of Zhedong scholarship to Zhedong culture.

The fourth chapter concentrates on studies of Zhang Xuecheng that were conducted in Hong Kong and Taiwan in the second half of the twentieth century. The knowledge production in Hong Kong and Taiwan started with a continuation of previous studies in the Republican period, followed by a turn in the 1970s that ushered in a new boom. The crucial roles in such a process were Qian Mu and Yu Yingshi. There are two styles of knowledge production that manifested in the period. One is the style of “scissors and paste”, summarizing and summarizing disciplinary knowledge from Zhang Xuesheng's scholarship by way of cutting and reorganizing. The other is the style of “empathy and reenactment”, exploring the internal psychological world of Zhang Xuecheng and proposing historical explanations for certain issues by combining historical criticism with psychological analysis. The knowledge of “internal path” and “philosophy of history” formed in the second style affected latter scholars in Hong Kong and Taiwan, spread to the mainland China as well.

The last chapter discusses studies of Zhang Xuecheng outside China, including Japan, Korea, and the West. The Japanese studies of Zhang Xuecheng emerged in the 1920s and kept through the twentieth century. The knowledge production of Japanese scholars in the twentieth century underwent a historical transition from the perspective of the history of Chinese historiography to the perspective of intellectual history and the philosophical interpretation. Korean studies flourished for a time in the 1970s, but soon fell back and became lukewarm. Unlike Japan and Korea, there were limited Western studies. The knowledge production of Western scholars is full of Western cultural perspectives, which is manifested in two ways: one is that understanding Zhang’s historiography in the context of Western religious culture, another is that discovering conflicts and dilemmas in Zhang Xuecheng's thoughts within the Western philosophical tradition of dualism.

The conclusion part first summarizes the achievements of past knowledge production in the twentieth century to selecting out the representatives, and then compares the knowledge production in different durations and regions to find the similarities and differences between them. Finally, it thinks about contemporary value of studying Zhang Xuecheng and his scholarship, arguing that researching Zhang’s scholarship would benefit the construction of “three systems” and Chinese independent knowledge system through a specific case study of Zhang’s thinking on “Tongshi”.