作为西方汉学标志性成果,《剑桥中国文学史》将儒家经典《春秋》纳入 “叙事文学” 谱系,彻底颠覆了国内学界固守的经学、史学定位。本文通过比较《剑桥中国文学史》与国内主流文学史对《春秋》的书写,揭示二者在文本属性(经史/事)、阐释框架(单经/)及作者功能(史官/圣人)上的范式分歧。研究认为,这些分歧并非简单的 “误解” 或 “深化”,而是根植于 “文学文化史” 与 “纯文学史观”、“建构主义阐释” 与 “实证主义考据” 两套不同知识范式的碰撞。《剑桥中国文学史》的 “重构” 虽赋予《春秋》以新的活力,但也存在将复杂经学问题过度叙事化、审美化的风险。本文旨在通过此个案,探讨跨文化阐释的创造性张力与认知限度,为中国文学史的编撰与古典文学研究提供方法论反思。

The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature stages a direct paradigm clash by reclassifying the Spring and Autumn Annals, a foundational Confucian classic, as “narrative literature,” thereby radically subverting the text’s longsettled canonical and historiographical nature—a nature that Chinese scholarly tradition has consistently reinforced. Juxtaposing this Cambridge treatment with mainstream Chinese literary histories reveals structural divergences on three fronts: the text’s basic taxonomy (canonicalhistorical record versus narrative artifice), the hermeneutic lens (the classic read alone or through the Three Commentaries), and the authorial role envisioned (court chronicler versus moral sage). Rather than dismissing these discrepancies as mere interpretive missteps or progressive refinement, this study reframes them as symptoms of a deeper epistemological collision, pitting “literarycultural history” against “purist literary historiography,” and “constructivist interpretation” against “positivist textual criticism.” The crosscultural reconstruction undertaken by The Cambridge History undoubtedly revitalizes the Annals, yet it simultaneously risks reducing intricate problems of classical exegesis to an excessively narrativized and aestheticized register. To negotiate these epistemic tensions, this article introduces “Reflective Comparativism” as a theoretical intervention. By channeling the productive frictions and cognitive limits that surface in crosscultural interpretation, this framework transcends the present case to offer methodological reflections with broader implications for rewriting Chinese literary history and for rethinking classical Chinese studies globally.