The historical feature of Chinese studies in Europe, America and China

我牢记西方中国研究的独特方法，试图澄清日本中国研究的一个鲜明特点。我选择了史料问题作为一个例子。摘要如下：以王安石的128篇墓志铭为例进行考证。其中超过三分之一的人表示，埋葬的人的墓地与他或她的家乡不同。自唐代以来，中国人人在清明节祭扫已故亲人的坟墓已经成为一种习俗，因此墓地必然位于他们住所的郊区。然而，王氏所写的石碑并不符合这种做法。这似乎暗示了对当时北宋学者所持的地方主义以及墓地祭祀与宗庙祭祀之间关系的反思的必要性。如果我们阅读王氏家族的墓志铭，我们会发现，他的家族成员从他的祖父下来，并没有埋葬在临川。他在临川只住了不过几年，说明他与临川的关系并不密切。但他一生都自称临川人王。我认为，这是一种地方主义的感觉。

Keeping the characteristic methods of western Chinese studies in my mind, I tried to clarify a distinctive feature of the Chinese studies in Japan. I chose the problem of historical sources as a example. The summary is as follows.We may take as an example the 128 epitaphs written by Wang An-shi for inquiry. More than a third of those indicate the site of grave for the person buried is different from his or her home district. Since the Tang period it has become a custom for the Chinese people to visit the graves of their deceased relatives in the Qingiming Festival ; therefore graveyards are necessarily located in the outskirts of their residence. However, the stone epitaphs written by Wang does not accord with this practice. It seems to suggest the necessity of reconsidering localism then held by Northern Song scholars and the relationship between sacrifices at graveyard and sacrifices in ancestral temple. Should we read the epitaphs of Wang's clan, we would find that the members of his clan since his grandfather down were not buried in Lin-chuan. The fact he lived in Lin-chuan for no more than a few years would indicate the absence of close relationship between him and the district. But he called himself Wang from Lin-chuan throughout his lifetime. This is, I think, but a sense of localism.