【摘要】 西方哲学在经历“在场性转向”之后所讨论的“在场”与“不在场”,类似于中国哲学所讨论的“阳”与“阴”。如果将这种哲学思辨引入经学、史学之中，便会产生对历史事实、历史记忆以及历史书写的思考，而“记载”(“书”)或“不记载”(“不书”)的问题便得以凸显。《春秋》《左传》《系年》《史记》等早期经典，兼有“事”“文”“义”,而其中所体现的“义”更值得关注。由“文”而入“事”而入“义”,有限制的“想象”(“想见”)是必不可少的。“记载”与“不记载”以及“在场”与“不在场”,直接关涉中国人互补的“二分对比”思维模式。研究者在极力“还原历史”的过程中，也应该多关注“历史书写”,从而发现蕴含其中的“历史意义”。更多还原

【Abstract】 The concepts of “presence” and “absence” discussed in Western philosophy after the “turn to presence” are analogous to the “Yang” (阳)and “Yin” (阴)discussed in Chinese philosophy. If we apply this philosophical speculation to the study of classical texts and history,it leads to reflections on historical facts,historical memory,and historical writing,with the issues of “recording” (书)or“not recording” (不书)becoming particularly prominent. Early classics such asSpring and Autumn Annals(Chunqiu), Zuo Zhuan(Zuozhuan), Xi Nian, and Shi Jipossess “facts”, “texts”,and “meanings”,with the “meaning” reflected in them warranting particular attention. Moving from “text”to “events” to “righteousness” (义),a restricted form of“imagination” (想见)is indispensable. The questions of “recording” and “not recording,”as well as “presence”and “absence,” are directly related to the complementary “binary oppositional” thinking mode of the Chinese. In our efforts to “restore history,”we should also focus more on “historical writing” to uncover the “historical significance” embedded within it.更多还原