嚴耕望先生曾經說過：「一般研究學問的人過分強調新史料的重 要性，忽視了舊的史料……要能從人人能看得到、人人以閱讀過的舊 的普通史料中研究出新的成果……，」 1 但是如何能達成這個高明的目 標？卻不容易有定論。本文以中國史學史上《資治通鑑》研究中，最 普通不過的兩條史料的解讀為例，試圖說明史料解讀並不必然與理論 和想像站在對立面；相反的，理論和想像的適時介入，有可能開發出 對《通鑑》乃至史學史研究領域不同於「常識」的新視野與新觀點。 本文的重點是藉著「解讀史料」，2 追求史學史研究中的新視野與新觀 點，並且嘗試將這種解讀升高到自我意識的層次，以便進一步展開研 究反省。沒有史學工作者會極端到拒絕蒐集多方史料納入考慮，但 是，史料的多寡也不必然決定透過解讀所建立詮釋的有效性。也就是 說，新視野與新觀點的否證，往往不是指出這裡或那裡多一條相關 史料，就可以達成。再多的補充史料，如果解讀上不能出現悖反性 異義，那麼這種對宋代史學史料的「熟悉」也只能是述說上的同語重 複，在論證上不具否證效力。本文僅僅只選擇「兩條」《通鑑》編纂史 料作為解讀焦點，原因正在於此。

This paper focuses on how difficult it is to transcend scholarly common sense and allow imagination to play a role in the decoding of already wellknown primary sources while conducting historiographical research. The case in point is from the compiling history of the classic Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government. I will demonstrate that, if we can put aside the conventional view and take up the hermeneutic risk, two commonly cited textual sources, from Li Tao’s Xu zizhi tongjian changbian and Sima Guang’s Sima wenzhenggong chuanjia ji respectively, could and should be re-interpreted in accordance with the language in the 11th century China. By doing that, certain hitherto unexpected possibilities of the connection between the Comprehensive Mirror and the earlier historical encyclopedia Cefu yuangui can be opened up. Imagination, as a new way of reading and connecting textual sources, does not occur ex nihilo but grows out of the juxtaposition of an outside theoretical inspiration. This is the point where Michel de Certeau’s heuristic notion of historiographical operation as a configuration of place, procedures, and products of writing history enters near the end of the paper. Including de Certeau is not only a gesture of foregrounding my personal aspiration, but also meant as an invitation for all those interested in the history of history to go beyond the dichotomy of objectivism and subjectivism and take the practice serious in future studies.