中日甲午戰爭之後，尤其在戊戌變法前後直至新文化運動初期的大約二十多年，文學的範圍、定義問題被頻頻論及。劉師培、章太炎、王國維、田北湖等的相關討論，都與西學以及明治日本的影響不無關係。從1900年至晚年，章太炎就「文學」的定義、範圍等的討論就從未間斷。章太炎糅佛教與莊子哲學於一體的齊物哲學，與其透過明治日本與德國哲學的相遇以及關聯，近年已經有一定的研究成果，但是，章太炎的「文學」討論與明治日本的關聯，尚不太見。本文置章太炎的「文學」討論於漢字圈與西方學術相遇的語境之中，探討這一類討論與明治日本的關聯，並且探討章太炎與同時代相關討論之不同。本文認為，雖然章太炎的「文學」觀與後來的「五四」新文化運動一代的「文學」觀迥異，然而，因為章太炎以文史相關的廣義的「文學」觀重構了中國學術史，其間也必然解構了韻文中心的中國「文學」史敘述，因而不期然地為「五四」一代翻譯自西方的「文學」觀作了不自覺的準備。

Zhang Taiyan (i.e. Zhang Binglin, 1869-1936), one of the most prominent scholars and influential thinkers of the late Qing Chinese Revolution, frequently wrote on the notion of “literature” (“wenxue” and “wen”) at the turn of the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, a period in which Chinese intellectuals actively introduced Western learnings in order to reconstruct traditional Chinese scholarship. His concern with the notion of literature lasted until his late years after the Westernized May-Fourth New Cultural Movement from 1916 to 1921. To a certain extent, previous studies have clarified Zhang’s reconstruction of Chinese philosophy on the basis of his own Buddhist- and Zhuangzi-centric philosophy and his relations with Meiji Japan’s Western-influenced reconstruction of 「philosophy」 . However, Zhang’s redefinition of the notion of literature has not yet received such treatment. This paper aims to shed light on Zhang’s unique redefinition of “literature” through locating it within the context of his relation to discussions of the notion of “literature” (“bungaku” and “bun”) in Meiji Japan and the Genbun’icchi Movement. In other words, this paper locates Zhang’s arguments about literature within the historical context of the East Asian Sinitic sphere’s encounter with Western “literature”. In addition, this paper also compares Zhang’s argument to the writings of his contemporaries like Liu Shipei (1884-1919) and Wang Guowei (1877-1927), who also stayed in Japan. Although Zhang has quite a different understanding of the notion of literature compared to that of other thinkers of the May-Fourth generation, this paper argues that Zhang unexpectedly prepared a scholarly foundation for the translated notion of “literature” articulated by the May-Fourth generation, an articulation that Zhang himself fiercely criticized.