观念与材料

【作者】 盛韵；

【导师】 陈引驰；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 古代文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本文尝试梳理近代学术史中子书考辨的观念与方法的变迁脉络,并结合近年来的出土文献对子书研究的观念与方法进行反思与评价。本文的第一章是对历史背景的梳理。其中第一节介绍了历代子书考辨的主要成果,分析了明清时期的辨伪观念与方法。在传统辨伪学中,人书概念不清的情况较为普遍,而对真伪的判定也随时代的晚近而愈转激烈;第二节分析了近代诸子热兴起的内在理路(以子证经直到等视经子)和外缘影响(西方从物质科技层面的冲击到学理的冲击),并指出在研究中使用“西方冲击-中国回应”模式时的限度及应注意的问题。第二章以胡适为对象,分析他在近代诸子考辨研究中奠定的新范式,并从梁启超、章太炎、柳诒徵等人的批评进一步讨论新范式的影响及其问题。胡适援引杜威实验主义的方法论作为框架,又从传统考据学中汲取科学因子,但其方法论不免“科学主义”之讥,在具体研究中难以施展。胡适在二十年代末也意识到“故纸的材料终究限死了科学的方法”,并开始强调新材料的重要性。第三章先讨论了古史辨运动的兴起大背景,然后分析《古史辨》中孔老先后的讨论,归纳出古史辨派对于子书真伪的观念以及所使用的方法,可以看出,《古史辨》中所用的子书考辨方法大体上仍是对传统辨伪学的继承,但在观念上已经全然抛弃了卫道的立场。虽然许多学者时常有滥用“默证”的嫌疑,不少辨伪方法仍有逻辑漏洞,但在多年的反复讨论中,人、书、思想的概念渐渐得以廓清。第四章着重分析了对古史辨派子书讨论的各种不同的回应。当时站在传统立场上的学人如吕思勉等人强调了子书流传的通例,这些通例动摇了古书真伪的概念。同时胡适也对考辨方法进行了检讨和反思,针对学者们在使用史实、文体、思想等证据时往往会得出相反的结论,胡适提出证据不足的情况下应该暂缓判断。进入1930年代后,胡适的学术思想渐渐与欧游归来的傅斯年合流,傅斯年提出“史学只是史料学”的口号,一方面强调史料,一方面批评顾颉刚的“层累说”,傅斯年与顾颉刚在史学上的分流被学者称为“疑古”与“重建”之别,然而顾颉刚未必不重视重建,二人殊途也由性格原因导致。尽管《古史辨》对于很多子书的讨论没有最后的结论,甚至搞了不少冤假错案,但是在不同思想的碰撞中,人们对于古书复杂性的认识大大提高了,子书真伪的概念也渐渐松动了。第五章从出土文献反思子书研究的观念与方法。出土文献如郭店竹简《老子》表现出的复杂性和不确定性彻底动摇了人们对古书真伪的观念,学者们将眼光从以往的考辨年代转向了研究书籍的形成和流传过程。从这方面说,我们的确“走出疑古时代”,有了新的眼光和问题意识。然而现阶段出土文献研究中也存在很多的问题,许多人片面理解了“走出疑古时代”的含义,重新走回信古的老路上去,完全忽视前人辨伪的正确成果,将很多已经确定是较晚的材料当成先秦的材料看待;也有人将出土文献与传世文献进行简单的对应;还有人在研究中急于下结论,忽略了出土文献本身的局限性。夏含夷等西方学者认为,出土文献在解决部分问题的同时,也带来了更多的问题,现在的学者需要做好准备随时修正自己的结论。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis is about to discuss the development and transformation of concept and method on the early Chinese philosophical texts study. Through the recently excavated ancient texts, we can modify the concept on the early texts and improve the methods.The first chapter is the outline of the background studies. In the first section, there is an introduction of traditional texts study. During Ming and Qing dynasty, when scholars were focusing on the textual research, they usually use the style consistence, thinking way of the "author" as the evidence to estimate the age of a text. But they don’t have clear concept about the difference of the so-called author and the text. And their attitude toward early texts was more and more radical. One text that Ming scholar Song lian ruled as authentic pre-Qin text might become pseudograph by Qing scholar Yao jiheng. The second section of this chapter discussed the inner and outer reason of why early philosopher and text study got attention in early 20th century. And when Western Impact-China Respond model was taken in consideration, we should mind some theoretical limitation of this model.The second chapter is the discussion of a new paradigm set by Hu shi. He borrowed his American Pragmatist supervisor John Dewey’s methodology as theoretical frame and found some specific methods from traditional Chinese text study to fill in. He was criticized intensely by the prominent scholars such as Zhang taiyan, Liang qichao and Liu yizhen, etc. And his western-eastern fusion methodology was regarded as pure "scientism" slogan. In late 1920s, Hu shi realized that "the ancient materials limited the scientific methods", and became to emphasize on the new materials.The third chapter is about Gu shi bian ("doubting of ancient history") discussion. First, the thesis explored the rising of Gu Shi Bian Movement. Then take the Laozi discussion as the example, sum up the methods that Gu shi bian school used. Basically, they inherited the traditional text criticism methods, but abandoned the Confucianism attitudes. Although their concept about the early text was not very advanced, with many logic inconsistencies, they begin to differentiate the author from the text, also the thinking from the text. The text formation age is not necessarily related to so-called "author’s" age, and the thought expressed in the text might come from even earlier age. The fourth chapter is the discussion of all kinds of responds to Gu shi bian school. Some traditional scholar such Lv simian emphasized the general rules of how ancient text was compiled and spread. Lv also pointed out that the early philosophical text usually contained master’s thought, and also his disciples. So the authentification issue that time was not as clear as today. And the evidences such as personal style, thought or historical fact contradiction can’t be used as the key evidences to rule the age of the text. In late 1920s, Fu sinian came back from Europe and brought up a new slogan "Historiology is merely history material study". He focused on the new materials and started the new page of Chinese archeology.The fifth chapter discussed how the excavated materials changed our vision towards the early texts. Based on many excavated materials, professor Li xueqin considered we should "Walking out of the ’Doubting of Antiquity’ Era". But this calling led to some retrogress. Some scholars used obvious later material as pre-Qin material without any examination; some simply equal excavated title to received title, totally ignoring the difference between two texts; others regard excavated materials as totally authentic, ignoring their innate limitation. Realizing the complicacy of excavated materials, many western scholars such as Edward Shaughnessy think the excavated materials bring more questions compare to what they solved.更多还原