毛奇龄与朱子学

【作者】 闫宝明；

【导师】 赵伯雄；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 中国古代史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 在清代学术史上,毛奇龄是个值得重视的人物。他是清初颇有影响的文人、学者。他博学多才,著述宏富,在文学、艺术、学术等多方面都成果丰硕,但他最重要的学术成就在于他的经学研究。他对儒家传统经典有广泛涉猎,对《诗》《书》《礼》《易》《春秋》诸经皆有考订,对《大学》《中庸》《论语》《孟子》等四书之学也多有辨析。他治学讲求实证,提倡不以空言说经,是继黄宗羲、顾炎武之后与胡渭、阎若璩齐名的实证学风的倡导者。他不惬于后儒经说,而着意于回归原典,探求经典本义,尤其对朱子学为代表的宋儒之学给予激烈攻驳。他的经籍考辨、实证学风和对当时作为官学的朱子学的大力攻驳,对清初学术的发展及学风的转变起过不容忽视的作用,对清中叶乾嘉汉学的形成也多有开创之功。本文即从毛奇龄与朱子学关系的角度,围绕他的经籍考辨与大胆攻朱两个方面来探讨他学术活动的得失,进而总结他的学术特点,并对他在清代学术史上的地位和影响作出总结和评价。全文共分五章:第一章,明末清初的学风演变。主要分析明末清初的学术演变大势,指出明清易代对清初学术的重要影响。社会现实的变化使得理学的反思批判与经世致用思潮成为当时最主要的思想潮流。对理学的反思批判使得重躬行实践以救空疏之弊成为清初理学的新特点。与此同时,传统经学研究的回归原典、讲求实证成为一时风气。总括来说,明末清初的学风整体上呈现由虚趋实的转变。这一时期的学风演变,对毛奇龄学术风格的形成具有重要的影响。第二章,从尊朱到攻朱——毛奇龄学术思想的演变。主要梳理毛奇龄的生平、治学经历及独特的个性特点,勾勒他理学思想的形成以及基于王学立场而攻朱学的思想变化过程。同时,概述他的著作情况及学术特点。指出他特殊的为学经历和鲜明的个性对他独特学术风格的形成有着重要的影响。第三章,毛奇龄的经籍考辨。以毛奇龄在易图考辨、《古文尚书》辨伪以及《诗经》、《春秋》等方面的考证为例,揭示毛奇龄经籍考辨的特点及他对朱子经学相关论点的批驳。在易图研究方面,毛奇龄考证出今传河图、洛书、太极图等所谓易图都是宋儒所作,认为它们源于道、释两家,非儒家经典原有,主张把这些图与儒家经典剥离开来。对于《古文尚书》的问题,毛奇龄反对此前学者包括朱熹、吴澄、梅(?)以及阎若璩等众多辨伪者对《古文尚书》的疑辨,力持古文为真的观点。他为伪古文辩护的结论是错误的,但他的论辨在客观上却对《古文尚书》问题的深入研究具有积极作用。在《诗经》研究方面,毛奇龄主要对当时流行的《子贡诗传》、《申培诗说》两书进行考辨,指出两书皆出于后人的伪作。在《春秋》学方面,毛奇龄反对传统的“义例”说,对所谓“一字褒贬”之说痛加贬斥,对胡安国传给予激烈批判。毛氏主张以“礼”说《春秋》,认为《春秋》中的褒贬是以礼制为标准的。他还对《春秋》经文作了考证,充分表现出了平实的学风。毛奇龄的经籍考辨重实证,讲求不以空言说经,对宋儒的逞臆说经风气大加抨击,在为学宗旨上已与朱学迥然异趣。第四章,四书之辨——毛奇龄攻朱的集中体现。主要考察、剖析毛奇龄的四书类著作,揭示他攻朱的主要内容及方式,指出他秉持王学宗旨,以名物考证为手段的特点。在《大学》研究方面,毛奇龄崇阳明古本,抑朱子改本,反对朱子的“格物致知”补传,反对对《大学》文本的移易改动。他反对朱子的“格物”说,提出自己的“诚意”说。在《中庸》研究方面,毛奇龄对“性、道、教、慎独”等理学基本命题都提出了与朱子不同的观点,对朱子的相关论点给予辨驳。在《论语》《孟子》研究方面,毛奇龄对所涉及的名物制度、人物史实等方面内容详加考证,以此来攻驳朱注。毛奇龄的四书之辨集中反映了他对朱子学的鲜明攻驳,他的论辨风格正是当时学风演变的体现。第五章,毛奇龄在清代学术史上的地位与影响。分析毛奇龄攻朱特点形成的内外因素,揭示论者对他评价过低的原因,对他的学术地位和影响给予总结评价,指出他对清初学风转变及乾嘉汉学的形成都有积极影响。本文结论:毛奇龄对朱子学持激烈、鲜明的攻驳态度。他的攻朱与实证学风既是时代思潮的产物,又反过来推动了清初学风的转变。总体来说,他是清初学术向乾嘉学术转变的过渡性人物。继顾炎武之后,他与阎若璩、胡渭等人同为乾嘉汉学的先驱。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the academic history of Qing Dynasty, Mao Qiling occupies an outstanding position as a scholar in early Qing Dynasty. As a distinguished scholar, he ever wrote many books in literature, art, academic researches and some other related fields, especially he was devoted to the study of Confucian classics. He also read a broad range of the traditional Confucian classics, and modified and revised The Book of Songs, The Book of History, The Book of Rites, The Book of Changes and The Spring and Autumn Annals and the Four Books. He took an empirical approach to his learning without engaging in empty talks, and was the advocator of the confirmation learning after Huang Zongxi and Gu Yanwu in rank with HuWei and Yan Ruoqu. He was dissatisfied with the post-Confucian learning, therefore he focused on the original works seeking its sense, attacking the Confucian learning of Song Dynasty represented by ZhuZi. His verification of the Confucian classics, the confirmation style and his attacks on the doctrines of ZhuZi as the official learning made great contributions to the academic development and the changes of the academic styles in early Qing Dynasty, and to the beginning of Textual Criticism in mid-Qing Dynasty. This thesis studies the intellectual doctrines of Mao Qiling his Confucian verification and his bold attacks on ZhuZi to sum up his intellectual characteristics and assess on his position and influence in the intellectual cycle of Qing Dynasty from Mao Qiling and the doctrines of ZhuZi.The thesis is divided into 5 chapters.The first chapter is on the transition of the academic styles in late Ming and early Qing Dynasties, which discusses mainly the general trends of the intellectual development of the period, points out the influence of Ming-Qing transition on the intellectuals of early Qing Dynasty. The social changes make the reflections and the criticism of Neo-Confucianism and the statecraft ideology become the main trends of the time. The reflections and the criticism of Neo-Confucianism make the emphasizing practice to correct the drawbacks of the emptiness the new feature of Neo-Confucianism in early Qing Dynasty. At the same time, the return of the traditional Confucian learning to the originals and the focus on the confirmation is the trends of the time. In conclusion, the intellectual trends in late Ming and early Qing Dynasty transform from emptiness to reality, which has great influence on Mao Qiling’s intellectual doctrines.The second chapter is the transition from worshiping to attacking ZhuZi. It mainly sorts out his life, academic experience and his unique intellectual characteristics, picks up the formation of his Neo-Confucianism doctrines and the transformation of attacking ZhuZi doctrines from Wang’s learning. At the same time, it sketches his works with intellectual characteristics, stressing that his unique learning experience and distinctive personality has significant influence on his unique intellectual styles.The third chapter is the verification of the Confucian classical works by Mao Qiling, which discovers his characteristics in verification and his attacks on the points of ZhuZi with identification of "YiTu" (illustrations on The Book of Changes) and Guwenshangshu as examples. In study of "YiTu", Mao Qiling verified that HeTu,LuoShu,TaiJiTu were all the works by the scholars of Song Dynasty, that they were originated from Taoism and Buddhism instead of the original Confucian classics and that they should be removed from the traditional Confucian classics. As for Guwenshangshu, Mao Qiling disagreed with such scholars as Zhu Xi, Wu Cheng, Mei Zhuo and Yan Ruoqu and held that it were the originals. His defense for the pseudo-ancient words was not correct, but it played an active role in strengthening the studies of Guwenshangshu. In the study of The Book of Songs, Mao Qiling verified the ZiGongShiZhuan and ShenPeiShiShuo of the time, and pointed out that they were the pseudo-works by late scholars. In study of The Spring and Autumn Annals, Mao Qiling disagreed with the traditional "YiLi" doctrines, and rebuked "one-word evaluation" doctrines and Hu Anguo’s Commentary on ChunQiu. Mao Qiling held that The Spring and Autumn Annals should be studied by "rites" and the evaluation on historical facts was from "rites". And Mao Qiling verified the text of The Spring and Autumn Annals and exhibited plain styles. Mao Qiling’s verification emphasizes the facts without any empty words, and attacked the imagination of the scholars in Song Dynasty, which is quite different from the doctrines of ZhuZi.The fourth chapter focuses on the verification of the Four Books, the integration of Mao Qiling’s attacks on ZhuZi. This chapter covers and discusses the four types of works by Mao Qiling to show the content and the methods by which he attacked ZhuZi, and show the characteristics in his verification of things by the principles of the doctrines of Wang Yangming. In the study of The Great learning, Mao Qiling worshiped the ancient version of Wang Yangming, while disagreed with the revised version of ZhuZi in his amendments to "GeWuZhiZhi" and the modifications of The Great Learning. He refuted the ZhuZi’s "GeWu", and proposed his own "ChengYi". In the study of The Doctrine of the Mean, Mao Qiling had different ideas from ZhuZi in "Xing, Dao, Jiao, ShenDu" and attacked ZhuZi in these aspects. In the study of The Analects of Confucius and The Words of Mencius, Mao Qiling made a careful study of things, system and characters, historical facts to refute the commentary on the Four Books by ZhuZi. Mao Qiling launched fierce attacks on ZhuZi in his defending The Four Books, and his argumentative style shows the transition of the learning trends of the time.The fifth chapter assesses on the status and influence of Mao Qiling in the academic history of Qing Dynasty, analyzes the factors concerning the forming Mao Qiling ’s attacks on ZhuZi to discover the reason why he was negatively appraised. After evaluating his academic status, this chapter concluded that he made great contributions to the intellectual style changes and to the formation of QianJia Textual Criticism.The conclusion of the thesis is that Mao Qiling had distinctively refuting attitude to the doctrines of ZhuZi, and his attacks on ZhuZi and confirmation doctrines are the products of the time and it in turn pushes the changes of the intellectual styles in early Qing Dynasty. In summary, he was the transitional figure from early Qing to Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns, and he was the forerunner of QianJia Textual Criticism with Yan Ruoqu and HuWei after Gu Yanwu.更多还原