【作者】 董灏智；

【导师】 韩东育；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 专门史， 2011， 博士

【副题名】以“四书体系”和伊藤仁斋、荻生徂徕为中心

【摘要】 由《大学》、《中庸》、《论语》和《孟子》组成的“四书体系”,是中国儒学经典结构的重要内容,它的形成过程与理学的发展脉络相表里,发轫于韩愈、李翱,继之于二程、张载,成型于朱熹。自其在元代成为科举考试的“参考书目”后,对中国、乃至“东亚世界”产生了深远而重要的影响。然而,就在“四书体系”于“东亚世界”如日中天之时,日本德川时代的古学派率先在批判朱子学的同时,还解构了“四书体系”,并在这一过程中凸显出务实主义和民族主义的取向。这一改变,虽只是“学术事件”,但若从“东亚世界”的背景考察,它既是“前近代”的日本对“中国思想”、“中国文化”和“中国”否定等一系列举动的开端,又是日本“近代化”与中国不同的历史远因。职是之故,本文从思想史的视角切入,以“前近代”的东亚世界为历史舞台,以对中日两国有过重要影响的“四书体系”为中心,围绕着“四书体系”在中国的形成过程及其在日本的解构过程,由此突出中日两国在同一“儒学经典结构”内的渐行渐远。本文共分为上篇和下篇两个部分:上篇分为两章,第一章主要内容是论述“四书体系”形成之前,《论语》、《孟子》和《大学》、《中庸》的流传情况,除了阐述“四者”之间的内在关联与展开逻辑外,着重突出“四者”在流传过程中、被不同时期的学者重新诠释的思想意涵。第二章则是以程朱理学(朱子学)的形成、发展脉络为背景,重点考察韩愈、李翱、周敦颐、二程、张载、朱熹等人在建构其“理学”思想的过程中,是如何构建“四书体系”的。他们以“道统论”为出发点,一方面,利用《易传》、《中庸》及《大学》中“关键词、句”,通过对其新解而构筑理学学说;另一方面,又置《论语》、《孟子》等书于其理学思想内进行重新解读,二者则相辅相成、交融一体,他们在对“四书”进行理学化的“改造”过程中,最后由朱熹集大成于《四书集注》,并刊刻成书,标志着“四书体系”的正式形成。并且,“四书”在元代成为科举考试的“参考书目”后,对中国明清两朝及“东亚世界”产生了深远的影响,成为东亚知识分子的思想源泉。下篇也分为两章,主要围绕着“四书体系”在东渡日本后,所遭遇到的质疑、批判和否定而展开的论述。本文选取江户时期最具“反朱子学”特征的古学派中的两位大儒——伊藤仁斋与荻生徂徕为中心,论述他们在批判朱子学的过程中,是如何解构“四书体系”的。由于二人不同的人生经历,虽皆“反朱子学”,但因二人早年受朱子学影响的程度不同,故“反朱子学”的程度也是不同,就是说,二人对“四书体系”解构程度也是有差别的。在第三章中,论述了伊藤仁斋将“四书体系”化约为“语孟体系”的过程。在此过程中,仁斋以“道是人伦日用之道”,为其古义学的核心思想,以此化约了“四书体系”——“《大学》非孔氏之遗书”、《中庸》的部分内容为《论语》之衍义。这样,“四书”中可取的只有“语孟”二书,并且,必须以《孟子》解《论语》。在第四章中,则围绕着荻生徂徕解构“四书体系”而展开论述,徂徕的古学以“古文辞学”著称,他发现语言有“和汉”、“古今”之别,仁斋之失在于“以和语视华言”,宋儒之误实在“以今文视古文”,所以,徂徕既反宋儒,又反仁斋,在批判二人基础上,提出“古文辞学”,是故,他以“六经”为“古文辞学”的正宗,针对被宋儒、仁斋曲解的“四书”而重新诠释。在此过程中,徂徕不但斩断了仁斋的“语孟体系”,更是将“四书体系”彻底瓦解,“四书”中可取的只有《论语》一书,其他“三书”皆难以与“六经”相比,由此凸显出徂徕的“道论”核心是“六经”中的“先王之道”、“安天下之道”,这也是他解构“四书体系”的关键。第五章中,所涉及到内容主要是仁斋与徂徕对“四书体系”解构,对日本所产生的影响。一方面,二人皆批判朱子学中的“形而上”内容,而取传统儒学中的“形而下”部分,日本近世的“务实主义”由此而凸显;一方面,二人在处理中日之间“文化认同”与“政治认同”断裂的问题时,皆从日本视角入手,用置换概念的方法,将中国儒学“去脉络化”,使中日两国在同一儒学范畴内,渐行渐远,而这一举动,更刺激了日本“民族主义”及“他者意识”的产生。更多还原

【Abstract】 By the "The Great Learning", "The Doctrine of the Mean", "The Analects of Confucius" and "Mencius" composed of "Four Books system", is an important part of the Confucian classic structure, and its development is interior-exteriorly related with Neo-confucianism’s, this process started at Han Yu, Li Ao, followed by Er Cheng, Zhang Zai, formed in Zhu Xi. "Four Books" had a profound and important influence for China, even the "East Asian world" since it became the Imperial Examination’s references in the Yuan Dynasty. However, "Four Books" to be extremely influential in the "East Asian world", the Tokugawa Japan’s Kogaku scholars took the lead in criticism of zhu zi’s philosophy, it is also deconstruction of the "Four Books system", furthermore, highlights the pragmatism and nationalism in the process. This change, although only "academic event", if then from the background of "East Asian world" for investigation, it is not only the beginning of Japan for "Chinese thought", "Chinese culture" and "China" to deny, but also the Japan’s modernization whicn different from Chian’s historical reason. Therefore, this article from the history of ideas perspective to look into, for the early-modern’s East Asian world as the stage of history, to for China and Japan have had major impact of the "Four Books system" as the center, around the "Four Books system" in China the formation process and its process of deconstruction in Japan, which highlighted China and Japan further away in the same structure of the Confucian classicsThis article is divided into two parts, partⅠand partⅡ.The partⅠis divided into two chapters, the first chapter concentrates on "The Great Learning", "The Doctrine of the Mean", "The Analects of Confucius" and "Mencius"’s circulation state before the "four books systems" formed. besides elaborating the "four books"’s inner logic, emphatically demonstrates the thought implicationthat the“four books”was annotated by the different time’s scholars. The second chapter starts on the basis that the neo-Confucian’s formation and development process, studys Han Yu, Li Ao, Zhou Dun yi, Er cheng, Zhang Zai, Zhu Xi etc, and what they engaged in the task of constructing the "Four Books system" while founding zhu zi’s philosophy. They take the Confucian orthodoxy theory as the starting points, on the one hand, uses "Yi Zhuan", "Doctrine of the mean" and "The Great Learning"’s key words, sentences, by way of constructing Neo-Confucianism to its new solution; On the other hand, in Neo-Confucianism’s view re-interprets "Confucian analects", "Mencius", this two sides are complementary to each other. To“four books”, they carry on Neo-Confucianism transformation, finally block-prints by Zhu Xi in "Four Books Collects", symbolizes“Four Book systems”official formation. And,“four books”becomes Imperial Examination’s references after the Yuan Dynasty, to be influential in the Ming-Qing Dynasties and "East Asian world", become East Asia intellectual spirit fountainhead.The partⅡis also divided into two chapters,is mainly revolving“Four Books system”which encounters doubt, critique, deny from different scholars after travelling to the Japan. This article selects the superme typically "anti-Zhuzi philosophy" figure in Tokugawa Japan----Kogaku’s Ito Jinsai and Ogyu Sorai, emphasizes them on criticizing Zhuzi philosophy process, is how to deconstruct of the "Four Books system". As a result of their different life experienceses, although all "anti-Zhuzi philosophy", because of them that received Zhuzi philosophy’s influence degree to be different, so "anti-Zhuzi philosophy "’s degree is also different, that is, two persons for "Four Books system"’s degree also have the difference. In the third chapter, elaborats that Ito Jinsai simplifying "Four Books system" to "Yu Meng system", during this process, Jinsai uses "Tao is human being’s Tao" as his Kogaku’s core thought for simplifying“Four Books system”-----"The Great Learning isn’t Confucius’s posthumous papers", "The Doctrine of the Mean is only text that interprets and develops the thoughts of The Analects of Confucius", so that,“four books”may take only "The Analects of Confucius"and"Mencius" two books, and, must use "Mencius" for expaining "The Analects of Confucius". In the forth chapter is about that Ogyu Sorai deconstructs the "Four Books system". his Kogaku is known as the Ancient Rhetoric, he discovered that the language has "Japan and Chinese", "ancient and modern"the difference, the Jinsai’s mistake lies in regarding the Japanese as the Chinese, the Song Confucian’s that regards ancient literature as modern literature. Hence, Sorai criticizes Song Confucian as well as Jinsai, and proposes the Ancient Rhetoric, therefore, he takes "six classics" as authentic re-interpreting the"Four Books system", not only cuts off Jinsai’s "Yu Meng system",but also disintegrates thoroughly "Four book systems", "Four Books" may take only the "Confucian analects", others are difficulty compared with“Six Classics”, it highlights Sorai’s "Tao theory" that the core is "Six Classics", "maintaining the world", this is also the key whicn he deconstructing the "Four Books system".The fifth chaper, that is conclusion part. In the part is mainly involved in Jinsai and Sorai’s for impact on Japan that they deconstructing the "Four Books system". On the one hand, they are critical of Zhu xi philosophy’s metaphysical content, and take the under-metaphysical part of the traditional Confucianism, pragmatism is emergencing gradually in the early-moden Japan. On the other hand, they deal with the out-break between "political identity" and "cultural identity" of China and Japan, all starting from the Japanese perspective, using the method of replacing concept, let Chinese Confucianism de-contextualization, China and Japan in the same Confucianism drifts away, And this move, but also stimulats the Japanese’s "nationalism" and "others consciousness" generation.更多还原