錢穆《春秋》學論述及其所涉秦漢經學史

Qian Mu’s Discourse on the Study of Spring and Autumn Annals and Its Discussion of the History of Confucian Classics in Pre-Qin and Han Times

Authors

  • 宋惠如 (SUNG Hui Ju) 金門大學華語文學系

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24112/sinohumanitas.342256

Keywords:

錢穆, 經學史, 《春秋》, Qian Mu, studies of the Confucian Classics, Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu)

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.

晚清民國時期僞經説蔚爲風潮,其中重大影響之一,在於康有爲、皮錫瑞今文經學史觀成爲後人省察秦漢學術之基線,當中存在著對經學、孔子學術、漢代學術的各項判定。然而他們的主張不僅爲古文學者如章太炎、劉師培所質疑,錢賓四先生亦就其經學史主張,提出切實的學術史觀與論述架構。五經中,《春秋》出於孔子之手,既史且經,性質特殊,尤其《春秋》在漢代被推崇,復爲今古文經學之爭的爭議核心,是以秦漢之際《春秋》學流變如何,實爲架構秦漢經學史的關鍵論題。錢先生《春秋》學論述有其特點,尤值得關注的是,其中含括錢先生對秦漢經學發展的特殊見解,是以本文先説明錢先生《春秋》學觀的基本立場,其次論述錢先生講論,作爲先秦王官學與諸子學交界的孔子《春秋》學,以及講論作爲古學、今學之論的漢代《春秋》學等三部分,説明錢先生《春秋》學説及其所涉經學史論述中,不同於今、古文經學者的辨真之見。

The studies of Confucian classics of Pre-Qin and Han times respectively by Kang Youwei (1858-1927) and Pi Xi-Rui (1850-1908) made significant impacts in the field. However, their views were questioned not only by scholars such as Zhang Taiyan (1869-1936) and Liu Shipei (1884 1919), but Qian Mu also proposed alternative interpretations and insightful discourses of his own. In particular, Qian raised a question: What special aspects of the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals) make this book a key to constructing the studies of Confucian Classics of pre-Qin and Han times? This article is a discussion of Qian Mu’s perspectives on this subject based on his discourses on Chunqiu studies. The discussion is divided into three parts: first, Qian’s perspectives on Chunqiu studies; second, his comments on Chunqiu studies of pre-Qin times; and third, his comments on Chunqiu studies of Han times. It then concludes with Qian’s comprehensive view on Chunqiu studies as well as his keen insight on relevant scholarship.

Downloads

Published

2022-07-01

Issue

Section

論文