“秦汉新儒学”与近现代儒学之重建
|
摘要
重新梳理、评价周秦两汉儒学的流变是民国学界超越经今古文之争、重建中国文化的题中要义,儒道抉择与孟荀分野,今文学方士化与改制学说成为各家判定秦汉新儒学"变质"抑或"发展"的关键。胡适认为秦汉新儒家是儒、墨、方士的糁合物,逐步宗教化,郭沫若视之为完全变质;钱穆着眼于宇宙论与人生论,认定秦汉新儒家是中国学术思想史的重要枢纽,董仲舒改制学说却误入歧途;顾颉刚认为董仲舒沿袭阴阳家系统理论提倡公羊改制,旨在彰显汉朝功业;蒙文通融会秦汉新儒学的革命精神与制度设计,以实践中华文明的现代转化。考察民国各方学人阐释"秦汉新儒学"的分合,揭示民国学术的多元流变与各派学人的学术旨趣,当可展现沟通中西新旧的多种取径,或能在现代知识与学科体系中建构中国文化义理、制度与历史事实的有机系统,实现"能尊而有立"的文明复兴。
In the late Qing and Republic of China,how to interpret Chinese cultural tradition became an unavoidable step to seek reconstruction the system of Chinese civilization for the modern scholars.The different positions held scholars have led to the different paths of converting academic tradition.It is important to sort and evaluate the Confucianism of Zhou,Qin and Han Dynasties.The analyzing of the Confucianism and Taoism,the interpreting of the controversies over Mencius and Xun Zi and the clarifying the doctrine of Spring and Autumn ram reform became the key to determine if Neo-Confucianism in Qin and Han Dynasties is a metamorphism or a development.Hu Shi believed that the Neo-Confucianism of Qin and Han Dynasties was a mixture of Confucianism,Mohism and Alchemists,which gradually became religious,and Guo Moruo regarded it as a complete metamorphism.Li Yuancheng pointed out that it was a key element in the academic evolution of Zhou and Qin to reconcile Mencius and Xun Zi and to integrate Confucianism and Taoism into,thus it established the perfect Neo-Confucianism.According to Yi Chuan and Dai Ji,based on cosmology and life theory,Qian Mu suggested the Neo-Confucianism of Qin and Han Dynasties integrated Confucianism and Taoism,which was the important hub in the history of Chinese academic thoughts;Dong Zhongshu tempered and compromised various thoughts,proposed the reform theory,but went astray;Gu Jiegang regarded the historical truth as the inner layer and core of Chinese culture,and thought Dong Zhongshu inherited the theories of Yinand Yangand Five Elements to serve the Han Dynasty.And Gu also addressed the current academic innovation should absorb the criticism of Song and Qing learning research,and transcend the dispute of Jinwenand Guwen.During the period of the Anti-Japanese War,a new trend of Neo-Confucianism had arisen in the academic field.He Lin emphasized that China should not lose its cultural autonomy to fall into the cultural colonies.Through connecting Confucian ethics and the political system,Confucianism and Historiography,Meng Wentong tried to illustrate that″Neo-Confucianism of Qin and Han Dynasties″had developed the doctrines of the Mencius and supported the revolutionary thought of Jinwen classics.Having proposed these new theories,Meng Wentong aimed at subverting outdated thoughts and promoting new ones for the future.Facing the great changes of modern Confucianism,the scholars had been able to reconstruct the subjectivity of Chinese civilization and to integrate the Chinese and the Western,the new and the old based on their traditions,positions and their care of Yili.If taking breaking down the old tradition as innovation or drawing far-fetched analogies between Chinese attached Western doctrines,it will inevitably separate the tradition from the reality,the value from the knowledge,and will not be able to escape the fate of the cultural colony.The probes of the sources and purposes of the scholars in the historical context of the republic of China will further reveals multiple paths of integrating the Chinese and the Western,the new and the old.Blending together the various methods and purposes may carry forward and transform Chinese cultural morality,system and historical facts by the way of the modern knowledge and academic system,further build dynamic relationship between cultural spirit,historical traditions and civilization and realize the revival of civilization in practices.
In the late Qing and Republic of China,how to interpret Chinese cultural tradition became an unavoidable step to seek reconstruction the system of Chinese civilization for the modern scholars.The different positions held scholars have led to the different paths of converting academic tradition.It is important to sort and evaluate the Confucianism of Zhou,Qin and Han Dynasties.The analyzing of the Confucianism and Taoism,the interpreting of the controversies over Mencius and Xun Zi and the clarifying the doctrine of Spring and Autumn ram reform became the key to determine if Neo-Confucianism in Qin and Han Dynasties is a metamorphism or a development.Hu Shi believed that the Neo-Confucianism of Qin and Han Dynasties was a mixture of Confucianism,Mohism and Alchemists,which gradually became religious,and Guo Moruo regarded it as a complete metamorphism.Li Yuancheng pointed out that it was a key element in the academic evolution of Zhou and Qin to reconcile Mencius and Xun Zi and to integrate Confucianism and Taoism into,thus it established the perfect Neo-Confucianism.According to Yi Chuan and Dai Ji,based on cosmology and life theory,Qian Mu suggested the Neo-Confucianism of Qin and Han Dynasties integrated Confucianism and Taoism,which was the important hub in the history of Chinese academic thoughts;Dong Zhongshu tempered and compromised various thoughts,proposed the reform theory,but went astray;Gu Jiegang regarded the historical truth as the inner layer and core of Chinese culture,and thought Dong Zhongshu inherited the theories of Yinand Yangand Five Elements to serve the Han Dynasty.And Gu also addressed the current academic innovation should absorb the criticism of Song and Qing learning research,and transcend the dispute of Jinwenand Guwen.During the period of the Anti-Japanese War,a new trend of Neo-Confucianism had arisen in the academic field.He Lin emphasized that China should not lose its cultural autonomy to fall into the cultural colonies.Through connecting Confucian ethics and the political system,Confucianism and Historiography,Meng Wentong tried to illustrate that″Neo-Confucianism of Qin and Han Dynasties″had developed the doctrines of the Mencius and supported the revolutionary thought of Jinwen classics.Having proposed these new theories,Meng Wentong aimed at subverting outdated thoughts and promoting new ones for the future.Facing the great changes of modern Confucianism,the scholars had been able to reconstruct the subjectivity of Chinese civilization and to integrate the Chinese and the Western,the new and the old based on their traditions,positions and their care of Yili.If taking breaking down the old tradition as innovation or drawing far-fetched analogies between Chinese attached Western doctrines,it will inevitably separate the tradition from the reality,the value from the knowledge,and will not be able to escape the fate of the cultural colony.The probes of the sources and purposes of the scholars in the historical context of the republic of China will further reveals multiple paths of integrating the Chinese and the Western,the new and the old.Blending together the various methods and purposes may carry forward and transform Chinese cultural morality,system and historical facts by the way of the modern knowledge and academic system,further build dynamic relationship between cultural spirit,historical traditions and civilization and realize the revival of civilization in practices.
引文
[1]邓实:《古学复兴论》,见桑兵编:《国学的历史》,北京:国家图书馆出版社,2010年,第68-71页。[Deng Shi,″Ancient Renaissance Theory,″in Sang Bing(ed.),The History of Guoxue,Beijing:National Library of China Publishing House,2010,pp.68-71.]
[2]欧阳哲生编:《胡适文集》第6卷,北京:北京大学出版社,2013年。[Ouyang Zhesheng(ed.),Anthology of Hu Shi:Vol.6,Beijing:Peking University Press,2013.]
[3]钱玄同:《钱玄同日记》第6册,福州:福建教育出版社,2004年。[Qian Xuantong,Diary of Qian Xuantong:Vol.6,Fuzhou:Fujian Education Press,2004.]
[4]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(15),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.15,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[5]顾颉刚、傅斯年:《论孔子学说所以适应于秦汉以来的社会的缘故》,《国立第一中山大学语言历史学研究所周刊》1927年第1集第6期,第125-131页。[Gu Jiegang&Fu Sinian,″On the Reasons Why Confucianism Adapts to Qin and Han Dynasties,″Weekly of Institute of Philology and History of National First Sun Yat-sen University,Vol.1,No.6(1927),pp.125-131.]
[6]程憬:《再论孔子学说所以适应于秦汉以来的社会的缘故》,《国立第一中山大学语言历史学研究所周刊》1928年第1集第13期,第325-328页。[Cheng Jing,″A Sequel on the Reasons Why Confucianism Adapts to Qin and Han Dynasties,″Weekly of Institute of Philology and History of National First Sun Yat-sen University,Vol.1,No.13(1928),pp.325-328.]
[7]夏曾佑:《中国古代史》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1955年。[Xia Zengyou,The Ancient Chinese History,Beijing:SDX Joint Publishing Company,1955.]
[8]曹伯言整理:《胡适日记全编》(6),合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年。[Cao Boyan(ed.),Diary of Hu Shi:Vol.6,Hefei:Anhui Education Press,2001.]
[9]耿云志主编:《胡适遗稿及秘藏书信》(8),合肥:黄山书社,1994年。[Geng Yunzhi(ed.),Hu Shi’s Posthumous Manuscripts and Letters:Vol.8,Hefei:Huangshan Publish House,1994.]
[10]郭沫若:《青铜时代》,上海:群益出版社,1946年。[Guo Moruo,Bronze Age,Shanghai:Qunyi Press,1946.]
[11]梁启超:《梁启超论清学史二种》,上海:复旦大学出版社,1985年。[Liang Qichao,Liang Qichao’s Books of Chinese Academic History in the Qing Dynasty,Shanghai:Fudan University Press,1985.]
[12]冯友兰、张可为:《原杂家》,见冯友兰:《三松堂全集》第11卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年,第413-448页。[Feng Youlan&Zhang Kewei,″The Origin of the Eclectics,″in Feng Youlan,Complete Works of Feng Youlan:Vol.11,Zhengzhou:Henan People’s Publishing House,2011,pp.413-448.]
[13]李源澄:《李源澄儒学论集》,成都:四川大学出版社,2010年。[Li Yuancheng,Collective Works of Li Yuancheng on Confucianism,Chengdu:Sichuan University Press,2010.]
[14]钱穆:《中国学术思想史》(2),合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年。[Qian Mu,The History of Chinese Academic Thoughts:Vol.2,Hefei:Anhui Education Press,2004.]
[15]缪钺:《冰茧庵丛稿》,上海:上海古籍出版社,1985年。[Miao Yue,Bingjian’an Conggao,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,1985.]
[16]蒙文通:《儒学甄微》,成都:巴蜀书社,2015年。[Meng Wentong,Ruxue Zhenwei,Chengdu:Bashu Press,2015.]
[17]欧阳竟无:《孔学杂著》,济南:山东人民出版社,1997年。[Ouyang Jingwu,A Symposium of Confucianism,Jinan:Shandong People’s Publishing House,1997.]
[18]冯友兰:《中国哲学史》(上),见《三松堂全集》第2卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年。[Feng Youlan,The History of Chinese Philosophy(Ⅰ),in Complete Works of Feng Youlan:Vol.2,Zhengzhou:Henan People’s Publishing House,2011.]
[19]蒙默编:《蒙文通学记》(增补本),北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006年。[Meng Mo(ed.),Meng Wentong’s Learning:Supplement,Beijing:SDX Joint Publishing Company,2006.]
[20]陈柱:《公羊家哲学》,上海:中华书局,1928年。[Chen Zhu,Gongyang Philosophy,Shanghai:Zhonghua Book Company,1928.]
[21]汤志钧编:《章太炎政论选集》(上册),北京:中华书局,1977年。[Tang Zhijun(ed.),Political Selection of Zhang Taiyan(Ⅰ),Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1977.]
[22]邵瑞彭:《齐诗钤》,《儒效月刊》1946年第2卷第5期,第12-17页。[Shao Ruipeng,″Qishi Qian,″Learning Confucianism Monthly,Vol.2,No.5(1946),pp.12-17.]
[23]钱穆:《中国近三百年学术史》,北京:商务印书馆,1997年。[Qian Mu,Chinese Academic History in Recent Three Centuries,Beijing:The Commercial Press,1997.]
[24]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(1),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.1,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[25]孙宝瑄:《忘山庐日记》(上),上海:上海古籍出版社,1989年。[Sun Baoxuan,Sun Baoxuan’s Diary:Vol.1,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,1989.]
[26]钱玄同:《钱玄同文集》(4),北京:中国人民大学出版社,1999年。[Qian Xuantong,Collected Works of Qian Xuantong:Vol.4,Beijing:China Renmin University Press,1999.]
[27]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚古史论文集》(3),北京:中华书局,2010年。[Gu Jiegang,Collective Works of Gu Jiegang on Chinese Ancient History:Vol 3,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2010.]
[28]蒙文通:《经史抉原》,巴蜀书社,1995年。[Meng Wentong,The Origin of Classics and Historiography,Chengdu:Bashu Press,1995.]
[29]熊十力:《论〈周官〉成书年代》,《图书集刊》1942年第2期,第97-98页。[Xiong Shili,″On the Age of Zhouguan,″Books Journal,No.2(1942),pp.97-98.]
[30]伍非百:《墨子大义述》,南京:国民印务局,1933年。[Wu Feibai,The Purpose of Mohism,Nanjing:The National Printing Company,1933.]
[31]吕思勉:《吕思勉读史札记》(上),上海:上海古籍出版社,1982年。[LüSimian,Reading Notes of LüSimian on History(Ⅰ),Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,1982.]
[32]李耀仙主编:《廖平选集》(上),成都:巴蜀书社,1998年。[Li Yaoxian(ed.),Selective Works of Liao Ping(Ⅰ),Chengdu:Bashu Press,1998.]
[33]刘师培:《刘申叔先生遗书》,南京:江苏古籍出版社,1997年。[Liu Shipe,Remaining Corpus of Liu Shipei,Nanjing:Jiangsu Classics Publishing House,1997.]
[34]丁山:《丁山子学研究未刊稿》,南京:凤凰出版社,2011年。[Ding Shan,Not Published Draft of Ding Shan’s Studies on Masters,Nanjing:Phoenix Publishing House,2011.]
[35]蒙季甫:《儒家政治思想之变迁》,《史学季刊》1940年第1卷第1期,第91-99页。[Meng Jifu,″The Development of Confucian Political Thought,″Historical Quarterly,Vol.1,No.1(1940),pp.91-99.]
[36]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(4),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.4,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[37]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(3),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.3,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[38]胡适:《中国传统与将来》,见欧阳哲生、刘红中编:《中国的文艺复兴》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001年,第465-476页。[Hu Shi,″The Chinese Tradition and the Future,″in Ouyang Zhesheng&Liu Hongzhong(eds.),The Chinese Renaissance,Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001,pp.465-476.]
[39]钱穆:《中国学术思想史论丛》(8),合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年。[Qian Mu,A Symposium of the History of Chinese Academic Thoughts:Vol.8,Hefei:Anhui Education Publishing House,2004.]
[40]钱穆:《中国近代儒学之趋势》,《思想与时代》1944年第33期,第11-13页。[Qian Mu,″The Development of Confucianism during Contemporary China,″Thoughts and Times,No.33(1944),pp.11-13.]
(1)相关研究可参见罗志田《清季民初经学的边缘化与史学的走向中心》《“新宋学”与民初考据史学》,皆收入《权势转移:近代中国的思想、社会与学术》,(武汉)湖北人民出版社1999年版,第302-341、342-375页;路新生《“义”、“事”之别与“今”、“古”之争及其现代学术意义》,载《华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第3期,第132-138页;王汎森《从经学向史学的过渡---廖平与蒙文通的例子》,载《历史研究》2005年第5期,第57-74页;郜积意《汉代今、古学的礼制之分---以廖平〈今古学考〉为讨论中心》,载《“中央研究院”历史语言研究所集刊》2006年第1期,第33-77页;严寿澂《经通于史而经非史---蒙文通经学研究述评》,载《中华文史论丛》2008年第4期,第235-284页;张志强《经、史、儒关系的重构与“批判儒学”之建立---以〈儒学五论〉为中心试论蒙文通“儒学”观念的特质》,载《中国哲学史》2009年第1期,第101-111页。
(1)参见罗义俊《钱穆与顾颉刚的〈古史辨〉》,载《史林》1993年4期,第28-36页;陈勇《和而不同:民国学术史上的钱穆与顾颉刚》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学版)》2013年4期,第128-137页。
(1)参看陈寅恪《冯友兰中国哲学史下册审查报告》,见《金明馆丛稿二编》,(北京)生活·读书·新知三联书店2001年版,第284-285页。关于陈寅恪学术立场与民国学界的分合,可参见张凯《经史分合与民国“新宋学”之建立》,载《近代史研究》2013年第6期,第94-113页。
(1)关于民初井田制之争的最新研究成果,可参见凌鹏《井田制研究与近代中国---20世纪前半期的井田制研究及其意义》,载《社会学研究》2016年第4期,第52-73页。
(2)关于蒙文通对熊十力的评价,参看蒙默《蒙文通先生年谱》,见四川大学历史文化学院编《蒙文通先生诞辰110周年纪念文集》,(北京)线装书局2005年版,第427页。
(3)参见廖平《地球新义》卷上,转引自陈德述、黄开国、蔡方鹿《廖平学术思想研究》,(成都)四川省社会科学院出版社1987年版,第127页。
(1)参见顾颉刚《顾颉刚读书笔记》(2),(北京)中华书局2011年版,第56页。关于顾颉刚学术立场的研究,参见李政君《1930年前后顾颉刚学术理念的变与不变》,载《史学月刊》2014年第6期,第85-91页。
(1)傅斯年《文明的估价》(手稿),(台北)“中研院”史语所藏傅斯年档案,Ⅰ-706。
(2)蒋星煜《顾颉刚论现代中国史学与史学家》,载《文化先锋》1947年第6卷16期,第3-7页。关于近代经史转型与民国学界中国史学史叙述的关系,参见张凯《经史分合:民国时期〈中国史学史〉的两种写法》,载《社会科学战线》2012年第8期,第82-88页。
(1)李源澄跋语,录自叶秉诚遗著《复宋芸子论国学学校书》,载《重光》1938年第2期,第47-49页。
[2]欧阳哲生编:《胡适文集》第6卷,北京:北京大学出版社,2013年。[Ouyang Zhesheng(ed.),Anthology of Hu Shi:Vol.6,Beijing:Peking University Press,2013.]
[3]钱玄同:《钱玄同日记》第6册,福州:福建教育出版社,2004年。[Qian Xuantong,Diary of Qian Xuantong:Vol.6,Fuzhou:Fujian Education Press,2004.]
[4]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(15),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.15,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[5]顾颉刚、傅斯年:《论孔子学说所以适应于秦汉以来的社会的缘故》,《国立第一中山大学语言历史学研究所周刊》1927年第1集第6期,第125-131页。[Gu Jiegang&Fu Sinian,″On the Reasons Why Confucianism Adapts to Qin and Han Dynasties,″Weekly of Institute of Philology and History of National First Sun Yat-sen University,Vol.1,No.6(1927),pp.125-131.]
[6]程憬:《再论孔子学说所以适应于秦汉以来的社会的缘故》,《国立第一中山大学语言历史学研究所周刊》1928年第1集第13期,第325-328页。[Cheng Jing,″A Sequel on the Reasons Why Confucianism Adapts to Qin and Han Dynasties,″Weekly of Institute of Philology and History of National First Sun Yat-sen University,Vol.1,No.13(1928),pp.325-328.]
[7]夏曾佑:《中国古代史》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1955年。[Xia Zengyou,The Ancient Chinese History,Beijing:SDX Joint Publishing Company,1955.]
[8]曹伯言整理:《胡适日记全编》(6),合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年。[Cao Boyan(ed.),Diary of Hu Shi:Vol.6,Hefei:Anhui Education Press,2001.]
[9]耿云志主编:《胡适遗稿及秘藏书信》(8),合肥:黄山书社,1994年。[Geng Yunzhi(ed.),Hu Shi’s Posthumous Manuscripts and Letters:Vol.8,Hefei:Huangshan Publish House,1994.]
[10]郭沫若:《青铜时代》,上海:群益出版社,1946年。[Guo Moruo,Bronze Age,Shanghai:Qunyi Press,1946.]
[11]梁启超:《梁启超论清学史二种》,上海:复旦大学出版社,1985年。[Liang Qichao,Liang Qichao’s Books of Chinese Academic History in the Qing Dynasty,Shanghai:Fudan University Press,1985.]
[12]冯友兰、张可为:《原杂家》,见冯友兰:《三松堂全集》第11卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年,第413-448页。[Feng Youlan&Zhang Kewei,″The Origin of the Eclectics,″in Feng Youlan,Complete Works of Feng Youlan:Vol.11,Zhengzhou:Henan People’s Publishing House,2011,pp.413-448.]
[13]李源澄:《李源澄儒学论集》,成都:四川大学出版社,2010年。[Li Yuancheng,Collective Works of Li Yuancheng on Confucianism,Chengdu:Sichuan University Press,2010.]
[14]钱穆:《中国学术思想史》(2),合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年。[Qian Mu,The History of Chinese Academic Thoughts:Vol.2,Hefei:Anhui Education Press,2004.]
[15]缪钺:《冰茧庵丛稿》,上海:上海古籍出版社,1985年。[Miao Yue,Bingjian’an Conggao,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,1985.]
[16]蒙文通:《儒学甄微》,成都:巴蜀书社,2015年。[Meng Wentong,Ruxue Zhenwei,Chengdu:Bashu Press,2015.]
[17]欧阳竟无:《孔学杂著》,济南:山东人民出版社,1997年。[Ouyang Jingwu,A Symposium of Confucianism,Jinan:Shandong People’s Publishing House,1997.]
[18]冯友兰:《中国哲学史》(上),见《三松堂全集》第2卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年。[Feng Youlan,The History of Chinese Philosophy(Ⅰ),in Complete Works of Feng Youlan:Vol.2,Zhengzhou:Henan People’s Publishing House,2011.]
[19]蒙默编:《蒙文通学记》(增补本),北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006年。[Meng Mo(ed.),Meng Wentong’s Learning:Supplement,Beijing:SDX Joint Publishing Company,2006.]
[20]陈柱:《公羊家哲学》,上海:中华书局,1928年。[Chen Zhu,Gongyang Philosophy,Shanghai:Zhonghua Book Company,1928.]
[21]汤志钧编:《章太炎政论选集》(上册),北京:中华书局,1977年。[Tang Zhijun(ed.),Political Selection of Zhang Taiyan(Ⅰ),Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1977.]
[22]邵瑞彭:《齐诗钤》,《儒效月刊》1946年第2卷第5期,第12-17页。[Shao Ruipeng,″Qishi Qian,″Learning Confucianism Monthly,Vol.2,No.5(1946),pp.12-17.]
[23]钱穆:《中国近三百年学术史》,北京:商务印书馆,1997年。[Qian Mu,Chinese Academic History in Recent Three Centuries,Beijing:The Commercial Press,1997.]
[24]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(1),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.1,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[25]孙宝瑄:《忘山庐日记》(上),上海:上海古籍出版社,1989年。[Sun Baoxuan,Sun Baoxuan’s Diary:Vol.1,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,1989.]
[26]钱玄同:《钱玄同文集》(4),北京:中国人民大学出版社,1999年。[Qian Xuantong,Collected Works of Qian Xuantong:Vol.4,Beijing:China Renmin University Press,1999.]
[27]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚古史论文集》(3),北京:中华书局,2010年。[Gu Jiegang,Collective Works of Gu Jiegang on Chinese Ancient History:Vol 3,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2010.]
[28]蒙文通:《经史抉原》,巴蜀书社,1995年。[Meng Wentong,The Origin of Classics and Historiography,Chengdu:Bashu Press,1995.]
[29]熊十力:《论〈周官〉成书年代》,《图书集刊》1942年第2期,第97-98页。[Xiong Shili,″On the Age of Zhouguan,″Books Journal,No.2(1942),pp.97-98.]
[30]伍非百:《墨子大义述》,南京:国民印务局,1933年。[Wu Feibai,The Purpose of Mohism,Nanjing:The National Printing Company,1933.]
[31]吕思勉:《吕思勉读史札记》(上),上海:上海古籍出版社,1982年。[LüSimian,Reading Notes of LüSimian on History(Ⅰ),Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,1982.]
[32]李耀仙主编:《廖平选集》(上),成都:巴蜀书社,1998年。[Li Yaoxian(ed.),Selective Works of Liao Ping(Ⅰ),Chengdu:Bashu Press,1998.]
[33]刘师培:《刘申叔先生遗书》,南京:江苏古籍出版社,1997年。[Liu Shipe,Remaining Corpus of Liu Shipei,Nanjing:Jiangsu Classics Publishing House,1997.]
[34]丁山:《丁山子学研究未刊稿》,南京:凤凰出版社,2011年。[Ding Shan,Not Published Draft of Ding Shan’s Studies on Masters,Nanjing:Phoenix Publishing House,2011.]
[35]蒙季甫:《儒家政治思想之变迁》,《史学季刊》1940年第1卷第1期,第91-99页。[Meng Jifu,″The Development of Confucian Political Thought,″Historical Quarterly,Vol.1,No.1(1940),pp.91-99.]
[36]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(4),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.4,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[37]顾颉刚:《顾颉刚读书笔记》(3),北京:中华书局,2011年。[Gu Jiegang,Reading Notes of Gu Jiegang:Vol.3,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2011.]
[38]胡适:《中国传统与将来》,见欧阳哲生、刘红中编:《中国的文艺复兴》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001年,第465-476页。[Hu Shi,″The Chinese Tradition and the Future,″in Ouyang Zhesheng&Liu Hongzhong(eds.),The Chinese Renaissance,Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001,pp.465-476.]
[39]钱穆:《中国学术思想史论丛》(8),合肥:安徽教育出版社,2004年。[Qian Mu,A Symposium of the History of Chinese Academic Thoughts:Vol.8,Hefei:Anhui Education Publishing House,2004.]
[40]钱穆:《中国近代儒学之趋势》,《思想与时代》1944年第33期,第11-13页。[Qian Mu,″The Development of Confucianism during Contemporary China,″Thoughts and Times,No.33(1944),pp.11-13.]
(1)相关研究可参见罗志田《清季民初经学的边缘化与史学的走向中心》《“新宋学”与民初考据史学》,皆收入《权势转移:近代中国的思想、社会与学术》,(武汉)湖北人民出版社1999年版,第302-341、342-375页;路新生《“义”、“事”之别与“今”、“古”之争及其现代学术意义》,载《华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第3期,第132-138页;王汎森《从经学向史学的过渡---廖平与蒙文通的例子》,载《历史研究》2005年第5期,第57-74页;郜积意《汉代今、古学的礼制之分---以廖平〈今古学考〉为讨论中心》,载《“中央研究院”历史语言研究所集刊》2006年第1期,第33-77页;严寿澂《经通于史而经非史---蒙文通经学研究述评》,载《中华文史论丛》2008年第4期,第235-284页;张志强《经、史、儒关系的重构与“批判儒学”之建立---以〈儒学五论〉为中心试论蒙文通“儒学”观念的特质》,载《中国哲学史》2009年第1期,第101-111页。
(1)参见罗义俊《钱穆与顾颉刚的〈古史辨〉》,载《史林》1993年4期,第28-36页;陈勇《和而不同:民国学术史上的钱穆与顾颉刚》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学版)》2013年4期,第128-137页。
(1)参看陈寅恪《冯友兰中国哲学史下册审查报告》,见《金明馆丛稿二编》,(北京)生活·读书·新知三联书店2001年版,第284-285页。关于陈寅恪学术立场与民国学界的分合,可参见张凯《经史分合与民国“新宋学”之建立》,载《近代史研究》2013年第6期,第94-113页。
(1)关于民初井田制之争的最新研究成果,可参见凌鹏《井田制研究与近代中国---20世纪前半期的井田制研究及其意义》,载《社会学研究》2016年第4期,第52-73页。
(2)关于蒙文通对熊十力的评价,参看蒙默《蒙文通先生年谱》,见四川大学历史文化学院编《蒙文通先生诞辰110周年纪念文集》,(北京)线装书局2005年版,第427页。
(3)参见廖平《地球新义》卷上,转引自陈德述、黄开国、蔡方鹿《廖平学术思想研究》,(成都)四川省社会科学院出版社1987年版,第127页。
(1)参见顾颉刚《顾颉刚读书笔记》(2),(北京)中华书局2011年版,第56页。关于顾颉刚学术立场的研究,参见李政君《1930年前后顾颉刚学术理念的变与不变》,载《史学月刊》2014年第6期,第85-91页。
(1)傅斯年《文明的估价》(手稿),(台北)“中研院”史语所藏傅斯年档案,Ⅰ-706。
(2)蒋星煜《顾颉刚论现代中国史学与史学家》,载《文化先锋》1947年第6卷16期,第3-7页。关于近代经史转型与民国学界中国史学史叙述的关系,参见张凯《经史分合:民国时期〈中国史学史〉的两种写法》,载《社会科学战线》2012年第8期,第82-88页。
(1)李源澄跋语,录自叶秉诚遗著《复宋芸子论国学学校书》,载《重光》1938年第2期,第47-49页。