名家不出于礼官考论
|
摘要
先秦诸子起源问题是中国学术史上一个重要的问题。班固在《汉书·艺文志》中提出了"诸子出于王官"说,认为名家起源于礼官。然考诸史籍,对班固此说提出质疑,具体表现在:一是诸子之学非专出于周代王官之学;二是《周礼》伪书不足为据;三是名家主张与礼官职守不一致。通过对名家不出于礼官的考察,意在抛砖引玉,以期引起学界同仁对此问题之重视。
The origin of Pre-Qin philosophers is an important issue in the academic history of China. Ban Gu put forward the theory that "all the philosophers are from the royal officials" in the book of Han Shu· Art and Literature Records, and believed that school of logicians originated from the rite official. However, through the examination of historical records, I questioned Ban Gu's theory, which was embodied in the following aspects: first,the learning of all the philosophers was not exclusively derived from the learning of Kings and officials in the Zhou Dynasty; second, "Zhou Li",a fake book,is not sufficient evidence; third, what the school of logicians advocates and the official duties are not consistent. Through the investigation of famous scholars who are not civil officials, this paper intends to draw attention to this issue from academic colleagues.
The origin of Pre-Qin philosophers is an important issue in the academic history of China. Ban Gu put forward the theory that "all the philosophers are from the royal officials" in the book of Han Shu· Art and Literature Records, and believed that school of logicians originated from the rite official. However, through the examination of historical records, I questioned Ban Gu's theory, which was embodied in the following aspects: first,the learning of all the philosophers was not exclusively derived from the learning of Kings and officials in the Zhou Dynasty; second, "Zhou Li",a fake book,is not sufficient evidence; third, what the school of logicians advocates and the official duties are not consistent. Through the investigation of famous scholars who are not civil officials, this paper intends to draw attention to this issue from academic colleagues.
引文
[1]班固.汉书(卷三十)[M].北京:中华书局,1962.
[2]柳诒徵.柳诒徵史学论文续集[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1991.
[3]郭庆藩.庄子集释[M].北京:中华书局,2004.
[4]何宁.淮南子集释[M].北京:中华书局,1998.
[5]章太炎.诸子学略说[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2010.
[6]耿云志.胡适论争集(上卷)[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[7]梁启超.论中国学术思想变迁之大势[M].北京:中华书局,1988.
[8]冯友兰.三松堂全集[M].郑州:河南人民出版社,2001.
[9]傅斯年.战国子家叙论[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,2002.
[10]钱穆.国学概论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[11]侯外庐.中国思想通史(第一卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
[12]罗根泽.古史辨(第四册)[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
[13]梁振杰.汉书·艺文志与先秦诸子学术[J].史学月刊,2015(9).
[14]班固.汉书·艺文志[M].北京:中华书局,1962.
[15]欧阳哲生.胡适选集[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[16]余嘉锡.余嘉锡论学杂著[M].北京:中华书局,2007.
[17]康有为.新学伪经考[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[18]刘巍.诸子不出于王官论的建立、影响与意义[J].近代史研究,2003(1).
[19]欧阳哲生.胡适选集[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[20]胡适.中国哲学史大纲[M].北京:商务印书馆,2011.
[21]冯友兰.中国哲学史新编(上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.
[22]董英哲,江向东.“名家”界说新议[J].社会科学,2000(12).
[23]杜文静.试论先秦名家的名实观[J].中山大学学报论丛,2006(11).
[24]司马迁.史记·太史公自序[M].北京:中华书局,1959.
[25]陆建华.先秦名家思想中的老学因素[J].贵阳学院学报:社会科学版,2017(5).
[26](汉)郑玄注,(唐)贾公彦疏.周礼注疏[M]//(清)阮元.十三经注疏.北京:中华书局,1980.
[27]叶友琛.周礼玉器管理职官述论[J].湘潭大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2007(4).
[28](清)孙诒让.周礼正义[M].北京:中华书局,1987.
[29]许结.中国文化制度述略[M].南京:凤凰出版社,2005.
[30]王晓晖.中国古代礼官发展述略[J].决策探索:下半月,2009(4).
[2]柳诒徵.柳诒徵史学论文续集[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1991.
[3]郭庆藩.庄子集释[M].北京:中华书局,2004.
[4]何宁.淮南子集释[M].北京:中华书局,1998.
[5]章太炎.诸子学略说[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2010.
[6]耿云志.胡适论争集(上卷)[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[7]梁启超.论中国学术思想变迁之大势[M].北京:中华书局,1988.
[8]冯友兰.三松堂全集[M].郑州:河南人民出版社,2001.
[9]傅斯年.战国子家叙论[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,2002.
[10]钱穆.国学概论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[11]侯外庐.中国思想通史(第一卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
[12]罗根泽.古史辨(第四册)[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
[13]梁振杰.汉书·艺文志与先秦诸子学术[J].史学月刊,2015(9).
[14]班固.汉书·艺文志[M].北京:中华书局,1962.
[15]欧阳哲生.胡适选集[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[16]余嘉锡.余嘉锡论学杂著[M].北京:中华书局,2007.
[17]康有为.新学伪经考[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998.
[18]刘巍.诸子不出于王官论的建立、影响与意义[J].近代史研究,2003(1).
[19]欧阳哲生.胡适选集[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[20]胡适.中国哲学史大纲[M].北京:商务印书馆,2011.
[21]冯友兰.中国哲学史新编(上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.
[22]董英哲,江向东.“名家”界说新议[J].社会科学,2000(12).
[23]杜文静.试论先秦名家的名实观[J].中山大学学报论丛,2006(11).
[24]司马迁.史记·太史公自序[M].北京:中华书局,1959.
[25]陆建华.先秦名家思想中的老学因素[J].贵阳学院学报:社会科学版,2017(5).
[26](汉)郑玄注,(唐)贾公彦疏.周礼注疏[M]//(清)阮元.十三经注疏.北京:中华书局,1980.
[27]叶友琛.周礼玉器管理职官述论[J].湘潭大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2007(4).
[28](清)孙诒让.周礼正义[M].北京:中华书局,1987.
[29]许结.中国文化制度述略[M].南京:凤凰出版社,2005.
[30]王晓晖.中国古代礼官发展述略[J].决策探索:下半月,2009(4).