钱穆与《先秦诸子系年》  

Qian Mu and XIANQINZHUZI XINIAN

作　　者：陈勇[1] 秦中亮[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海大学历史系,上海200444

出　　处：《史学史研究》2014年第1期54-64,共11页Journal of Historiography

摘　　要：钱穆早年以考据扬名学界,《先秦诸子系年》则是他早年治考据学的代表作。该书"以诸子之书,还考诸子之事",以古本《竹书纪年》订《史记》之误,不仅对先秦诸子的学术源流与生卒年代有了一个细致的考证,重建了先秦诸子的学脉,而且也考订了战国时代的重要史实,澄清了不少问题,奠定了战国史的研究基础。但是由于直接材料的缺乏,钱穆治诸子学主要采取了博综典籍、会通文献的方法,这种只依重传世文献材料的研究方法,其局限性也是明显的,这一方面表现为在考证方法上过多运用理证法,另一方面则表现出对新出土材料的忽视,因而他考证的某些结论也容易被地下出土的新材料所否定。Qian Mu was well known for textual criticism in his early age. XIANQINZHUZI XINIAN is considered one of his representative masterpieces in textual criticism. In the book, with the help of the scholars＇ books he restores their stories. In addition, with the use of the old version of ZHUSHUJINIAN he revises the errors of SHIJI. He hereby not only has an across-the-board textual criticism of the academic origins of Pre-Qin scholars and the date of their birth and death, but also lays a solid foundation for the study of the Warring States history by unearthing its truth buried in obscurity for two thousand years. However, due to the lack of the firsthand materials, Qian Mu mainly adopts the methods of looking through sorts of classics and comprehending documents, whose limitations are obvious. On the one hand, it relies too much on inferential method in the textual research ; on the other hand, he seems to have ignored newly unearthed materials. So, some of the conclusions drawn from his textual research may easily be disconfirmed by the newly unearthed materials.

关 键 词：钱穆 《先秦诸子系年》《竹书纪年》 诸子学 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]