《经法》等四篇学派研究重探  

A New Research of the School Adscription of the Four Texts of Jingfa and So On

作　　者：李锐[1] Li rui

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学历史学院史学研究所

出　　处：《哲学门》2015年第1期41-57,共17页Beida Journal of Philosophy

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年自选项目“新出简帛与百家争鸣的重要论题研究”(12CZS013);国家社科基金重大项目“出土简帛文献与古代中国哲学新发现综合研究”(11&ZD086);“中国国家起源研究的理论与方法”(12&ZD133)子课题;霍英东教育基金会第十四届高等院校青年教师基础性研究课题“新出战国简与先秦人性论研究”(141101);上海085社会学学科内涵建设科研项目的资助。

摘　　要：马王堆汉墓《经法》等四篇自公布以来,关注者众多。对其学派以及相关的形成年代等问题的讨论,一直存在争议,很多中外知名学者都发表了自己的意见。本文在参考诸家之说的基础上,认为《经法》等四篇未必是一个整体;并探讨“黄老学派”的来源,区分了两种黄老,指出《经法》等四篇不是严格的黄老作品,归之于道法家等名称也有疑问。当前我们不必急于判定其学派归属,不排除某些篇章不属于黄老之学的可能性。Many people have paid close attention to the four texts of Jingfa and so on since they were unearthed from the Han dynasty tomb on Mawangdui.A great deal of famous researchers of China and foreign countries have reported their views,and their controversies often focus on the school adscription and the interrelated coming date of these texts.Based on their opinions,my view is that the four texts of Jingfa and so on are not necessarily an entirety,and not strict Huanglao school's texts or Daofa school and so forth,after tracing to the source of Huanglao school and then distinguishing two types of it.Nowadays,we may not hurry to confirm the school adscription of these texts for we cannot eliminate the possibility that some texts are not Huanglaoschool's texts.

关 键 词：马王堆 经法 黄老 

分 类 号：K87[历史地理—考古学及博物馆学]