钱穆《先秦诸子系年》学术价值的再审视——以与胡适《中国哲学史大纲》的比较为中心  

The Academic Value of Qian Mu's The Chronicle of Pre-Qin Philosophers:A Comparison to Hu Shi's The Outline of History of Chinese Philosophy

作　　者：韩博韬[1] HAN Botao

机构地区：[1]山东大学儒学高等研究院,250100

出　　处：《历史教学问题》2023年第3期125-131,214,共8页History Research And Teaching

基　　金：国家哲学社会科学基金重大项目“多卷本《20世纪中国史学通史》”(17ZDA196)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：钱穆《先秦诸子系年》在民国时期曾被“经典化”,新中国的历史上先是经历“冷遇”,新时期则重获“热捧”。此书之所以能备受出版界的“崇拜”,主要原因在它具有“超越《史记》”的名头,但此说并不能成立。若将此书与并不把考证诸子生卒年作为主要工作的胡适《中国哲学史大纲》进行比较,在先秦十位重要思想家的生卒年及行迹方面,《系年》并未取得关键性突破。钱穆“墨子生年继孔子卒年,孟子生年继墨子卒年”的独断先秦文化周期观,出现了“先秦诸子生死轮回”的吊诡之境,具有将“思想谱系”冠以“帝王世系”之嫌,严重影响了钱著划定先秦诸子系年的学术可靠性。In the 2oth century,The Chronicle of Pre-Qin Philosophers(Xianqin zhuzi xinian)by Qian Mu was first"canonized"in the Republican period,then met with"coldness"in the early PRC era and regained"warm support"in the reform time.The publishing industry praised highly of the book for it was said to have"surpassed Records of the Historian"(Shiji),but the book was actually not so great.If we compare this book with Hu Shi's The Outline of History of Chinese Philosophyy(Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang),which did not do substantial research on the birth and death year of the philosophers,Qian's book did not make a key breakthrough on that,either.Qian Mu claimed thatt"the birth year of Mozi followed the death year of Confucius,and the birth year of Mencius followed the death year of Mozi".Such a view led to the strangee"life and death cycle"of the pre-Qin philosophers.It seemed that Qian turned the intellectual genealogy into an imperial one,which significantly reduced the credibility of the pre-Qin chronicle he had drawn.

关 键 词：《先秦诸子系年》 钱穆 《中国哲学史大纲》 胡适 《史记》 

分 类 号：B22[哲学宗教—中国哲学]