《十批判书》真的抄袭了《先秦诸子系年》？──评余英时的《互校记》

《十批判书》真的抄袭了《先秦诸子系年》？──评余英时的《互校记》翟清福［编者按］我们在这里发表翟清福先生的《〈十批判书〉真的抄袭了〈先秦诸子系年〉？──评余英时的〈互校记〉》一文,是为了有助于弄清楚＂一桩学术公案＂。郭沫若和钱穆两位前辈都是我们尊敬的...     

一桩学术公案的真相

一桩学术公案的真相——评余英时《〈十批判书〉与〈先秦诸子系年〉互校记》翟清福耿清珩１９５４年８、９两月，香港《人生》半月刊第８卷第６、７、８三期连载余英时先生的《郭沫若抄袭钱穆著作考——〈十批判书〉与〈先秦诸子系年〉互校记》（以下简称《互校记》）。作...     

钱穆与《先秦诸子系年》

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。     

钱穆与《国史大纲》

正若按当下的毕业文凭论,著名历史学家、国学大师钱穆只能是中师肄业。钱先生9岁入私塾,13岁入常州府中学堂学习,1911年因辛亥革命被迫辍学,这一年钱先生只有16岁。此后便开始了一生漫长的自学。1929年,钱穆先生任教苏州中学时,在教学之余依然不放弃学术研究,撰写了《先秦诸子系年》和《刘向刘歆年谱》等重要研究作品。四川蒙文通先生此时正在南京内学院跟     

《国学概论》"今文"、"古文"观商榷

经学研究是钱穆学术研究的重点之一,尤其是经学的今古问题。《国学概论》是钱氏早期经学研究的代表作。今敢就钱氏《国学概论》中所涉“今”“古”概念之运用提一商榷。钱氏今古观之误莫不在于固守先秦诸子晚出今之论;《概论》之弊,要不出“泛化”亦即混淆今古之争。究其原委,思想渊源系出于他对先秦诸子学的社会性质之认识,即先秦时“字已有古今,而实贵族、平民间一大分野也。”此说虽新意可喜,然不切历史事实之真相也。     

序《广东十三行考》

《广东十三行考》初版于 1937年 ,著者番梁嘉彬 ,时年仅 2 7岁。本世纪的 30年代 ,尽管国运危机四伏 ,文运却相当辉煌 ,可说是中国现代学术的一个花季。在中西会通的潮流激荡下 ,文史之学的名篇巨著成批涌现 ,令人叹为观止。陈寅恪的《四声三问》、陈垣的《元秘史译音用字考》、胡适的《醒世姻缘传考证》、钱穆的《先秦诸子系年》以及向达的《唐代长安与西域文明》等等 ,都是在这个时期问世的。当年风华正茂的梁嘉彬先生 ,身逢其盛 ,奋励潜研 ,为文化、为社会、也为自己的先人 ,呈献了三十来万字的《广东十三行考》,堪称 30年代学术上的“…     

宏博会通 寻源探本——钱穆先生《先秦诸子系年》的研究方法

钱穆先生的《先秦诸子系年》由“考辨”、“通表”两部分组成,他以《纪年》订《史记》,考证诸子年代、行事,注重宏博会通、寻源探本,具体运用了传统考据学中本证、旁证、理证、存疑等方法。     

读贺昌群《魏晋清谈思想初论》

贺昌群先生所著《魏晋清谈思想初论》,新近由商务印书馆作为《商务印书馆文库》之一种重新校排发行。该书出版于1947年,分上、中、下三篇。1974年,台湾三人行出版社曾将此书再版。1985年,中国社会科学出版社把该书“下篇”收入《贺昌群史学论著选》出版。在50多年后的今天,贺昌群先生的《魏晋清谈思想初论》全书能由商务印书馆再版重印,无疑是思想史界的一件可喜可贺的事情。就“五四”以来的学术界而言,研究中国思想史的学人多始于先秦诸子,精于先秦诸子,甚或终一生之力沉潜于此。对于魏晋玄学这一先秦诸子之后又一次思想绚烂的哲学与社会…     

《闲话扬州》风波的台前幕后

一本漫谈风土人情的小书,迅即惹上了官司不说,还引起国民政府高官显宦的关注,闹哄哄达半年之久,最后却不了了之。《〈闲话扬州〉风波的台前幕后》道出了个中缘由。     

《汉书·艺文志》与先秦诸子学术

先秦诸子是中国古代学术体系的重要组成部分,目前所见其基本学术框架是由《汉书·艺文志》建构的。然考诸史籍,《汉志》"诸子出于王官"之说既不见于先秦典籍记载,又与史实矛盾;"九流十家"学术派别的划分亦与先秦学术之实际不符。汉代复兴"官学"的学术思潮与"独尊儒术"的主流文化是造成《汉志》对先秦诸子学术评判偏失的主要原因。所以,"辨章学术,考镜源流",还先秦诸子以本来的学术面貌,是学术史研究的首要任务。*     

年谱散论

年谱起源问题 ,学术界有不同看法 ,但从实际出发 ,年谱起源于宋 ,这是有其历史条件的。年谱的出现为谱学发展开辟了一条新的途径 ,是史学发展的一个重要方面。年谱有自撰年谱 ,有谱主的朋友 ,门人弟子和子孙为之撰写的 ,这些年谱有溢美掩恶的弊病 ,但年谱在研究历史人物 ,研究历史上 ,其重要学术价值是明显的。年谱的写作有很高的要求。     

The Chronicle of Ireland: then and now

This is the first systematic analysis of the contents of the earliest monastic chronicle in the Latin west, the so‐called Chronicle of Ireland, which spans the years 431/2–911. It aims to establish the reasons for which the Chronicle was compiled, unravel the process of compilation, and challenge the generic classification of the Chronicle and other European chronicles of this kind as works of historiography. As an alternative, it is proposed that the Chronicle might have been compiled with an eschatological objective in mind. The present investigation is shown to have implications for our understanding of early medieval chronicling more generally.     

Chronicle for 2014

The information supplied by National Representatives has been supplemented from other sources. Readers are urged to send information, press releases, exhibition catalogues, etc., directly to the Chronicle Editor, Imago Mundi, 76 Ockendon Road, London N1 3NW, UK (info@tonycampbell.info), so that the next Chronicle can be as complete as possible. Chronicle considers all information that is current or historical at its closing date. No forthcoming events are included.     

Chronicle for 2015

The information supplied by National Representatives has been supplemented from other sources. Readers are urged to send information, press releases, exhibition catalogues, etc., directly to the Chronicle Editor, Imago Mundi, 76 Ockendon Road, London N1 3NW, UK (tony@tonycampbell.info), so that the next Chronicle can be as complete as possible. Chronicle considers all information that is current or historical at its closing date. No forthcoming events are included.     

Chronicle for 2017

The information supplied by National Representatives has been supplemented from other sources. Readers are urged to send information, press releases, exhibition catalogues, etc., directly to the Chronicle Editor, Imago Mundi, 76 Ockendon Road, London N1 3NW, UK (tony@tonycampbell.info), so that the next Chronicle can be as complete as possible. Chronicle considers all information that is current or historical at its closing date. Events after 2017 are not included.     

Imago Mundi Bibliography

 

The information supplied by National Representatives has been supplemented from other sources. Readers are urged to send information, press releases, exhibition catalogues, etc. directly to the Chronicle Editor, Imago Mundi, 76 Ockendon Road, London N1 3NW, UK (tony@tonycampbell.info), so that the next Chronicle can be as complete as possible. Chronicle considers all information that is current or historical at its closing date. Events after 2018 are not included.     

先秦丘制考略

丘在先秦社会中主要经历了两个历史发展阶段:丘居之丘及基层组织之丘。丘居形式之演变反映了人类聚居形式的发展变化,而作为基层社会组织之丘在殷商时期,其社会职能与邑相类,至两周时期,受到国野制度、赋税制度变革的影响,丘的社会职能和隶属关系也发生了一系列的变化。丘制的发展演变是研究先秦社会基层组织发展变化的一个重要剖面。     

The historicity of Jordan Fantosme's chronicle

A reassessment of the literary and aesthetic value of his Chronicle, undertaken in the course of preparing a new edition of that work, shows Jordan Fantosme to be vastly different from the feeble versifier, unable even to dispense accurately the twelve syllables of an Alexandrine line, he has sometimes been taken for. He is a highly competent and innovating prosodist and a talented story-teller quite capable of inventing or manipulating episodes for stylistic reasons, as is shown by reference to three of the vivid historical vignettes for which the Chronicle is frequently and somewhat misleadingly praised. It is suggested that historians should show caution before accepting as factually true incidents detailed by Jordan Fantosme which are not supported from other sources.     

《四库全书总目》纠误两则

于中国历史与文化的研究赐惠颇多的《四库全书总目》亦有纰漏之处,我们发现该书在明代史料鉴别上出现了两处失误:将《姜氏秘史》与《革除编年》、《续藏书》与《熙朝名臣实录》各自看作两本不同的书,并给予迥异的评价。通过考证,《革除编年》即《姜氏秘史》,《熙朝名臣实录》即《续藏书》。《四库全书总目》一书两收两评的失误,让我们体会到当时政治对学术的干预及做学问之难。     

Angli and Saxones in Æthelweard's Chronicle

The late tenth‐century Chronicle ascribed to Ealdorman Æthelweard frequently uses the word Angli in contexts where other writers employ Saxones. This has generally been attributed to a supposed project to cultivate English unity by privileging ‘Anglian’ terminology. The present article challenges this interpretation by highlighting Æthelweard's use of ‘Saxon’ vocabulary at key points in the text. Æthelweard's use of the words Angli and Saxones is best explained by the fact that he was writing for a continental Saxon reader, and his Chronicle strengthens the case for doubting that there was any coherent scheme to promote Anglian vocabulary.