頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 錢穆論清學史述評=Qian Mu's View of Qing Intellectual History |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 汪榮祖; | 書刊名 | 臺大歷史學報 |
| 卷 期 | 26 2000.12[民89.12] |
| 頁 次 | 頁99-119 |
| 專 輯 | 錢穆與現代中國史學 |
| 分類號 | 627 |
| 關鍵詞 | 錢穆; 梁啟超; 中國近三百年學術史; 清代思想史; Qian Mu; Liang Qichao; Qing intellectual history; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 本文以錢著《中國近三百年學術史》為主，評述錢穆研究清代學術史的成果。錢氏寫作之前，已見梁啟超所撰同書名之作。比較兩書，可見兩人思想與學術之異同。大致而言，論清初學者，錢梁略同；論清中葉學者，錢惡樸學之鄙宋攻朱，頗多譏評，而梁則認為乾嘉考據，甚具實誰主義精神而好之。至於晚清，經今文興，梁隨康有為之後，為此一運動的推動者和宣揚者，自道有啟蒙之功。然錢穆一本尊崇宋儒之心，以及信仰朱子之執著，痛抵今文玫制說之荒謬，甚不恥康之剿竊與武斷，視之為清學覆亡的罪魁禍首。於此可見，錢著與梁著立異之處，要在意識型態的不同，尚可見漢宋門戶之見的遺影，並未能在思想史方法上，有所突破。他仍採傳統的學案體，故未能將各種議題展開來討論，學術思想從一時代到另一時代轉進的過程，因而難詳，更難能顯示時代的深層動力，也不足以細究學術思想之間的相互關係，以及對時代的實際影響。一部以現代思想史方法書寫的清代學術思想史，猶有待於來者。 |
| 英文摘要 | This paper is a critical appraisal of Qian Mu’s study of Qing intellectual history, focusing on his well-known book entitled Zhongguo jinsanbainian xueshushi (A history of Qing scholarship during the recent three hundred years). Attention is given to several basic questions: What incentive did Qian Mu have in mind when he embarked on writing this history of Qing scholarship? How did he handle his sources? Did he argue reasonably and logically? What was the form of his historical exposition? Would his admission of anti-Manchu prejudice affect his thinking and interpretation on Qing scholars? Generally, would his study of Qing scholars represent a high-level craft as an intellectual historian? Qian’s intellectual history basically follows the traditional xuean style of writing. Hence, it is mainly a collection of short intellectual biographies from Huang Zongxi to Kang Youwei with annotated commentaries. Each chapter begins with a brief biographical note before highlighting principal ideas and thoughts, showing little transition of ideas and thoughts from one period to another. In general, Qian’s views of early Qing scholars had few, if any, differences from his predecessor, Liang Qichao, who had written the exactly same titled book. The interpretations of middle-period Qing scholars, however, show a sharp contrast between Qian and Liang, mainly because of Qian’s strong preference for Neo-Confucianism. He showed virtually no tolerance for those who criticized Zhu Xi, whom he considered the greatest Confucian scholar next only to Confucius himself. On the other hand, Liang praised the empirical research of mid-Qing scholars, which he cherished as the source of modern Chinese scholarship. As for the late Qing period, Qian had no respect whatsoever to the rise of New-text Con扣cianism and condemned its application to political reform, which he denounced as arbitrary and farfetched. He thus held Kang Y ouwei in great contempt. In Qian's opinion, Kang's arbitrariness and inconsistency delivered such a fatal blow to traditional Chinese scholarship that later scholars would have to start all over again. On the contrary,的the principal disciple of Kang, Liang honored the New-text movement as the force that had enlightened a new generation of scholars. The different conclusions drawn from the studies of the same subject made manifest the contrast in personal background and ideology between the authors. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。