錢穆《春秋》學論述及其所涉秦漢經學史

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 晚清民國時期僞經説蔚爲風潮，其中重大影響之一，在於康有爲、皮錫瑞今文經學史觀成爲後人省察秦漢學術之基線，當中存在著對經學、孔子學術、漢代學術的各項判定。然而他們的主張不僅爲古文學者如章太炎、劉師培所質疑，錢賓四先生亦就其經學史主張，提出切實的學術史觀與論述架構。五經中，《春秋》出於孔子之手，既史且經，性質特殊，尤其《春秋》在漢代被推崇，復爲今古文經學之爭的爭議核心，是以秦漢之際《春秋》學流變如何，實爲架構秦漢經學史的關鍵論題。錢先生《春秋》學論述有其特點，尤值得關注的是，其中含括錢先生對秦漢經學發展的特殊見解，是以本文先説明錢先生《春秋》學觀的基本立場，其次論述錢先生講論，作爲先秦王官學與諸子學交界的孔子《春秋》學，以及講論作爲古學、今學之論的漢代《春秋》學等三部分，説明錢先生《春秋》學説及其所涉經學史論述中，不同於今、古文經學者的辨真之見。 The studies of Confucian classics of Pre-Qin and Han times respectively by Kang Youwei (1858-1927) and Pi Xi-Rui (1850-1908) made significant impacts in the field. However, their views were questioned not only by scholars such as Zhang Taiyan (1869-1936) and Liu Shipei (1884 1919), but Qian Mu also proposed alternative interpretations and insightful discourses of his own. In particular, Qian raised a question: What special aspects of the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals) make this book a key to constructing the studies of Confucian Classics of pre-Qin and Han times? This article is a discussion of Qian Mu’s perspectives on this subject based on his discourses on Chunqiu studies. The discussion is divided into three parts: first, Qian’s perspectives on Chunqiu studies; second, his comments on Chunqiu studies of pre-Qin times; and third, his comments on Chunqiu studies of Han times. It then concludes with Qian’s comprehensive view on Chunqiu studies as well as his keen insight on relevant scholarship.