钱穆与老子其人其书的考证——兼论与胡适的争论

Text Research on Qian Mu and “Laozi and his book” On the Debate with Hu Shih

钱穆考证老子其人其书,承清人汪中、近人梁启超之后。《老子》为晚出之书,汪中已启其疑。然汪氏所疑,主要在《史记》所载老子其人其事,未能深探《老子》本书之内容。至梁启超,始疑及《老子》本书,但仍限于清儒旧辙。钱穆在汪、梁等人考证的基础上从时代背景、思想线索、文体修辞等方面对《老子》作了全方位、多层次、多视角的考察,认为《老子》一书成于庄子、惠施、公孙龙之后。胡适对坚持"晚出说"的学者考证《老子》年代问题的方法进行了全面的检讨和回击,特别是对使用"思想线索"论证法考证《老子》晚出提出了严厉批评。虽然"思想线索"的考证方法有不足之处,但是从方法论的角度看,钱穆注重时代背景和"思想线索"分析也有积极的意义。对钱穆关于老子其人其书的考证及其与胡适的争论进行回顾和梳理,有助于深化民国老学史的研究和认识。

Right after Wang Zhong of the Qing Dynasty and Liang Qichao of modern times, Ch＇ ien Mu examines Laozi himself and his book. Laozi is a late book about which Wang Zhong has already raised his doubts. However, Wang＇ s suspicion lies mainly in Laozi himself and his deeds in Records of the History, and fails to probe into the contents of the book Laozi. Starting from Liang Qichao, the doubt begins with the book Laozi but it still limited to the old rut of the Qing Dynasty. On the basis of textual research by Wang and Liang, Ch＇ien Mu made a comprehensive, multi-level and muhi-angle investigation on Laozi from the background of the times, ideological clues, stylistic rhetoric and so on, and considered that the book Laozi was written after Zhuangzi, Huishi and Gong Sunlong. Hu Shih has made a comprehensive review of the methods used by scholars who insist on ＂saying late＂ about the chronological problems of Laozi. In particular, harsh criticism has been made on the late appearance of Laozi by using the argumentation method of ＂thought clue＂. Although the textual research method of ＂thought clue＂ has some shortcomings, from the perspective of methodology, Ch＇ ien Mu＇ s emphasis on the background of the times and the analysis of ＂thought clue＂ also have positive significance. It is helpful to deepen the research and understanding of the history of the Republic of China by reviewing and combing through Ch＇ ien Mu＇ s textual research on Laozi himself and his book and Ch＇ ien Mu＇ s arguments with Hu Shih.