高亨《老子》研究的考古新证——兼论文献考察与考古发现的互证问题

老聃著<老子>之说,曾因今本<老子>中明显的战国色彩和反儒非礼倾向而受到学界较为普遍的怀疑和否定,<老子>一书的成书时间也被确定为战国中期甚至后期.高亨先生则凭借对文献的悉心考察,找到了战国中期甚至前期典籍征引<老子>的材料,并发现了老聃一段鲜为人知的人生经历,从而坚持认为<老子>的原著者确是春秋末期与孔子同时的老聃,只是今本<老子>又有后人增益的成分.这一判断,恰被近年出土的帛书、特别是郭店楚简本<老子>所印证.本文的结论是,文献考察与考古发现各有局限,只有把两者结合起来,我们才能对老子及<老子>有一个更接近事实的认识.

Archeological Prove of GaoHeng Lao Zi Disquisition--on the inter-prove between literature review and archeological discover

The idea about Lao Dan who wrote Lao Zi ,had been doulted and negated in schools in a phase,because there are some contents in this book,which are belong to Zhanguo times,and there are a lot of anti Confucianism and anti amenity in it.This book had been thought that it was wrote in the middle or the later of zhanguo times.But Gao Heng sir review a lot of archaic literatures,and found some books that had cited Lao Zi, which were all wrote in the middle or forepart of Zhanguo times.Gao Heng sir also found a story about Lao Dan,which is seldom known.So,Gao Heng persisted in thinking that Lao Zi was indeed written by Lao Dan Who lived at the end of Chunqiu times,and was in the same time with Confucius.Only there are some contents in this book,which were added by later bookmen. This idea has been proved by the archeological discover,which are the silk book and the bamboo book of Lao Zi .Conclusion, both the archeological discover and the literature review are limited in some aspects,only combining them,we will have some ideas near the fact about Lao Dan and Lao Zi.