“超今文学”与近现代经史转型

1930年前后，“今古”之见支配民国史学界，顾颉刚有意发起新一轮的“今古文论战”，“超今文学”逐渐成为学界焦点。胡适提出“回到廖平”，重审廖平以礼制平分今古的合理性；钱穆以史事澄清秦汉学术演化轨迹，解决近代今古文之争，反对于经说中强求异同；钱玄同、顾颉刚进一步将今古文问题史学化，从“辨伪”与“析学”的层面明确主张超越经今古文问题；廖平门生蒙文通、李源澄发展经史分流观，以“理想”与“陈迹”区分今古，实践以国故整理科学。以20世纪三四十年代民国学界“超今文学”的学术纠葛为线索，揭示民国学术的多元流变与各派学人的学术旨趣，展现近现代经史转型过程中沟通中西新旧的多种取径，融汇各家超越经今古之争的方法与宗旨，或利于反思进而丰富时下史学研究，使史学研究成为确立文明主体性的源头活水。

Beyond the Jinwen and the Transformation from Classics to Historiography in Modern China

In the Qing dynasty, the dispute between Jinwen and Guwen was a part of the disputes of Sinology between Neo-Confucianism, and the dispute evolved into a pivot of political and academic transformation in the late Qing and early Republic of China. With a view to reforming the ritual system by returning to the ancient political system, the movement which systematized national cultural heritage and discussed ancient history focused on differentiating and analyzing classics documents in order to eliminate the rationality of the political and educational system in Confucian ethics and rites. In the modern time, the New Culture generation of scholars promoted the historiography of classics. However, it is necessary to further probe into the academic division within traditional Chinese scholarship, and to study how the academic methods, issues and ideas inherited by scholars of different schools were developed and transcended by scholars of the Republic of China, leading to a pluralistic path in response to the integration of Chinese and western civilizations. In the 1930s, the historiography of classics had become a foregone conclusion. How to transcend the dispute of Jinwen and Guwen and deal with the ideas, methods and materials of classics in the way of history became the focus of the academic circle, thus opening a new round of controversy between Jinwen and Guwen. Scholars such as Qian Xuantong, Gu Jiegang and Meng Wentong called it “Beyond the Jinwen”, and this transcendence and transformation became the starting point for scholars to practice new academic studies. In the academic circle of the Republic of China, there were different ways to inherit and surpass traditional Confucian classics. In the historical concept of the Guwen, the Six Classics were regarded as the ancient political documents, and the ancient history was separated from the spirit of Confucianism. The New Culture generation of scholars aimed to construct a course of internal cultural evolution course by means of historiography so as to change the study of classics into historiography, and construct the framework of Chinese cultural history without being limited by the Confucian re-creation of Chinese standard culture. The scholar Hu Shi put forward the idea of “returning to Liao Ping” to review the rationality of Liao Ping's division of Jinwen and Guwen by the system of rites. The scholar Qian Mu traced the academic evolution of Qin and Han dynasties by historical facts, solved the dispute between Jinwen and Guwen, and was opposed to forced similarities and differences in the classics. Qian Xuantong and Gu Jiegang took a perspective of explicatory and analytical study, further historicized the issue of Jinwen and Guwen, and advocated going beyond the dispute over Jinwen and Guwen. Gu Jiegang advocated that Beyond the Jinwen should absorb the criticism of Neo-Confucianism and the textual research of Sinology, so as to get rid of the old and bring forth the new, and clarify the evolution of Chinese history and culture. Based on Jinwen, Meng Wentong and Li Yuancheng emphasized the dynamic interaction of Classics, institution, and historical facts, and sort out Science with national cultural heritage. They attempted to carry forward the New Confucianism of Qin and Han dynasties to establish the core values of Chinese civilization and construct the dynamic relationship between Confucianism and historical evolution. They started the Confucianism-oriented historiography in the modern academic context. By examining the historical context in which various schools of thought have transcended the debate between Jinwen and Guwen, and by integrating methods and objectives, we can not only examine the complex connotation of the transformation of modern classics and history, but also reflect on and enrich the methods and significance of current historical studies, in order to turn historical studies into the source of the subjectivity of civilization.