朱陆之争与朱熹陆九渊往来书信的佚缺
|
摘要
朱熹、陆九渊二人多次发生学术之争,其学术争辩多通过往来书信互探疑义。但朱、陆往来书信多有佚缺者,似当出自有意之所为。首先,佚缺的朱熹、陆九渊往来书信,其部分内容、文句,皆含有表彰、服膺对方学说,或观照对方观点而反思、反省己说的文字。但在朱、陆身后,随着论争的激化,二人之后学皆不能接受其师竟然接受或服膺对方之说,如此则只能将此类书信隐匿,而拒绝收入朱、陆二人的文集之中,终至佚缺。其次,为证明对方服膺己说,朱熹、陆九渊在引录对方书信时,屡有删略文字以使对方文字看起来符合己意。最后,朱熹引录陆九渊书信文字,多是为批评陆说以伸张自己的观点,而陆九渊引录朱熹书信文字,却大多是为证明朱说实与自己的观点相同。此一现象可说明在晚宋乃至稍后的学界内,大抵处于朱主陆从的状态。分析朱熹、陆九渊往来书信的佚缺现象以及形成原因,可知此类现象往往是因为编纂其文集、著述之后学的有意作为,以便能与其坚持之学说相符合。此当引起今日阅读、研究者的充分注意。
Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan had many academic disputes, and their academic disputes were mostly transmitted through correspondence.However, there are many missing letters between them, among which there are intentional factors.First of all, the missing correspondence contains the words of approving the other partys doctrine or reflecting on oneself. With the intensification of the dispute between Zhu and Lu, their students could not accept their teachersacceptance of each others opinions, so they hid such letters and refused to be included in the anthologies of Zhu and Lu. Secondly, in order to prove that the other side agrees with their own views, Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan often delete words to make the other sides words appear to be in line with their own intentions when quoting the other sides letters. Thirdly, Zhu Xi quoted Lu Jiuyuans letters mostly for criticizing Lu to stretch his own point of view, while Lu Jiuyuan quoted Zhu Xis letters mostly to prove that Zhu is the same as his own point of view. This phenomenon can be explained that in the late Song Dynasty and later academic circles, Zhu Xis theory dominated the situation. By analyzing the missing phenomena of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuans correspondence and their causes, it can be seen that such phenomena are often studentsintentional actions. This should attract the full attention of todays readers and researchers.
Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan had many academic disputes, and their academic disputes were mostly transmitted through correspondence.However, there are many missing letters between them, among which there are intentional factors.First of all, the missing correspondence contains the words of approving the other partys doctrine or reflecting on oneself. With the intensification of the dispute between Zhu and Lu, their students could not accept their teachersacceptance of each others opinions, so they hid such letters and refused to be included in the anthologies of Zhu and Lu. Secondly, in order to prove that the other side agrees with their own views, Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan often delete words to make the other sides words appear to be in line with their own intentions when quoting the other sides letters. Thirdly, Zhu Xi quoted Lu Jiuyuans letters mostly for criticizing Lu to stretch his own point of view, while Lu Jiuyuan quoted Zhu Xis letters mostly to prove that Zhu is the same as his own point of view. This phenomenon can be explained that in the late Song Dynasty and later academic circles, Zhu Xis theory dominated the situation. By analyzing the missing phenomena of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuans correspondence and their causes, it can be seen that such phenomena are often studentsintentional actions. This should attract the full attention of todays readers and researchers.
引文
[1]朱熹.晦庵先生朱文公文集[M]//朱杰人、严佐之、刘永翔.朱子全书,上海,合肥:上海古籍出版社,安徽教育出版社,2002.
[2]陆九渊.陆九渊集[M].北京:中华书局,1980.
[3]束景南.朱熹年谱长编[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[4]黎靖德.朱子语类[M].北京:中华书局,1986.
(1)顾宏义:《朱熹与陆九渊兄弟往来书信编年考证》,载《兰州学刊》2016年第7期。按:子澄,刘清之字;无垢,张九成号。
(2)《晦庵集》卷三三《答吕伯恭》(便中辱书教),第1445页。按:子寿,陆九龄字。
(3)《晦庵集》卷四七《答吕子约》(示喻缕缕具悉),第2190页。按:程敏政:《篁墩文集》(上海古籍出版社《文渊阁四库全书》本)卷三八《书朱子答吕子约书》略云:“按此书朱子未与陆子相见时语。所谓脱略文字,直趋本根,与《中庸》先学问思辨而后笃行之说,乃朱、陆最异处。”
(4)《晦庵集》卷四七《答吕子约》(所示内外两进之意),第2191页。参见顾宏义:《朱熹与陆九渊兄弟往来书信编年考证》,载《兰州学刊》2016年第7期。
(5)《篁墩文集》卷三八《书朱陆二先生所论无极书后》。
(6)虞集:《道园学古录》卷四○《跋朱先生答陆先生书》,上海古籍出版社《文渊阁四库全书》本。
(7)《篁墩文集》卷三八《书虞道园所跋朱陆帖》。
[2]陆九渊.陆九渊集[M].北京:中华书局,1980.
[3]束景南.朱熹年谱长编[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[4]黎靖德.朱子语类[M].北京:中华书局,1986.
(1)顾宏义:《朱熹与陆九渊兄弟往来书信编年考证》,载《兰州学刊》2016年第7期。按:子澄,刘清之字;无垢,张九成号。
(2)《晦庵集》卷三三《答吕伯恭》(便中辱书教),第1445页。按:子寿,陆九龄字。
(3)《晦庵集》卷四七《答吕子约》(示喻缕缕具悉),第2190页。按:程敏政:《篁墩文集》(上海古籍出版社《文渊阁四库全书》本)卷三八《书朱子答吕子约书》略云:“按此书朱子未与陆子相见时语。所谓脱略文字,直趋本根,与《中庸》先学问思辨而后笃行之说,乃朱、陆最异处。”
(4)《晦庵集》卷四七《答吕子约》(所示内外两进之意),第2191页。参见顾宏义:《朱熹与陆九渊兄弟往来书信编年考证》,载《兰州学刊》2016年第7期。
(5)《篁墩文集》卷三八《书朱陆二先生所论无极书后》。
(6)虞集:《道园学古录》卷四○《跋朱先生答陆先生书》,上海古籍出版社《文渊阁四库全书》本。
(7)《篁墩文集》卷三八《书虞道园所跋朱陆帖》。