從理學到道學到宋學－宋明新儒學（Neo-Confucianism）概念的受容及其研究視域

From Li Xue to Dao Xue to Song School: The Acceptance of the Concept of Neo Confucianism and Its Research Vision

連凡(Fan LIAN)

宋明新儒家 ； 宋明新儒學 ； 宋學 ； 道學 ； 理學 ； Neo-Confucian ； Neo-Confucianism ； Song School ； Dao Xue ； Li Xue

哲學與文化

49卷9期（2022 / 09 / 01）

127 - 142

繁體中文

由入華耶穌會士柏應理等人編譯、1687年在巴黎出版的《中國哲學家孔子》中首次使用「現代解釋者」一詞來指稱程朱理學家，由此派生的近代Neo-Confucian（ism）概念，在19世紀末20世紀初為入華基督教傳教士以及岡倉天心（1903－1906）和胡適（1917）等學者所受容，在1926年首次被馮友蘭翻譯為中文新儒家（學）概念，其後經過卜德、陳榮捷、狄百瑞等人的推廣而成為海內外通行的專有名詞。Neo-Confucian（ism）概念在其流傳與受容過程中經歷了從程朱理學（狹義）、到道學（基本義）、再到宋學（廣義）的意義演變，意味著必須從歷史脈絡與思想體系出發界定其意義和範圍，同時也體現了宋明新儒學的研究視域從宗教觀念、哲學義理到思想文化領域的擴展。

The term ＂Neoterici Intérpretes＂ was first used to refer to Cheng Zhu Neo Confucian (ism) in Confucius Sinarum Philosophus, compiled by Philippe Couplet, a Jesuit in China, and published in Paris in 1687. The derived Modern Neo Confucian (ism) concept was accepted by British and American Christian journals in China and scholars such as Kakuzo Okakura (1903-1906) and Hu Shi (1917) in the late 19th and early 20th century, In 1926, Feng Youlan translated the concept of ＂Neo Confucianism＂ into Chinese ＂Xin Ru Jia (Xue)＂ for the first time. Later, it became a proper term commonly used at home and abroad through the promotion of Derk Bodde, Wing-Tsit Chan, William Theodore de Bary. The concept of Neo Confucian (ism) has experienced the meaning evolution from Cheng Zhu Li Xue (narrow sense), to Dao Xue (basic sense), and then to Song School (broad sense), which means that its significance and scope must be defined from the historical context and ideological system. At the same time, it also reflects the expansion of the vision and position of the study of Neo Confucianism from religious concept, philosophical theory to the field of ideology and culture.

1. Review, “Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie by Dr. Paul Deussen,” The Monist 19.3(1909): 474-476.
2. Chao, K. C. “The Ideals of New China,” The Chinese Recorder (1919.1): 11.
3. De Bary, William Theodore(1994).Reply to Hoyt Cleveland Tillman.Philosophy East and West,44(1),143-144.
4. De Bary, William Theodore(1953).A Reappraisal of Neo-Confucianism.Studies in Chinese Thought,Chicago:
5. De Bary, William Theodore(1993).The Uses of Neo-Confucianism: A Response to Professor Tillman.Philosophy East and West,43(3),541-555.
6. Fung, Yu-lan. “Why China Has No Science: An Interpretation of the History and Consequences of Chinese Philosophy,” International Journal of Ethics 32.3 (1922): 237-263.
7. Fung, Yu-lan. A Comparative Study of Life Ideals. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1924.
8. Fung, Yu-lan & Derk Bodde. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. New York, London: Free Press; Macmillan; Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1948.
9. Fung, Yu-lan & Bodde Derk. “The Rise of Neo-Confucianism and Its Borrowings from Buddhism and Taoism,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 7.2(1942): 89-125.
10. Fung, Yu-lan,Bodde, Derk(Trans.)(1953).A History of Chinese Philosophy.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
11. Hu, Shih. The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China. Shanghai: The Oriental Book Company, 1922.
12. Intorcetta, Prospero, Filippo Couplet, Christian Herdtrich and François de Rougemont, Confucius Sinarum philosophus, sive scientia Sinensis Latine exposita. Parisiis: Apud Danielem Horthemels, 1687.
13. Okakura, Kakuzo. The Awakening of Japan. New York: The Century Co, 1904.
14. Okakura, Kakuzo. The Book of Tea. New York: Fox, Duffield, 1906
15. Okakura, Kakuzo(2007).Ideal of the East: With Special Reference to the Art of Japan.Berkeley:Stone Bridge Press.
16. Soothill, W. E. “The Use of the Christian Scholar in Literature,” The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (1910): 343.
17. The Christian Literature Society for China. “Impressions of China’s Religion: Lecture at Royal Asiatic Society,” The North - China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette (1915.11): 393.
18. The Christian Literature Society for China, “The Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge among the Chinese,” The North-China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette (1896): 1068.
19. Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland(1994).The Uses of Neo-Confucianism, Revisited: A Reply to Professor de Bary.Philosophy East and West,44(1),135-142.
20. Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland(1992).A New Direction in Confucian Scholarship: Approaches to Examining the Differences between Neo-Confucianism and Tao-hsüeh.Philosophy East and West,42(3),455-474.
21. 方旭東(2019).新儒學義理要詮.北京:生活．讀書．新知三聯書店.
22. 田浩(2003)。儒學研究的一個新指向——新儒學與道學之間差異的檢討。宋代思想史論，北京:
23. 田浩(1997).功利主義儒家——陳亮對朱熹的挑戰.南京:江蘇人民出版社.
24. 田浩(2002).朱熹的思維世界.西安:陝西師範大學出版社.
25. 田浩,徐波（譯）(2019)。宋代思想史的再思考。復旦學報，61(1)，14-22。
26. 朱漢民,王琦(2015)。「宋學」的歷史考察與學術分疏。中國哲學史，2015(4)，80-86。
27. 牟宗三(2003).從陸象山到劉蕺山.臺北:聯合報系文化基金會.
28. 吾妻重二(2003)。美國的宋代思想研究——最近的情況。宋代思想史論，北京:
29. 李石岑，《人生哲學》，上海：商務印書館，1926。
30. 狄百瑞(1996).東亞文明——五個階段的對話.南京:江蘇人民出版社.
31. 車銘深，〈論新儒家的理和欲〉，《東方雜誌》34.1(1937): 283-293。
32. 胡秋原，〈新儒學之道路（學術論著）〉，《新中國》9.7(1945): 15-56。
33. 韋政通（編）(1983).中國哲學辭典大全.臺北:水牛出版社.
34. 梅謙立,王格(2017)。超越二元，邁向統一——耶穌會士衛方濟《中國哲學》（1711年）及其儒家詮釋學的初探。哲學與文化，44(11)，45-61。
35. 陳來(2004).宋明理學.上海:華東師範大學出版社.
36. 陳榮捷(1982).朱學論集.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
37. 景海峰（編）(2000).理一分殊.上海:上海文藝出版社.
38. 馮友蘭，〈朱熹哲學〉，《清華學報》7.2(1932): 23-46。
39. 馮友蘭，〈韓愈、李翱在中國哲學史中之地位〉，《清華週刊》37.9[10](1932): 3-4。
40. 馮友蘭，《中國哲學史》下冊，上海：商務印書館，1934。
41. 馮友蘭，《人生哲學》，上海：商務印書館，1926。
42. 綏之，〈新儒家與基督教文化之關係〉，《文化導報》3.4-5(1943): 22-34。
43. 葉秋原，〈基督教與新儒家〉，《東方雜誌》40.2(1943): 21-23。
44. 劉述先(2001)。馮友蘭與「新儒學」。二十一世紀，67，135-138。
45. 蔡仲德(1995)。馮友蘭與「新儒學」一詞在中國。東方文化，8(3)，31-33。
46. 蔡仲德(1994).馮友蘭先生年譜初編.鄭州:河南人民出版社.
47. 謝扶雅，《人格教育論》，上海：青年學會書報部，1928。
48. 謝扶雅，《中國倫理思想述要》，廣州：嶺南大學書局，1928。
49. 蘇費翔(2020)。創新與宇宙論：「(Neo-)Confucianism」一詞早期的用法。湖南大學學報（社會科學版），34(3)，29-34。