摘要
20世纪20年代自胡适否定井田制存在,开启井田有无之辨大讨论后,学术界对井田有无的总体倾向从20年代有无对垒、各持一端,到30年代对垒格局渐次打破、以否定为主,再到40年代在专业历史学家的积极参与下肯定论渐居上风,井田有无之辨不断沿着科学理性的轨道向前推进。从1949—1979年,在马克思主义唯物史观的指导下和中国古代社会形态与古史分期问题讨论的推动下,井田制度的研究进入了一个全面展开与深化的崭新阶段。在政治因素的主导下,除了极个别否定论者艰辛固守外,绝大多数学者都肯定井田制的存在。在特殊的政治背景下,学术界对胡适《井田辨》的批判,融入了更多带有时代烙印的非学术因素。20世纪80年代以来,井田制的研究逐渐摆脱了新中国成立后政治主导下种种非学术因素的干扰和影响,逐渐向着纵深方向推进。该阶段的井田有无之辨大体上呈现出肯定论者不断实现理论突破和否定论由沉寂再度趋于"活跃"两个颇为鲜明的特点,从而再度打破20世纪50年代以来在政治因素主导下井田制肯定论"渐趋统一"的格局。部分学者关于井田、井田制名实之辨的理性反思,颇有助于重新审视20世纪20年代以来井田有无之辨长期难以打破僵局、未能取得根本性突破的症结之关键所在。在今后的井田制研究中,学术界应深入系统地清理20世纪20年代以来井田有无之辨的学术思路,在马克思主义唯物史观科学理论的指导下,对前人已有的丰富研究成果进行科学地批判与吸收,并不断发掘新材料,创新研究方法,以求最终科学破解井田有无问题的历史真相。
In the 1920 s, Hu Shi denied the existence of the Well-field system and opened the greatdiscussion on the arguments of having well field or not. After that, the overall tendency of which in theacademic circles experienced a process of change, which expressed as the both standing facing eachother, that was to say each hold one end in the 1920 s, the pattern of confronting each other were brokenand giving priority with no in the 1930 s, the affirmative theory in the wind gradually under theparticipation of the professional historians in the 1940 s, the research was pushed head along the pathwayof the scientific rationality. From 1949 to 1979, the research on the Well-field system had entered into anew stage in full swing and deepening under Marxism historical materialism guidance and the pushingunder the discussion on the ancient Chinese society with the ancient history discussion stage. In theleading of political factors, most of the scholars affirmed the existence of the Well-field system except forthe rare deniers defended tenaciously with hardships. The criticism on Hu Shi's the Well-fieldDistinguish of the academic circles had integrated with non-academic factors with times brand under thespecific political background. In this stage. The study on the Well-field system had been out of theinterference and influence of a variety of non-academic factors under the dominant of the politics sincethe founding of China and pushed ahead in the depth. In the stage, the distinguish of having the wellfield or not presented two bright characteristics, which were the affirmatives had realized the broken ofthe theory constantly and the negativism had shifted from quiet to active again, so it was broken onceagain that the gradually unified pattern of the affirmative theory on the Well-field system. The rationalreflection of some scholars on the distinguish about the well field and the name and reality of theWell-field system were conducive to reexamine the key of the argument about having the well field ornot difficult to brea
出处
《河南社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第1期100-112,124,共13页
Henan Social Sciences
基金
苏州大学第三批东吴学者资助计划项目(R5103001)
苏州大学2013年度"卓越人才培养计划"项目高水平新课程建设项目(5832003813)
关键词
井田
井田制
《井田辨》
井田有无
Well Field
the Well-field System
the Well-field Distinguish
Having the Well Field or Not
