Abstract:During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Philippe Couplet, a Jesuit who entered China, and others first used the concepts of “neoterici intérpretes” (modern interpreters) in Latin in Confucius Sinarum Philosophus published in Paris in 1687 to refer to Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism who deviated from the original Confucianism in their new interpretation of Confucian classics and its atheistic tendency. The derived concept of “Neo-Confucian(ism)” was used by the Christian missionaries in China at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century and Western academic circles to refer to Neo-Confucianism, which fused the three religions to restore the religious tradition of the Pre-Qin Dynasty and constructed a metaphysical system for Confucianism. Okakura Kakuzo (1903) and Hu Shi (1917) are known Japanese and Chinese scholars who used and expounded the concept of “Neo-Confucian(ism)” under the Western influence.Feng Youlan first translated “Neo-Confucian(ism)” into the Chinese concept of “Xin Ruxue” in 1926. Then Li Shicen (1926), Xie Fuya (1928), Chen Yinke (1934) and others also expounded the “Xin Ruxue” concept, which makes it a popular academic term in China. Although out of the need of constructing the ideological history system of Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties and the ambiguity of the meaning of the concept of Neo-Confucianism, after the end of 1932, Feng Youlan used the traditional concept of “Daoxue” which includes the Cheng-Zhu School and the Lu-Wang School. However, the American scholar Derk Bodde used the Western concept of “Neo-Confucian(ism)” to translate “Daoxue” in Feng Youlan’s works, which promoted the dissemination of the concept of “Neo-Confucian(ism)” in the academic circles both at home and abroad. Finally, William Theodore de Bary, the leader of “Columbia School”, played a decisive role in the popularization of the concept of “Neo-Confucian(ism)” and the elucidation of the modern value of Neo-Confucianism.The concept of Neo-Confucianism has experienced the meaning evolution from Cheng-Zhu School (narrow sense), to Daoxue or the Song-Ming Lixue (basic sense), and then to the Song School (broad sense). At first, it refers to the Cheng-Zhu School and its Neo-Confucianism in East Asia (Zhu Xi School) formed after its introduction into Korea and Japan, that is, the new interpretation of Confucian classics toward metaphysics and atheism and emphasizes the transcendence of Pre-Qin Confucianism. Since the early 20th Century, it has been used to refer to the Daoxue of the Song and Ming Dynasties, including the Cheng-Zhu School and Lu-Wang School, that is, the trend of Daoxue that returns to the tradition of Pre-Qin Confucianism and constructs a metaphysical system, emphasizing the return of Pre-Qin Confucianism. Since the late 20th Century, it has been used to refer to Songxue, that is, the trend of Song Studies characterized by the interpretation of righteousness and theory and moral practice, emphasizing the transcendence of the study of chapter and sentence exegesis in the Han and Tang Dynasties. The expansion of the meaning scope of “Neo-Confucianism” and the dilution of its religious color reflect the expansion of the visual paradigm of Western Sinology research from religious ideas and philosophical principles to the field of ideology and culture.All in all, the Western concept of “Neo-Confucianism” and the traditional Chinese concepts of “Songxue”, “Daoxue” and “Lixue” have their profound historical background and ideological connotation, and there are complex negotiation relations between them. Therefore, we must clearly define the meaning and relationship of these concepts from the perspective of historical development and logical structure (ideological system). The concept of “Neo-Confucian(ism)” created by the West has been completely Sinicized in the process of its spread, which is marked by the formation of the Chinese concept of “Xin Ruxue” and its deep integration with the history of Chinese thought and its concepts. In addition, it does reveal the historical fact that the Neo-Confucianism and the thoughts of previous generations have both inheritance (continuity) and transcendence (discontinuity). At present, it has become a trend that it is in parallel with the concept of Chinese traditional Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties. This also reflects the interaction and integration of academic circles both at home and abroad.
连凡. “Neo-Confucian(ism)”概念的历史演变及其思想史定位[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2023, 53(2): 67-84.
Lian Fan. Evolution of the Concept of "Neo-Confucian(ism)" and Its Ideological Orientation. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(2): 67-84.
1 刘述先: 《冯友兰与“新儒学”》,《二十一世纪》2001年第5期,第135-138页。 2 刘述先: 《论儒家哲学的三个大时代》,香港:香港中文大学出版社,2008年。 3 Mou B. (ed.), History of Chinese Philosophy, London, New York: Routledge, 2009. 4 德]苏费翔: 《创新与宇宙论:“(Neo-)Confucianism”一词早期的用法》,《湖南大学学报(社会科学版)》2020年第3期,第29-34页。 5 Mungello D. E., Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, 1985. 6 美]詹启华: 《在倒塌的偶像与高贵的梦想之间——中国思想史领域的札记》,见[美]田浩编: 《宋代思想史论》,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003年,第30-76页。 7 Fêng Y. & Bodde D., A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, London: Macmillan, 1948. 8 陈俊民: 《道学与宋学、新儒学、新理学通论》,见葛荣晋、赵馥洁、赵吉惠主编: 《张载关学与实学》,西安:西安地图出版社,2000年,第409-423页。 9 Couplet P., Intorcetta P. & Herdtrich C. et al., Confucius Sinarum Philosophus, Sive Scientia Sinensis Latine Exposita, Parisiis: Apud Danielem Horthemels, 1687. 10 美]孟德卫: 《奇异的国度:耶稣会适应政策及汉学的起源》,陈怡译,郑州:大象出版社,2010年。 11 法]梅谦立、王格: 《超越二元,迈向统一——耶稣会士卫方济〈中国哲学〉(1711年)及其儒家诠释学的初探》,《哲学与文化》2017年第11期,第45-61页。 12 王格: 《“中国哲学”何以正当的最早论说——明清之际西人之证言》,《哲学研究》2019年第7期,第57-66页。 13 Anon., “The society for the diffusion of Christian and general knowledge among the Chinese,” The North-China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette (1870-1941), 1896-12-18, p. 1068. 14 Soothill W. E., “The use of the Christian scholar in literature,” The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (1868-1912), 1910-05-01, p. 343. 15 Anon., “Reviewed work: anti-pragmatisme, examen des droits respectifs de l’aristocratie intellectuelle et de la démocratie sociale by Albert Schinz, Bryn Mawr,” The Monist, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1909), pp. 474-476. 16 岡倉天心: 『日本の目覚め』,夏野広訳,東京:中央公論社,1979年。 17 日]吾妻重二: 《美国的宋代思想研究——最近的情况》,见[美]田浩编: 《宋代思想史论》,杨立华、吴艳红等译,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003年,第7-29页。 18 金春峰: 《冯友兰哲学生命历程》,北京:中囯言实出版社,2004年。 19 冯友兰: 《人生哲学》,见《三松堂全集》第2卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年。 20 冯友兰: 《四十年的回顾》,见《三松堂全集》第14卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年。 21 翟志成: 《冯友兰彻底的民族主义思想的形成和发展:一八九五——一九四五》,《大陆杂志》1999年第1—3期,第29-36,61-69,114-127页。 22 李石岑: 《人生哲学》,上海:商务印书馆,1926年。 23 谢扶雅: 《人格教育论》,上海:青年协会书局,1928年。 24 谢扶雅: 《中国伦理思想述要》,广州:岭南大学书局,1928年。 25 冯友兰: 《韩愈李翱在中国哲学史中之地位》,见《三松堂全集》第11卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年,第252-254页。 26 冯友兰: 《中国哲学史(下)》,见《三松堂全集》第3卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年。 27 冯友兰: 《朱熹哲学》,《清华学报》1932年第7卷第2期,第23-46页。 28 冯友兰: 《宋明道学中理学心学二派之不同》,《清华学报》1933年第1期,第1-10页。 29 冯友兰: 《宋明道学中理学心学二派之不同》,见《三松堂全集》第11卷,郑州:河南人民出版社,2001年,第255-265页。 30 徐洪兴: 《唐宋之际儒学转型研究》,上海:上海人民出版社,2018年。 31 de Bary W. T., “A reappraisal of Neo-Confucianism,” in Wright A. F. & Bodde D. (eds.), Studies in Chinese Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 81-111. 32 美]狄百瑞: 《东亚文明——五个阶段的对话》,何兆武、何冰译,南京:江苏人民出版社,1996年。 33 牟宗三: 《心体与性体》,见《牟宗三先生全集》5-7,台北:联经出版事业有限公司,2003年。 34 美]陈荣捷: 《朱子之宗教实践》,见《朱学论集》,台北:学生书局,1982年,第181-204页。 35 美]陈荣捷: 《从朱子晚年定论看阳明之于朱子》,见《朱学论集》,台北:学生书局,1982年,第353-383页。 36 何俊: 《田浩(编):〈宋代思想史论〉》,见刘东主编: 《中国学术》第18辑,北京:商务印书馆,2005年,第289-293页。 37 葛兆光: 《置思想于政治史背景之中——再读余英时先生的〈朱熹的历史世界〉》,见[美]田浩主编: 《文化与历史的追索——余英时教授八秩寿庆论文集》,台北:联经出版事业有限公司,2009年,第392-397页。 38 牟宗三: 《从陆象山到刘蕺山》,见《牟宗三先生全集》8,台北:联经出版事业有限公司,2003年。 39 刘述先: 《关于“新儒学”的名称》,见《理一分殊》,上海:上海文艺出版社,2000年,第185-186页。 40 刘述先: 《黄宗羲心学的定位》,杭州:浙江古籍出版社,2006年。 41 Liu S., “Chapter 12 Neo-Confucianism(I): from Cheng Yi to Zhu Xi,” in Mou B. (ed.), History of Chinese Philosophy, London: Routledge, 2008, pp. 365-366. 42 吴小如: 《不赞成“新儒学”和“儒教”这两个提法——〈严群文集〉序》,《博览群书》2017年第4期,第87-89页。 43 温海明: 《“国际儒学论坛——威尼斯学术会议”综述》,见于建福、于述胜主编: 《国际儒学研究》第24辑,北京:华文出版社,2017年,第173-177页。