摘要
胡安国传《春秋》，解“春王正月”，提出孔子以“夏时冠周月”之说。自此之后，学界的反应不一。譬如宋人朱熹、元人赵汸、明人姜宝，清人毛奇龄等主张《春秋》记事书“春王正月”是用“周时冠周月”；再如宋人家铉翁、陈深等主张《春秋》记事书“春王正月”是用“夏时冠夏月”。此外，还有主张存疑者，如元人郑玉解“春王正月”称考之于经终无定说，姑阙之以俟知者。近代以来，问津此问题者廖若晨星，研究专著更是付诸阙如，而厘清此问题的来龙去脉、是非曲直又实属必要。故本篇论文拟以《胡氏春秋传》所提出的孔子以“夏时冠周月”的理论为核心研究对象，立足现有研究成果的基础上，分上、下两篇，考究其源流、辨其是非，并阐述其义理。
上篇包括三部分，第一部分解释胡安国“夏时冠周月”理论的基本内涵。第二部分探讨胡安国“夏时冠周月”理论的渊源，分别分析了其源于孔子“行夏”及伊川传《春秋》之说。第三部分阐述了后世学者对此所持的不同观点，并经笔者对《春秋》经文、《左传》、《毛诗》、《尚书》、《周礼》、《礼记》、《孟子》等七种材料中所涉及的夏、周两代历法问题的考证，证实了《春秋》记事已改时改月，辨明了胡安国此说之缺失。
下篇亦分为三部分。首先通过分析《春秋》记事这一历法问题，揭示胡安国“假天时”所立之“义”：谨“夷夏之辨”而别宋金，明“君臣之义”而杜朋党，立“复仇之义”以抗金人，欲“天下为公”而复王道，提倡“大一
统”以固中央集权。将《春秋》的“微言大义”从伦理道德的层次提升到哲理化的高度，把《春秋》学纳入了理学的范围。其次进一步阐述了胡安国“夏时冠周月”理论的两大特点，彰显了其史事义理化与经世致用的治学路径。胡安国于《春秋》历史中阐述义理，又借义理评判两宋之际的历史史实，从而在经验性的事实中印证义理的价值。最后论述了胡安国“夏时冠周月”理论对湖湘学派及后世学者研究《春秋》的影响。
关键词：胡安国；春秋学；《春秋传》；夏时冠周月
Abstract
Hu Anguo, a scholar of Song Dynasty, put forward a theory of xiashi guan zhouyue in his studies of Chunqiu(The spring and Autumn Annals). The theory suggested that Chunqiu adopted a mixed calendar system, in which the four seasons were referred back to the calendar of Xia Dynasty and the months the calendar of Zhou Dynasty. The theory had encountered different reactions from then on. For example, Song Dynasty scholar Zhu Xi, Yuan Dynasty scholar Zhao Pang, Ming Dynasty scholar Jiang Bao, Qing Dynasty scholar Mao Qilin adopted a mixed calendar system, in which the four seasons and the months were referred to the calendar of Zhou Dynasty. But Song Dynasty scholar Jia Xuanweng and Chen Shen adopted a mixed calendar system, in which the four seasons and the mont
hs were referred back to the calendar of Xia Dynasty. In addition, Some scholars didn’t advocate any comments. Such as the Yuan Dynasty Zheng Yu didn’t know which perspective should be adopted after he verified the classical text. Until modern times, few scholars study this theory and there is no research work. Therefore, it’s necessary to find out the sequence of ideas. This paper intended to adopt the theory of xiashi guan zhouyue in his studies of Chunqiu as the core subjects. Based on the existing research achievement, we divided the paper into two parts to investigate its origine and development by the textual research method.
The part one make up of three chapters. The first chapter explains the basic content of this theory of xiashi guan zhouyue in Hu Anguo’s studies of Chunqiu. The second chapter finds out the origin of this theory by analyzing Confucius's theory of using Xia Dynasty calendar and Yichuan’s theory of xiashi guan zhouyue in his studies of Chunqiu. The third chapter summarizes four different points of view which has already been mentioned in the above. However, we confirm that the season and the month have been changed in Chunqiu through researching on Chunqiu, Zuozhuan, Maoshi, Shangshu, Zhouli, Liji and Mencius which concern the issue of Xia Dynasty calendar and Zhou Dynasty calendar. At last, we prove that what Hu Anguo said is wrong.
The next part is also divided into three chapters. Firstly, we reveal Hu Anguo’s thought in his studies of
Chunqiu through analysing the calendar issue in Chunqiu. He emphasized Yi Xia Debate to discriminate Song and Jin, clarified the truth between the monarch and the Minister to exterminate the partisan struggle, expounded the
truth of revenge to resist Jin regime, established a Co-owned world to restore the king Dao, promoted the unification to strengthen the center dictatorship. As a result, his thought are improved from the level of ethics to the high of philosophy. Secondly, We analyze the characteristics of the theory of xiashi guan zhouyue in Hu Anguo’s studies of Chunqiu. We discuss two major characteristics in this theory which are clarifying his idea in the history and practicing his idea in reality. Hu Anguo illuminated his thought in the history of Chunqiu to judge the historical events of Song Dynasty, thus confirming the worth of his argumentation. Finally, we discuss that the theory of xiashi guan zhouyue in Hu Anguo’s studies of Chunqiu make a notable impact on the Huxiang school and the later scholars who explained Chunqiu.
Key words: Hu Anguo; the Science of Chunqiu; Commentaries on Chunqiu; Xiashi guan zhouyue
湘潭大学
学位论文原创性声明
本人郑重声明：所呈交的论文是本人在导师的指导下独立进行研究所取得的研究成果。除了文中特别加以标注引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写的成果作品。对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本人完全意识到本声明的法律后果由本人承担。
作者签名：日期：年月日
学位论文版权使用授权书
本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，同意学校保留并向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权湘潭大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手段保存和汇编本学位论文。
涉密论文按学校规定处理。
作者签名：日期：年月日
导师签名：日期：年月日
引言
胡安国，字康候，谥文定。北宋建宁府崇安县（宋时本建州，今属福建武夷山市）人。生于宋神宗熙宁七年（公元1074年）九月二十二日①，卒于宋高宗绍兴八年（公元1138年）四月十三日②，享年六十五岁。③关于胡安国一生的著述，陈振孙《直斋书录解题》称其著“《春秋传》三十卷、《通例》一卷、《通旨》一卷”④；马端临《文献通考·经籍考》称“胡安国《春秋传》、《通例》、《通旨》共三十二卷”⑤；王应麟《玉海》卷四十说“所著《春秋传》……凡三十卷十万馀言，……传外复有统贯条例与证据，史传及学徒问答二百馀章，子宁集录名曰《通旨》一卷”⑥。陈振孙、马端临皆称胡安国著有《春秋传》、《通例》、《通旨》三种，而王应麟不载《通例》。《通旨》实为其子胡宁为辅助其父著《春秋传》而作，现已亡佚，今人王立新所著的《开创时期的湖湘学派》辑录了三十条。至于《通例》，当已亡佚。另外，胡寅《先公行状》载其父还著有《资治通鉴举要补遗》一百卷，按《春秋》条例修成，以及《文集》十五卷⑦，均已亡佚，王立新所著的《开创时期的湖湘学派》辑录了部分《文集》的内容，可供参考。有鉴于此，我们对胡安国思想的研究就主要集中反映于其传世著作《春秋传》⑧中。
胡安国传《春秋》之时恰逢两宋之际，民族矛盾空前尖锐。宋金战争频频，大宋败多胜少，又慑于金人的横暴，一味地妥协投降，以至于高宗南渡后，为求偏安一隅，竟向金人上表，俯首称臣。可谓“作为‘夷狄’的金人，把华夏的宋室政权挤压得只剩下半壁河山了，而且当局还答应每年向金人进贡金银绢帛，以求得屈辱的和平。”⑨与此同时，学术斗争也异常激烈。北宋熙丰年间，王安石变
①见《伊洛渊源录》卷13《胡文定公行状略》云：“公讳安国、字康候。建州崇安人。父渊，故宣议郎致
仕，赠中大夫。母吴氏，故永嘉县君，赠令人。公生于熙宁甲寅九月二十二日巳时。”（[宋]朱熹：《伊洛渊源录》，北京，中华书局，1985年，第129页）
②见《崇正辩·斐然集》卷25《先公行状》：“方公之奉诏纂修也，虽寒暑不少解，毕精竭虑，殆忘寝食，
疾遂日增。至是上章谢世。以绍兴八年四月十三日殁于书堂正寝，享年六十有五。”（[宋]胡寅：《崇正辩·斐然集》，北京，中华书局，1993年12月第1版，第555页）scholars
③关于胡安国的生平请参考本文附录《胡安国年谱略考》。
④ [宋]陈振孙：《直斋书录解题》上海，上海古籍出版社，1987年12月第1版，第64页。
⑤ [元]马端临：《文献通考·经籍考》，上海，华东师范大学出版社, 1985年6月第1版，第258页。
⑥ [宋]王应麟：《玉海》，上海，上海书店江苏古籍出版社联合出版，1987年12月第1版，第761页。
⑦ [宋]胡寅：《崇正辩·斐然集》，北京，中华书局，1993年，第560页。
⑧本文所引《胡氏春秋传》参考了一九八七年上海古籍出版社的文渊阁《四库全书》影印本及一九八九年
四月巴蜀书社影印本（巴蜀书社的《胡氏春秋传》为怡府藏板、明善堂重梓的本子），笔者对这两种文本作了互校，有不同之处皆在注释中一一标明。
⑨赵伯雄：《〈春秋〉学史》，济南，山东教育出版社，2004年，第509页。

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。