论文部分内容阅读
關於中国社會史的分明,中外史学家們已经爭辯了二十餘年,可是乃有很多疑而下决的懸案,得不到一致的見解。其中尤以关於兩周的社會形態,意见最为紛歧。他們同是用了新的觀點,並且根据几乎同一的史料,而產生了兩派很不相同的主张:一派主張西周確已從奴隸社會蜕化而成为一個完全的封建社會,以吕振羽翦伯赞两先生为代表(注一);另一派则主张两周仍是奴隶社會,以郭沫若侯外廬兩先生为代表(注二)。这個問题,真可以说是一個中国古史上聚訟不决的問题。它的癥结在那里呢?我們細細觀察他們所根據的史料,主要的不外兩種:一是‘詩經’中噫嘻、载殳、七月、甫田
As for the distinctiveness of Chinese social history, both Chinese and foreign historians have argued for more than 20 years, but there are many suspects and pending cases, with no consensus. Among them, the opinion about the two-week social form is the most disagreement. They used the same new point of view and, based on almost the same historical data, came up with two very different arguments: one faction claimed that the West Zhou Dynasty had indeed degenerated from a slave society and became a complete feudal society. With Lu Zhenyu and Bo Zazhi two (Note 1); the other group advocated that the two weeks should still be a slave society, represented by two of Mr. Guo Mo-hou Hou Lulu (Note 2). This question really can be said that it is an unjust question in ancient Chinese history. Where is the crux of the problem? We carefully observe the historical data on which they are based. There are mainly two major ones: the first is the Book of Songs,