20世紀以來西周井田制有無的相關討論

Yengišan and the Governance of Jiangnan in Eighteen Century

「井田」在先秦時期是否曾作為社會制度而被施行，及其概念的確實含義，為中國古史上懸而未決又備受矚目的議題。20世紀以前的學者對於「井田」的意涵各有見解，對其存無亦持保留態度，然而對於西周是否曾經實行井田制度的質疑，有待20世紀初疑古思潮帶動下，中國思想界的「井田辨」論戰。本文通過梳理當時胡適（1891－1962）、錢穆（1895－1990）與朱執信（1885－1920）等人就西周井田問題展開的相關討論，指出20世紀上半葉「井田辨」論戰，事實上反映民國初年思想界中懷疑主義、文化保守主義，以及社會主義之間的傾軋與競逐。20世紀下半葉，馬克思主義史學在中國的主導地位，使井田議題的討論逐漸單一化。近年來學者重新解讀「井」字的意涵，為此議題注入新血。本文試圖列舉20世紀以來關於井田問題的代表性論述，並將其置於學術史脈絡中討論，進而指出以往經常被混作一談的「井田」與「公田」，實應分屬兩個不同的概念。

Scholars of ancient Chinese history continue to explore and argue whether “the Well-field System” was implemented as a social institution in the pre-Qin period, and what the exact meaning of the Well-field System is. Before the 20th century, scholars had had different opinions regarding the meaning of the Well-field System, and some people even took its existence with a grain of salt. However, it was not until the early 20th century that with the influence of Yigupai (Doubting Antiquity School 疑古派), Chinese scholars set off a debate on whether the Western Zhou Dynasty had ever implemented the Wellfield System. By reviewing the arguments of Hu Shi (胡適, 1891-1962), Qian Mu (錢穆, 1895-1990), and Zhu Zhixin (朱執信, 1885- 1920) on the Well-field System in the Western Zhou Dynasty, this paper points out that the debates on the Well-field System in the first half of the 20th century actually reflect the competition skepticism, cultural conservativism, and socialism in early republican China. In the second half of the 20th century, since the Marxist historiography had dominated the academia, the discussions of the Well-field System gradually become simplistic. In recent years, scholars have reinterpreted the Chinese character “Jin (井),” providing new perspectives for related issues. By investigating the representative arguments on the Well-field System since the 20th century and contextualizing them within the history of modern Chinese historiography, this paper further suggests that “Jingtian (井 田)” and “Gongtian (公田),” which have often been lumped together in the past, should be clarified as two different concepts.