重论晚清经今古文学之争——与两汉经学的比较研究

发布时间：2018-02-14 14:58

本文关键词： 今文学古文学王官学民间学　出处：《清史研究》2013年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：晚清经学有今古文学之争,而今古文家都将此学术现象追溯至两汉,以为两汉经学亦然。但返观两汉,其时虽有王官学与民间学之辩,却无廖平《今古学宗旨不同表》所罗列的那种壁垒森严的对立。本文从廖平表中选出四例,即今文与古文、《王制》与《周礼》、孔学与史学、义理与考据等,证明以今文和古文不能概括经学之争,而王官学未必以经学为孔学,民间学也不以史学看待经学;且二派都既重义理,也重考据,二者不偏颇;又《王制》之大法未行于汉代,新莽乃以《周礼》改制。凡此证明,经今古文学之争是晚清所特有的经学形态,与两汉事实不大相符,如再以今古文学的对立思维来研究经学,显然不甚妥当。
[Abstract]:In the late Qing Dynasty, there was a debate about ancient literature, and ancient scholars now trace this academic phenomenon back to the Han Dynasty, thinking that the study of the classics of the two Han dynasties was the same. But when we went back to the Han Dynasty, there was a debate between Wang Guan's study and folk study at that time. But there is no strict opposition of the barriers listed in Liao Ping's "different Table of Modern and Ancient Studies". This paper selects four examples from Liao Ping's table, namely, the present and ancient prose, the system of kings and Zhou Li, Confucianism and historiography, righteousness and textual research, and so on. It was proved that the debate on Confucian classics could not be generalized by the present and the ancient prose, and that Wang Guan's studies did not necessarily regard Confucian classics as Confucianism, nor did folklore regard it as historiography; moreover, both schools of thought emphasized both righteousness and textual research, and the two schools were not biased; and the great law of "King's system" did not perform in the Han Dynasty. Xinmang was reformed by "Zhou Li". It is proved that the debate over ancient literature is a unique form of Confucian classics in the late Qing Dynasty, which is not consistent with the facts of the Han Dynasty. It is obviously not appropriate to study the study of classics by using the opposing thinking of modern and ancient literature.
【作者单位】：武汉大学国学院;
【分类号】：B222;K234

【参考文献】