[1]贝承熙.经分今古与立学官私—常州学派构筑“今古文学”观的两条路径[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2023,24(02):105-116.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2023.02.012 ]
　Bei Chengxi.Contemporary or Historical Classics and Official or Private Schools: Two Paths to Constructing the “Contemporary and Historical Classics” Views by Changzhou School[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2023,24(02):105-116.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2023.02.012 ]
点击复制

经分今古与立学官私—常州学派构筑“今古文学”观的两条路径 ()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第24卷
期数:
2023年02期
页码:
105-116
栏目:
文史哲研究
出版日期:
2023-04-28

文章信息/Info

Title:
Contemporary or Historical Classics and Official or Private Schools: Two Paths to Constructing the “Contemporary and Historical Classics” Views by Changzhou School
作者:
贝承熙
Author(s):
Bei Chengxi
关键词:
今古文学;  常州学派;  刘逢禄;  宋翔凤
Keywords:
contemporary and historical classics;  Changzhou School;  Liu Fenglu;  Song Xiangfeng
分类号:
B249.9; B25
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2023.02.012
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
清代常州学派中,最早重视“今古文学之争”这一事件的是刘逢禄、宋翔凤二人。他们分别从“今古文经之别”与“官私之别”两个角度,构筑了两种理解汉代“今古文学之争”事件的路线。刘逢禄指出,汉代经学史是围绕着今古文经之争展开的,其中古文经是古文学家为了批驳今文经而篡改的史学著作,而真正传承孔子之意的唯有今文经学。宋翔凤则以另一路径建构今古文学,认为二者出于官私之别,官私的背景令二者分别取法孔子与周公,而由于汉代所有经学均有官私之分,“今古文学”就成为可以解释两汉所有经学争议的重要框架。这两条路径分别奠定了后世对“今古文学”的基本认识,晚清学者所强调的今古文经文字之别、真伪之别、经史之别、官私之别、周孔之别,均发于刘、宋二人之滥觞。
Abstract:
During the Qing Dynasty, Liu Fenglu and Song Xiangfeng from the Changzhou School were the first to pay attention to the controversies of “contemporary or historical classics” and “official or private”. They constructed two different routes to understand the event of “the controversy of contemporary or historical classics” in the Han Dynasty from the perspectives of the “difference between contemporary and historical classics” and the “difference between official and private”. Liu Fenglu pointed out that the history of Confucian classics in the Han Dynasty revolved around the controversy of contemporary or historical classics, and the historical classics were falsified works by historical classics scholars in order to criticize the contemporary classics, only the contemporary classics truly inherited the teachings of Confucius. Song Xiangfeng, on the other hand, constructed the contemporary and historical classics view from a different perspective, arguing that the two were differentiated by official and private backgrounds, which caused them to draw inspiration respectively from Confucius and Zhou Gong. Since all the Confucian classics in the Han Dynasty were divided into official and private, “contemporary and historical classics” became an important framework to explain all the Confucian classics controversies in the Western Han and Eastern Han Dynasties. These two paths established the basic understanding of “contemporary and historical classics” in later generations, including the differences in scrips, authenticity, the difference between classics and history, official and private, and Confucius and Zhou Gong which were emphasized by scholars in the late Qing Dynasty, all of which originated from Liu Fenglu and Song Xiangfeng's ideas.

参考文献/References:

[1]汤志钧.清代经今文学的复兴:庄存与和经今文[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015:9.
[2]梁启超.清代学术概论[M].朱维铮,导读.上海:上海古籍出版社,1998:75.
[3]清史稿校注:第14册[M].台北:台湾商务印书馆股份有限公司,1999.
[4]刘逢禄.刘礼部集[M]//北京大学《儒藏》编纂与研究中心.儒藏精华编:278.北京:北京大学出版社,2016.
[5]钱穆.两汉博士家法考[M]//钱穆.两汉经学今古文平议.北京:商务印书馆,2001:202-258.
[6]庄述祖.毛诗考证//阮元,王先谦.清经解 清经解续编:第9册.南京:凤凰出版社,2005:1105.
[7]钱穆.中国近三百年学术史:下册[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997:683.
[8]黄开国.清代今文经学新论[M].北京:人民出版社,2017:240.
[9]刘逢禄.春秋公羊经何氏释例叙[M]//刘逢禄.春秋公羊经何氏释例.郑任钊,校.北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[10]刘逢禄.左氏春秋考证[M].顾颉刚,校点.北京:朴社,1933.
[11]刘逢禄.穀梁废疾申何[M]//阮元,王先谦.清经解 清经解续编:第8册.南京:凤凰出版社,2005:10111.
[12]刘逢禄.尚书今古文集解[M]//阮元,王先谦.清经解 清经解续编:第10册.南京:凤凰出版社,2005.
[13]刘承宽.先府君行述[M]//北京大学《儒藏》编纂与研究中心.儒藏精华编:278.北京:北京大学出版社,2016:375-376.
[14]张惠言.易义别录序[M]//张惠言.茗柯文编.黄立新,校点.上海:上海古籍出版社,1984:44.
[15]曾亦,陈雯雯.刘逢禄论《左氏》之得失与晚清今古学之争[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2009(1):80-91.
[16]庄述祖.说文古籀疏证原目[M]//庄述祖.说文古籀疏证:1.上海:商务印书馆,1936:14.
[17]庄述祖.珍执宦文钞[M]//《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会.清代诗文集汇编:430.上海:上海古籍出版社,2010:98.
[18]刘逢禄.春秋公羊经何氏释例 春秋公羊经何氏释例后录[M].曾亦,点校.上海:上海古籍出版社,2013.
[19]董铁松.论清代今文经学的历史作用[J].东北师大学报,2001(1):33-40.
[20]刘德州.常州学派与《尚书》之“微言大义”[J].天津社会科学,2013(4):136-138.
[21]李帆.今古文分派之说始自何人:从刘师培的一则文字谈起[J].史学史研究,2012(2):121-123.
[22]宋翔凤.过庭录[M].梁运华,点校.北京:中华书局,1986.
[23]宋翔凤.朴学斋文录[M]//北京大学《儒藏》编纂与研究中心.儒藏精华编:278.北京:北京大学出版社,2016.
[24]宋翔凤.论语说义:卷1[M]//阮元,王先谦.清经解 清经解续编:第10册.南京:凤凰出版社,2005.
[25]高瑞杰.汉末经学的分殊与融会:以何休与郑玄经学思想比较为中心[D].北京:清华大学,2019.
[26]臧庸.论语郑氏注[M]//刘宝楠.论语正义.高流水,点校.北京:中华书局, 1990:11.
[27]顾颉刚.与钱玄同先生论古史书[M]//顾颉刚.古史辨:第1册.北京: 朴社, 1926:59-60.
[28]钱寅.论庄存与《春秋正辞》与《春秋胡氏传》的关系[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2016,17(5):109-117.

相似文献/References:

[1]李　波.吕思勉与清代常州学术[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2011,12(04):92.
　LI Bo.LV Si- mian and Changzhou School in Qing Dynasty[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2011,12(02):92.
[2]柴敏辉.“六经本史”:龚自珍的史学折变与经学路向[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2024,25(05):87.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.05.009]
　Chai Minhui.“The Six ConfucianClassics Originatefrom History”: Gong Zizhen's Transformation in Historiography and His Path of Study of Jing[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2024,25(02):87.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.05.009]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

作者简介:贝承熙,清华大学历史系、中国经学研究院博士研究生。

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01