[1]肖芬芳.隐显之间:戴震对汉宋之学的态度变更[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2024,25(05):78-86.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.05.008]
　Xiao Fenfang.Between Concealment and Revelation: Dai Zhen's Changing Attitudes towards Han and Song Learning[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2024,25(05):78-86.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.05.008]
点击复制

隐显之间:戴震对汉宋之学的态度变更()
分享到：

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

卷:
第25卷
期数:
2024年05期
页码:
78-86
栏目:
文史哲研究
出版日期:
2024-09-28

文章信息/Info

Title:
Between Concealment and Revelation: Dai Zhen's Changing Attitudes towards Han and Song Learning
作者:
肖芬芳
Author(s):
Xiao Fenfang
关键词:
戴震;  汉宋观;  惠栋;  隐显;  私蔽
Keywords:
Dai Zhen;  views on Han and Song studies;  Hui Dong;  concealment and revelation;  private and deceptive
分类号:
B24
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.05.008
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
近代以来,在戴震研究中形成的一个经典判断是戴震思想有从宗程朱到反宋学的转变,但因为对戴震和考据学派关系的不同判断,学者将戴震思想转变的原因或系于颜李学派,或归于考据学派诸如惠栋的影响。近年来,有学者聚焦戴震独特的学习经历和学术方法,指出戴震早年并不服膺程朱,也没有受到惠栋的深刻影响。但这还没有解答戴震在不同时期对汉宋之学的态度差异问题以及戴震和考据学派的具体关系问题。通过仔细辨析戴震的思想文献,发现他一直都在判别汉宋学术,但因为其思想和学术环境之间具有紧张关系,所以其中存在“隐”“显”之别。戴震不仅早年在徽学环境中隐晦地反对程朱,中年以考据为职业后依然隐晦地指摘惠栋及其门人的治经方法是有缺陷的,认为惠栋“由汉代训诂以通义理”的治经方法,缺乏“由文字以通训诂”的小学方法。而戴震面对汉宋学术存在的“傅会凿空”之“私”“蔽”,力图用新的学术方法和构建新义理的闻道志向来补救汉宋学术之失,从而树立超越汉宋之学的学术典范。
Abstract:
Since modern times, a classic judgment in the study of Dai Zhen is that his thoughts changed from adhering to Cheng-Zhu to opposing Song studies. However, due to different judgments on the relationship between Dai Zhen and the textual research school, scholars have attributed the reason for Dai Zhen's ideological change either to the Yan-Li school or to the influence of textual scholars such as Hui Dong. In recent years, some scholars have focused on Dai Zhen's unique learning experience and academic methods, and pointed out that Dai Zhen was not convinced by Cheng-Zhu in his early years and was not deeply influenced by Hui Dong. But these studies have not yet answered the question of Dai Zhen's different attitudes towards Han and Song studies in different periods and the specific relationship between Dai Zhen and the textual school. Through careful analysis of Dai Zhen's ideological literature, it is found that he had always differentiated Han and Song academics, but due to the tension between Dai Zhen's thoughts and the academic environment, there is a difference between “concealment” and “revelation”. Dai Zhen not only vaguely opposed Cheng-Zhu in the Hui study environment in his early years, but also implicitly criticized the exegetical methods of Hui Dong and his disciples after taking textual research as a career, pointing out that Hui Dong's exegetical method of “learning from texts in the Han Dynasty to ideas” was lacking in the traditional Chinese language learning method of “learning from words to text”. Faced with the “private” and “deceptive” practices of “a far-fetched interpretation of irrelevant matters” by the Han and Song academics, Dai Zhen attempted to resolve the deficiencies in Han and Song studies through new academic methods and the pursuit of new principles, thereby establishing an academic model that transcends both Han and Song academics.

参考文献/References:

[1]梁启超.梁启超全集:第12集[M].汤志钧,汤仁泽,编.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2018.
[2] 胡适.戴东原的哲学[M].长沙:岳麓书社,2010.
[3] 钱穆.中国近三百年学术思想史:上册[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[4] 余英时.论戴震与章学诚:清代中期学术思想史研究[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000.
[5] 徐道彬.论戴震对朱熹始终如一的态度[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(4):16-20.
[6] 胡明辉,董建中.青年戴震:十八世纪中国士人社会的“局外人”与儒学的新动向[J].清史研究,2010,79(3):34-50.
[7] 吴根友.再论皖派与吴派的学术关系:以戴震与惠栋为例[J].中国高校社会科学,2014(3):46-61.
[8] 戴震.戴震全书:第6册[M].杨应芹,诸伟奇,主编.修订本.合肥:黄山书社,2010.
[9] 戴震.戴震全书:第1册[M].杨应芹,诸伟奇,主编.修订本.合肥:黄山书社,2010.
[10] 戴震.戴震全书:第2册[M].杨应芹,诸伟奇,主编.修订本.合肥:黄山书社,2010.
[11] 戴震.戴震全书:第3册[M].杨应芹,诸伟奇,主编.修订本.合肥:黄山书社,2010.
[12] 葛兆光.有关戴震研究的学术史[J].理论与史学,2015(1):99-119.
[13] 戴震.戴震全书:第7册[M].杨应芹,诸伟奇,主编.修订本.合肥:黄山书社,2010.
[14] 江藩.国朝汉学师承记[M].钟哲,整理.北京:中华书局,1983:12.
[15] 方东树.汉学商兑[M].漆永祥,点校.南京:凤凰出版社,2016:129.
[16] 郭康松.论清代考据学的学术宗旨[J].三峡大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002(5):55-58.
[17] 肖芬芳,白欲晓.修己与治人:戴震理欲观新解[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2020,22(5):167-172.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介:肖芬芳,法学博士,苏州大学马克思主义学院讲师。
基金项目:江苏省社会科学基金一般项目“江南文化中的社会治理理念及其现实意义研究”(22JD011); 苏州市社会科学基金一般项目“《苏州经学史》编纂”(SZQS202401)。
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01