受到清代乾嘉以降 “儒林” (经儒) 与 “文苑” (文士) 对立观念的影响， 研究者总是将考证 学视为 “儒林” 内部的事情， 故倾向于往明代的 “儒林” (即理学) 去追问考证学的缘起， 对其时 “文苑” 中蕴藏着的 “博学于文” 的传统则基本视而不见。 然而晚明 “文苑” 里的博文传统绝不容小视， 阎若璩将 钱谦益推重为考证学的头号宗师， 就是基于这个事实。 清代考证学的一个突出特征是倾向 “游于艺” 而淡 化 “志于道”。 而相对来说， “儒林” 与 “志于道” 的距离更近， “文苑” 则不免 “游于艺” 的倾向更重。 对于塑造清代考证学的基本学术性格而言， 来自于晚明清初 “文苑” 的传统可能将比来自 “儒林” 的传统发挥更能起到直接的作用， 也因此具有特别重要的意义。
Abstract
Due to the influence of the eighteenth?century view juxtapose scholars of the Confucian classics against scholars of literature，there has been a tendency to view textual criticism as a matter of Confucian scholarship and to seek its origin the in late Ming Neo Confucianism. For this reason the tradition in the literary world has been overlooked. In fact，textual criticism was not at all belittled in literary world and Yan Ruoqu had a high regard for Qian Qianyi as a past master of the practice. A prominent characteristic of Qing textual criticism was the tendency to emphasize “cultivation of the arts” over “seeking the way. ” In other words，the Confucianists were closer to seeking the way and the literati gave greater importance to cultivating the arts. In this way，the conventions of late Ming and early Qing literati probably had more influence than Confucianists on the essential academic character of textual criticism.
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
Cheng Juyuan. “Xueren sheji yu qingchu jignxue”(Scholar Organization and the Confucian Classics Studies in the Early Qing). Fudan xuebao (Fudan Journal［Social Science Edition］) (4) 2006.
He Zongmei. Mingmo qingchu wenren jieshe yanjiu (The Research of Scholar Organization in the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasty). Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe, 2003.
Kojiro Yoshikawa.”Ch’ien Ch’ien-yi and the Confucian Scholarship in the Ch’ing Period”,Memoirs of the Faculty of literature, Kyoto University (9) 1965.
Ch’ing-Chang Lin. Mingdai kaojuxue yanjiu (The Research of Textology in Ming Dynasty). Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 2015.
Pei Shijun. “Qian Qianyi he jingxue”(Qian Qianyi and Study of Confucian Classics). Suzhou daxue xuebao (Journal of Suzhou University ［Social Science Edition］) (1) 1997.
Susumu Inoue. “The Revision of the Fushe Scholars’Surname and A Record of Fushe”. The Toho Gakuho: Journal of Oriental Studies, Kyoto 65 (1993).
PDF(1580 KB)
