论文部分内容阅读
关于清代今文经学复兴起因,学界颇有讨论。刘桂生、陈祖武、王俊义诸位先生一致认为与庄存与在上书房的“讲义”密切相关。但揆以史实,并不尽然。从康雍乾三朝君主对胡安国《春秋传》的清算及《春秋》公羊学的抛弃,尤其是《春秋》公羊学立嫡理论与清代秘密立储原则的冲突,清楚地表明庄存与在上书房讲述《春秋》公羊学说并不可信。而乾隆前期官员谢济世与孙嘉淦所注经文著作的毁版遭遇,也说明满清君权对于官员注经的警惕。今文经学在康雍乾三朝尤其是乾隆朝的地位,可谓清代政治与学术关系的典型体现。
On the rise of the modern text classics in Qing Dynasty, the academic circle quite discussed. Liu Guisheng, Chen Zuwu and Wang Junyi all agree that they are closely related to the “handouts” of Zhuangcun and his study. However, historical facts, not all. From the KangYongGan three dynasties to the Qing emperor Juan “Spring and Autumn Annals” liquidation and “Spring and Autumn” ram science abandoned, especially the “Spring and Autumn” ram theory and the Qing Dynasty secret legislation principles conflict, clearly shows Zhuangcun and In the study on the “Spring and Autumn” ram theory is not credible. However, the corrupted version of the essay by Xie Jishi and Sun Jiagan, the officials of Qianlong earlier period, also shows the vigilance of Manchu sovereignty over official posts. This text classics in the Kangxi and Yong Dynasties, especially the Qianlong Dynasty status, can be described as a typical manifestation of political and academic relations in the Qing Dynasty.