论文部分内容阅读
关于戊戌时期章太炎与康有为等维新派的关系,以往的研究多以“论学殊”、“革政同”来概括,并以为所谓“论学殊”之“殊”,主要在于章、康二人经学主张不同——康有为是经今文学的集大成者,而章太炎则持守经古文学的立场。 本文以为:1.章太炎早年并不是一个经古文学者,其经学主张也不像有些论者所说具有“明显的经古文学倾向”。以经今、古文的对立来概括戊戌时期章、康“论学”的歧异是不准确的;2.戊戌时期章太炎的确对康有为所宣扬的“经今文学”的某些观点持反对态度。但章氏之所以如此,并非是以经古文来反对经今文,而是出于对民族历史文化传统与社会变革的关系的深沉思考。因此,章、康“论学”之殊实质上体现了二人历史、文化观念的歧异。以下,将以对章太炎早年经学主张的判别及章氏早期思想特征的分析为主,具体说明本文的观点。
As for the relations between Zhang Taiyan and Kang Youwei and other reformers during the Hundred Days of 1898, most of the previous researches were based on “academic discourse” and “reform of the political system” Different scholars advocate that Kang Youwei is a master of modern literature while Zhang Taiyan holds the position of studying ancient literature. This article thinks: 1. Zhang Taiyan was not an ancient literature scholar in his early years, and his theory of classics did not have “obvious tendency of ancient literature” as some commentators said. It is inaccurate to summarize the chapter of the Wu-Xu period through the antithesis between ancient and modern times. The disagreement of Kang’s “theory of study” is inaccurate. 2. Zhang Taiyan indeed did not object to certain viewpoints of “modern literature” proclaimed by Kang Youwei. However, Zhang’s theory is not based on the antiquity of the ancient texts but on the deep thinking of the relationship between the national historical and cultural traditions and social changes. Therefore, Zhang, Kang’s “theory” of the essence of the two reflects the history and cultural differences. The following will be based on the early Zhang Zhangyao early classical theory of discrimination and Zhang’s early thought-based analysis of the characteristics of the specific point of view of this article.