在宋元明诸多学者对“大同小康”之论提出各种质疑的背景下,清初王夫之明确指出“大同小康”之论存在错简。其后,清代学者任启运、姜兆锡、李绂、孙希旦、黄式三、邵懿辰等,现当代学者钱基博、任铭善、徐仁甫等,围绕错简问题亦各有阐发,只是缘于视角的不同,提出的见解彼此不尽一致。不过,将各位学者的“纠错”主张代入“大同小康”之论文本之后,不难发现,问题并不能有效解决,更常见的是“按下葫芦起来瓢”。这说明,“大同小康”之论“其言杂乱,……其文不次”的问题固然是客观存在的,但归咎于错简却不恰当。事实上,在“其言杂乱,……其文不次”的表象背后,“以注为经”当是症结之所在,只要把注释与原文区别开来,“大同小康”之论逻辑不通、文气不顺的问题也便不复存在了。 Under the background of various questions raised by the scholars of the Song and Yuan dynasties about the theory of “commonwealth and well-being,” Wang Fuzhi at the beginning of the Qing Dynasty clearly pointed out that there exists a misunderstanding of the theory of “commonwealth.” Later on, scholars of Qing dynasty Ren Qiyun, Jiang Zhaoxi, Li Xun, Sun Xidan, Huang Xisan, Shao Yichen, etc., modern and contemporary scholar Qian Jibo, Ren Mingshan and Xu Renfu also made their own elaboration on the issue of wrong conciseness, The opinions are not consistent with each other. However, after all the scholar’s “error correction” claims have been substituted into the text of “commonwealth”, it is not hard to find that the problem can not be effectively solved. More often, the idea is to “press down the gourd and scoop.” This shows that although the issue of “commonwealth of the well-being” “its speech is disorderly and ... its text is not inferior” is an objective reality, it is not appropriate to blame the wrong conclusion. In fact, behind the appearance of “its language is disorderly, ... its name is not the same ”, “to note by the ” is the crux of the problem, as long as the distinction between the notes and the original, " The logic of the argument is not clear, the problem of ill-temperament also ceased to exist.