晚清经学有今古文学之争,而今古文家都将此学术现象追溯至两汉,以为两汉经学亦然。但返观两汉,则其时虽有王官学与民间学之辩,却无廖平《今古学宗旨不同表》所罗列的那种壁垒森严的对立。文章从廖平表中选出四例,即今文与古文、《王制》与《周礼》、孔学与史学、义理与考据等,证明以今文和古文不能概括经学之争,而王官学并未必以经学为孔学,民间学也不以史学看待经学;且二派都既重义理,也重考据,二者不偏颇;又《王制》之大法未行于汉代,新莽乃以《周礼》改制。凡此证明经今古文学之争是晚清所特有的经学形态,与两汉事实不大相符,如再以今古文学的对立思维来研究经学,显然不甚妥当。 Late Qing classics have the dispute between ancient and modern literature, and now ancient writers will this academic phenomenon traced back to the Han and Han Dynasties, that the Han Confucian classics as well. However, when we look back at the Han and Han Dynasties, although there was a debate between Wang Guanxue and folklore at that time, there was no such sharp antagonism as the one listed in Liao Ping’s “Different Tropism of Ancient Ages.” The article selects four cases from the Liao Ping table, that is, present and ancient, “the king” and “Zhou Li”, Confucianism and historiography, justice and test, etc., to prove that this article and the ancient essay can not be summed up by the academic dispute, Confucianism by Confucian classics, folklore nor historiography of Confucian classics; and the two schools both emphasis on reasoning, but also test the evidence, the two are not biased; and “kingship” of the law is not in the Han Dynasty, the new Mang is “Zhou Li ”Restructuring. All this proves that the dispute over this ancient literature is a peculiar form of Confucian classics in the late Qing dynasty, which is inconsistent with the facts of the Han Dynasty and the study of the classics by the antithesis of the ancient literature.