【作者】 李强；

【导师】 姜广辉；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 专门史， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 晚清之时，列强环伺，内乱不息，中国遭遇数千年未有之大变局μ。对此，一些学术精英开始从名物考证的故纸堆里挣脱，思考社会政治的改良与革新，探索救亡图存的方法与真理。清中叶，庄存与开创的常州学派复兴了已经沉默一千多年的今文经学，经过刘逢禄、宋翔凤、龚自珍、魏源的继承与推阐，从而发掘出春秋公羊学里的变革精神。康有为则将这种思想发扬到极致，著成《新学伪经考》、《孔子改制考》和《春秋董氏学》等书，论证古文经典全是刘歆伪撰，孔子是改制法王，《春秋繁露》是改制宝典，用这些来为他的变法维新立论张目。与康有为等人唯今文独尊、以经术而为治术μ的学风不同，就在清代今文学家内部，另有一些学者如孔广森、凌曙、陈立等，虽然力主公羊学说，但并不弃黜古文经学，其治学态度显得平实而矜慎。承此学风，湘中公羊学家苏舆著成《春秋繁露义证》，矛头直指康有为的《春秋董氏学》。本论文从四个方面对康有为《春秋董氏学》和苏舆《春秋繁露义证》进行对比研究：第一，从时代和学术的大背景出发，分析二者不同的成书目的与撰作旨趣。康有为把《春秋繁露》的段落文句进行切分，各以大义μ分类编排，另加案语发挥见解，目的在于充分挖掘董仲舒的改制μ思想。苏舆则采取随文注疏的方式，广采前人旧说，间参己意，从义理的角度对康有为以改制μ为目的的诠释路向予以驳正μ，力图凸显董仲舒思想的醇正平实μ。第二，康有为和苏舆二人对《春秋》一书性质的认识存在重大分歧，康有为认为《春秋》是改制之书μ，苏舆则指出《春秋》是立义之书μ。第三，三科九旨μ是公羊学最为核心的思想，亦是二人争论的焦点所在。康有为认为其中的通三统μ是制度改革的反映，借以推导出他的变法思想，苏舆却认为这不过是董仲舒在阐说礼制的变迁。康有为论证张三世μ是一种社会形态的进化，从据乱世到升平世再到太平世；苏舆则认为，董仲舒的三世μ之义，所反映的是孔子修《春秋》时对不同时期的史事持有不同的亲疏态度。不过，对于异外内μ一科所讨论的诸夏μ与夷狄μ之间的关系，两人的思想却又基本一致，都主张传统公羊学里的夷夏进退μ说，而这恰是解决晚清复杂而特殊的民族关系问题的重要思想资源。第四，在性理学方面，康有为主张气本论，在此基础上还多次阐发了仁本μ思想，主张性善μ，提出养气μ、养心μ等修养工夫；苏舆却继承湖湘学派对心性之学的重视，对人性问题进行了详尽的论述，高度评价了董仲舒提出的性未善μ说，在工夫论方面则主张辨别μ。当然，毕竟此二书都是对同一本公羊学著作所进行的诠释，因此，无论从哪个层面进行比较，都能发现其中的相同之处，只不过，从整体来看，实是异多于同μ。通过对二书的比较研究，可以发现，经过康有为改革过的春秋公羊学理论，主张社会循序渐进地向前发展，以君主宪政为近期目标，以广泛民主和绝对平等的社会形态为最终目标，应该说切合了当时社会的实际情况，并非一种简单循环的历史发展观，更非一种保守复古的论调。而苏舆也不是以往研究者所定位的古文经学家，他治经仍以春秋公羊学为主，对其中的关键理论如通三统μ、张三世μ和异外内μ等，并没有简单加以否定，只是对它们所进行的诠释，其价值取向与康有为颇为不同。而且他能超越门户之见，兼采古文经学的思想精华和研究成果。实际上，这样的诠释差异，在清代今文经学的发展传承中一直存在。所以，苏舆与康有为之间的学术分歧，不应视为古文经学与今文经学的冲突，而应看作清代今文经学阵营里两条不同诠释进路的矛盾。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the late Qing Dynasty, various powerful countries attempted to divide oldChina, and the revolts from the bottom of society didn′t stop at all. So, old Chinaencountered the very troublesome situation for thousands of years. Many academicelites began to abandon the study style of proving the specific things and started tothink about how to reform politics and society to survive our motherland. In themiddle of the Qing Dynasty, Zhuang Cunyu set up the Changzhou School, which hadrelived the New Text Confucian Classics that had slept near two thousands years.From generation to generation the famous scholars such Liu Fenglu, Song Xiangfeng,Gong Zizhen and Wei Yuan etc. have transmitted New Text Confucian Classics, thenthis School of Thought was founded and the reform theory in this School was explored.Finally, Kang Youwei expanded it to the ultimate and republished such books asXinxue Weijing Kao, Confucius′Reform Kao, Chunqiu Dongshi Xue and etc. Heproved that Liu Xin had fabricated all the Old Text Confucian Classics, Confucius wasa great reformer, and Chunqiu Fanlu was a masterpiece on reform. In addition, Kangleaded the1898Reform Movement under the guidance of these ideologies.Kang et al. only respected those New Text Confucian Classics and studied themfor the sake of political reform. However, in the group of New Text Confucian School,some scholars such as Kong Guangsen, Ling Shu and Chen Li paid attention to theOld Text Confucian Classics as well. Their study attitude was rational and moderate.Under the influence of this study style, Su Yu, a Gongyang scholar from Hunan, wrotea book Chunqiu Fanlu Yizheng adopting the Gongyang Studies′theory to combatagainst Kang′s Chunqiu Dongshi Xue. From the Yi-Li′s angle, to restitute DongZhongshu′s real thought, he correctedμ Kang′s annotation way that aimed at politicalreform.This paper compares the book Chunqiu Dongshi Xue with the one Chunqiu FanluYizheng from four aspects. Firstly, based on the social and academic background, thegoals and the styles of the two books are analyzed. Kang separated the phrases andparagraphs of Chunqiu Fanlu, rearranged them by each significance and attached hiscomments after each paragraph. Su added his own and others· interpretations aftereach sentence in Chunqiu Fanlu. He criticized Kang′s exaggeration of comments, anddelivered to describe the proper thinking of Dong Zhongshu. Secondly, there is amajor difference between Kang·s and Su·s viewpoints on what kind of book Chunqiuis. Kang believed Chunqiu was a classic about reform, while Su indicated its essential goal was to work out some doctrines. Thirdly, Sanke Jiuzhi were the focuses of debatebetween them. Kang said the theory of Tong Santong in Sanke Jiuzhi reflected therenewal of political system, while Su thought it reflected the change of ritual system.Kang expounded that the theory of Zhang Sanshi signified the social evolution fromJuluan Era, then Shengping Era to Taiping Era, while Su held the view that itcontained Confucius′different attitudes to the three eras. However, there is aconsistency between their ideology in terms of the Yi Wai-Nei Theory concerning therelations between the countries of Zhuxia and Yidi. They two maintained the sametheory, that is Yi-Xia Jin-Tui, which is an important ideological resource to solve thenation contradiction in the late Qing Dynasty. Lastly, in the aspect ofNeo-Confucianism, Kang supported the Qi Ontology, while Su didn·t propose anytheory related to ontology. Kang believed human nature was essentially good, whileSu confirmed human nature was essentially not only good but also bad as DongZhongshu had put it. Kang′s Theory of Cultivation was Yangqi and Yangxin, whileSu′s was Bianbie. Of course, no matter from what aspect their thoughts are compared,some common points between their thoughts can be found because they study thesame Gongyang Classic with Gongyang′s theory. But as a whole, the differences aremore than the common points.Through the comparison between the two books, it can be found that Kangclaimed that society always develops step by step. And his immediate goal was tocreate a political system of constitutional monarchy, his ultimate goal was to establisha society of extensive democracy and absolute equality. So, his ideological systemadapted to the social situations at that time. It is neither a simple circular concept ofhistorical development, nor a conservative and vintage view. And Su wasn·t an OldText Confucian scholar as the previous research has demonstrated before, becausethough he insisted on the Gongyang Studies, however, his explanation to the coretheory of Gongyang Studies such as Tong Santong, Zhang Sanshi and Yi Wai-Nei wasdifferent to Kang·s. What′s more, he didn′t have school prejudice and he hadabsorbed the ideological essence and the study achievements of Old and New TextConfucian Studies. In fact, this kind of elucidative difference always existed in thehistory of the inheritance and development of New Text Confucian School in QingDynasty. So, the divergence between Kang and Su wasn′t a disparity between the Newand Old Text Confucianism, but a inner conflict within the scholars of New TextConfucianism.更多还原