Abstract：CUI Shu and TANG Wen-zhi had an academic debate across eras due to their different interpretations of the Analects of Confucius. CUI Shu approached the text by using the classics to verify history, employing historical evidence to expose how the Analects had lost its original form since the Han dynasty. He argued, for instance, that “Shi ke ren” and “Shu bu ke ren” refer respectively to the events of “performing the Dì sacrifice for Duke Xiang” and “the Ji family driving out Duke Zhao”, and Confucius’s “Xuezhi” “Yi” etc., which integrates classical studies with historio-graphy. Therefore, his exegetical aim is to recover past events and, within their historical context, elucidate the semantic strata of the Analects; his conclusions are deliberately plain and factual. TANG Wen-zhi, conversely, integrated Han and Song learning, and affirmed the text’s reliability. He construed the same “Shi ke ren” and “Shu bu ke ren” passage as referring to the eight-row dance performed in the Ji family courtyard, and argued that Confucius’s thought that a person becomes a “Xuezhi”, and because of his “Liangzhi”, they are able to “acquire knowledge through hardship” and “Yiguan” as the essence and “Zhongshu” as the application. Therefore, his reading perpetuates Song-Ming Neo-Confucian emphases on profound meaning, foregrounding ethical principles and the metaphysics of mind-and-nature; and his conclusions are expansive and comprehensive. CUI’s hermeneutic epitomizes the traditional “classics-history” paradigm of “doubting antiquity while honoring the classics” and “verifying trustworthiness within the Six Arts,” whereas TANG’s exemplifies the “Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism” of classical learning, premised on “trusting antiquity to master the classics” and on revealing the salvific, nation-saving import of Song-Ming Dao-learning. Their contrasting exegeses typify the divergence between classical studies allied with historiography and classical studies allied with Neo-Confucianism since the Qing dynasty, and the two enduring orientations in classical interpretation continue to offer methodological resources for contemporary research .
张红艳. “疑古尊经”与“信古通经”：崔述与唐文治《论语》学之辨[J]. 《深圳大学学报》（人文社科版）, 2025, 42(6): 35-43.
ZHANG Hong-yan. Yigu-Zunjing versus Xingu-Tongjing: A Discussion of CUI Shu and TANG Wen-zhi’s Study of The Analects of Confucius. , 2025, 42(6): 35-43.
2025, Vol. 42 
粤公网安备44030502007936号