|
|
|
| Yigu-Zunjing versus Xingu-Tongjing: A Discussion of CUI Shu and TANG Wen-zhi’s Study of The Analects of Confucius |
| ZHANG Hong-yan |
| College of Marxism, Baoji University of Arts and Sciences, Baoji, Shaanxi, 721013 |
|
|
|
|
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 .
|
|
Received: 06 August 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] (清)崔述.崔东壁遗书[M].顾颉刚编订.上海:上海古籍出版社,2013.
[2] 姚绍华. 清崔东壁先生述年谱[M].台北:台湾商务印书馆,1980.
[3] 唐文治. 唐文治自述[M].文明国编.合肥:安徽文艺出版社,2013.
[4] 唐文治. 唐文治经学论著集(第4册)[M].邓国光辑释.上海:上海古籍出版社,2019.
[5] 虞万里. 唐文治《论语大义》探微[A].经学文献研究集刊(第16辑)[C].上海:上海书店出版社,2016.231-250.
[6] 邓国光. 唐文治先生《论语大义》义理体统探要[J].岭南学报,2015,(3):133-190.
[7] 吴量恺. 崔述评传[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2001.75-86.
[8] 吴承仕. 经典释文序录疏证[M].北京:中华书局,1984.143.
[9] 王鹏凯. 历代论语著述综录[M].台北:花木兰文化工作坊,2005.2.
[10] (清)刘宝楠.论语正义[M].高流水点校.北京:中华书局,1990.77.
[11] 杨树达. 论语疏证[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2013.61.
[12] (清)戴震.孟子字义疏证[M].何文光整理.北京:中华书局,1961.55.
[13] 朱有.中国近代学制史料(第1辑)[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1983.23.
[14] (清)皮锡瑞.皮锡瑞集[M].长沙:岳麓书社,2012.1202.
[15] 钱穆. 孔子传[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005. 129.
[16] 钱穆. 中国学术思想史论丛(第八册)[M].北京:九州出版社,2011.401.
[17] 唐文治. 唐文治文集(第3册)[M].邓国光辑释.上海:上海古籍出版社,2018.
[18] 唐文治. 唐文治文选[M].王桐荪,胡邦彦,冯俊森等选注.上海:上海交通大学出版社,2005.
[19] 唐文治. 紫阳学术发微[M].乐爱国点校.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2014.5.
[20] 毛朝晖. 唐文治的经学“大义”及其对汉宋、中西的会通[J].孔子研究,2021,(5).42-50.
[21] 唐文治. 四书大义[M].上海:上海科学技术文献出版社,2021.276.
[22] 何佑森. 清代学术思潮:何佑森先生学术论文集(下)[M].台北:台大出版中心,2009.118-125. |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 42 
