试析清代汉学分派的困境

发布时间：2018-07-06 13:23

  本文选题：汉学分派 + 师承　； 参考：《江海学刊》2016年03期

【摘要】：近代一些学者多从师承或地域来梳理清代汉学,遂有吴派、皖派、扬州学派、常州学派等说法。20世纪90年代以来,研究者对汉学分派多所讨论,见仁见智,而至今难有共识。清代学者虽有时提到师承关系,士人交游也呈现一定地域性,但这些因素并不必然导致学术成派。清代汉学家注重实证研究,追求实事求是,学派观念远不如宋明理学家明显。分派陷入困境的根源之一是师承脉络错综难辨,二是人们过重学术的地域性。加之,有的"学派"附入了差异较大者,导致概念笼统失当,而对其学术本身、学术认同注意不够。超越汉学分派,从更为具体的家学传衍来梳理汉学脉络,不失为走出困境、深化研究的有益途径。
[Abstract]:Some scholars in modern times have studied the Sinology of the Qing Dynasty from the following aspects: the Wu School, the Anhui School, the Yangzhou School, the Changzhou School and so on. Since the 1990s, many scholars have discussed Sinology assignment and have different opinions, but it is difficult to come to a consensus so far. Although scholars in the Qing Dynasty sometimes mentioned the relationship between scholars and scholars, the scholars also showed a regional nature, but these factors did not necessarily lead to academic formation. In Qing Dynasty, Sinologists paid attention to empirical research and sought truth from facts. The school of thought was far less obvious than that of Song Ming Neo-Confucianism. One of the root causes of the predicament of assignment is that the context of learning is difficult to distinguish, and the second is the regional nature of people's excessive learning. In addition, some "schools" attached to the greater differences, resulting in the concept of general misconduct, and its academic itself, academic recognition is not enough. Transcending Sinology assignment and sorting out the context of Sinology from a more specific family is a useful way to go out of the dilemma and deepen the research.
【作者单位】： 中国社会科学院近代史研究所;
【基金】：国家社科基金项目“18~19世纪学术家族之研究”(项目号:12BZS049)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：K207.8
，

本文编号：2102914