查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 論吳汝綸與根本通明、信夫粲的經史之學互動
- 數位衛星的互動服務及主要業者概況
- 道佛互動--以心性論為中心 (下)
- 互動討論在師資教育科目教學上的實行與應用
- Broadening the Concepts of Moore's Transactional Distance Theory in the Light of Relevant Adult Education Theories and the New Telecommunications Technologies
- 向心競爭與中華民國政黨政治之發展
- 六位氣質類型幼兒的同儕關係
- 建構取向的科學教室內師生互動實例
- 中學科學教學環境中師生互動量表的發展與研究
- 人機互動式排程系統之研究
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論吳汝綸與根本通明、信夫粲的經史之學互動=On the Interaction between Wu Rulun and Nemoto Tsumei and Shinobu Akira in the Knowledge of Classics and History |
---|---|
作者 | 許朝暉; 歐明俊; | 書刊名 | 中華本土社會科學期刊 |
卷期 | 3 2023.12[民112.12] |
頁次 | 頁81-112 |
分類號 | 090 |
關鍵詞 | 根本通明; 互動; 吳汝綸; 信夫粲; 經史之學; Interaction; Knowledge of classics and history; Nemoto Tsumei; Shinobu Akira; Wu Rulun; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
DOI | 10.30213/JCISS.202312_(3).0003 |
中文摘要 | 吳汝綸赴日考察教育期間與根本通明、信夫粲交流頻繁。根本通明以經治史,主張湯、武革命前中國皇統一系,少典氏炎帝、黃帝行兄弟之戰,借以宣揚天皇崇拜,服務現實政治,理路近今文經學。吳汝綸尊《史記》,主張朝代更替即非一系;炎帝為神農子孫,非黃帝兄弟;堯、舜禪讓非一系;革命非始自湯、武。信夫粲見解相近,進一步以文理論述湯、武革命之應天順人。吳汝綸、信夫粲以史解經,以文解經,通貫古文經學、文章學。根本通明受日本神道《易》學影響,立足《十翼》象數,認為《易》主皇統一系。信夫粲兼重象數《易》、義理《易》,逐條辯駁其〈震〉為龍象、太子主器、帝出乎〈震〉、〈革〉卦戒變諸説。吳汝綸調和漢、宋,認為孔子未作《十翼》,論據有五:汲塚古《易》無《十翼》,司馬遷父子欲正《易傳》,班固與司馬遷所見《易傳》不同,「四德」之解有異,〈繫辭〉羼入〈大衍〉篇,較《易説》既有細化,又有省略。根本通明史學、文章學服務於經學。信夫粲兼重經學、文章學,主張以情理及駢散、難易、工拙、韻散等文理解經,以經義著文,其《尚書》攻偽尤具代表性。吳汝綸介於古文家、經學家之間,既主「義理、考據、辭章、經濟」融通,又有區分經事、文事傾向,影響及於經、史、集部文章學互動。三人同中有異的身份定位、學術淵源、治學理路深刻影響其互動內容。 |
英文摘要 | During Wu Rulun's educational research in Japan, he had frequent exchanges with Nemoto Tsumei and Shinobu Akira. Nemoto Tsumei discussed history through Confucian classics. He advocated that the throne of China was passed down from generation to generation before Tang-Wu Revolution. He believed that Emperor Yan and Emperor Huang of Shaodian were engaged in brother's war. He used this to preach his worship of Japanese Tennoism. His academic views served Realpolitik. This method was similar to Jinwen Jingxue. Wu Rulun had the following four propositions. Firstly, the succession of dynasties did not belong to the transmission of the throne from generation to generation. Secondly, Emperor Yan was a descendant of Shennong, not a brother of Emperor Huang. Thirdly, the abdication of Yao and Shun did not belong to the inheritance of the throne from generation to generation. Fourthly, revolution did not begin with Tang and Wu. Shinobu Akira had similar opinions. He further discussed from perspective of prose. Wu Rulun and Shinobu Akira interpreted Confucian classics through their knowledge of history and prose. They had integrated Guwen Jingxue with prose knowledge. Nemoto Tsumei was influenced by the Japanese Shintoist doctrine of the Book of Changes. From the perspective of image-numerology in Shiyi, he proposed that the Book of Changes advocated the transmission of the throne from generation to generation. Shinobu Akira attached importance to image-numerology and meaning-pattern of the Book of Changes. He refuted Nemoto Tsumei's statements one by one. Wu Rulan integrated Han and Song studies. He believed that Shiyi was not written by Confucius. He had the following five arguments. Firstly, there was no Shiyi in the relevant works of the Book of Changes unearthed in Jizhong. Secondly, Sima Tan and Sima Qian wanted to sort out Yizhuan. Thirdly, Yizhuan seen by Ban Gu was different from Sima Qian. Fourthly, the interpretation of Four Virtues was different. Fifthly, Xici was mixed with Dayan. Nemoto Tsumei's knowledge of history and prose served his Confucian studies. Shinobu Akira valued the integration of Confucian studies and prose knowledge. His argument that Guwen Shangshu was a fake book reflected this characteristic. Wu Rulun's identity was positioned between an essayist and a Confucian scholar. On the one hand, he advocated academic integration, and on the other hand, he had a tendency to distinguish between reading Confucian classics and writing prose. This had affected the exchange of prose knowledge between them. The identity positioning, academic origins and academic methods of them had a profound impact on their communication content. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。