乾嘉易学三大家研究
摘要
易学发展到清代,和其他儒家经典一样,其研究水平达到了又一个高峰,在这个高峰期,尤以乾嘉时期更为突出,而在乾嘉时期,又以惠栋、张惠言、焦循三大家为代表,正如梁启超所说:“可以代表清儒《易》学者不过三家,曰惠定宇,曰张皋文,曰焦里堂。”(《中国近三百年学术史》)我们要研究易学发展史,要把清代摆在一个重要的位置上,而要研究清代易学,就有必要抓住三大家,以把握乾嘉时期易学的主流方向。对三大家易学的研究,应该是我们的长期任务,三大家的易学成就的博大精深,也需要进行多角度的探讨,前人虽然在这方面已经取得了一些成果,但在全面、系统等方面仍存在诸多欠缺,而这些欠缺也不可能在本文中得到全面解决。本文对三大家的易学研究,主要从文献学的角度着力,以图弥补前人在本方面研究的薄弱点。
三大家固然要分别探讨,但又要置于一个统一的学术背景之下,所以本文在引言之后的第一章主要阐述了乾嘉易学产生的社会背景与学术渊源,通过对乾嘉易学产生的学术背景与渊源的分析,从而揭示出三大家易学所具备的时代学术所赋予的考据性特色,这为全面了解乾嘉易学三大家的易学成就提供了宏观的参考坐标。在这样一个坐标之下,对三大家易学分别予以研究,既总结了他们的共性,又探讨了他们的个性,在共性与个性的介绍中使他们的关系得以显现。
本文在二、三、四章,分别对乾嘉时期惠栋、张惠言、焦循的易学进行了深入地分析与研究,逐一探讨了他们的生平与学术成就,易学思想,治《易》特色,易学史、学术史地位及其对后世的影响。
惠栋在乾嘉学术中极具代表性,以倡导汉学被学术界推为一代宗师、乾嘉学派吴派的创始人物。惠栋继承家学传统,十分尊信和推崇汉儒经说,“重汉易,弃宋易”为其易学思想中的重要特征,从这种思想意识出发,对汉儒各家易说进行了广泛地发掘和深入地阐发。在具体的治《易》过程中,从象数学的角度出发,运用汉代各家易说,对《周易》经、传文进行了重新的阐释。清代学术的博大宏阔,充分表现在惠栋的治《易》过程中,遍引群书、纳入多学科治《易》便为其显证。其“重小学,以文字、音韵、训诂知识解《易》”的治《易》特色亦使乾嘉学术注重考据的特征得以凸显。自惠氏公开标榜易汉学,对乾嘉易学研究的产生了导向作用,为本时期易学研究的汉学化奠定了基础。
张惠言是继惠栋之后的又一易汉学大家,其一生精研汉易,专攻虞翻易学,他之所以专攻虞氏义,乃是基于补惠栋易学之不足,企图全面而系统地恢复虞翻易学。“扬汉抑宋”亦为张惠言易学思想中的显著特征,故其对虞氏《易》注的疏解与阐发力主取象说,在对虞氏易深入研究的基础上,挖掘出其消息说的本质
Yi-ology, like the study of other Confucian classics, reached another peak in terms of its research level, in Qing Dynasty (1616-1911), especially during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing. During the reign of these two emperors, the achievements of studying Yi-ology can be typified in three schools led respectively by three noted figures—Huidong, Zhang Huiyan and Jiaoxun, as commented by Liang Qichao in his The Latest Three Hundred Years Scholastic History of China, "there is no more than three great masters that can represent Yi-ology in Qing Dynasty; they are Huiding, Zhang Gaowen as well as Jiao Litang." When we study the history of how Yi-ology develops, Qing Dynasty has to be put in an important position, and researching into Yi-ology in Qing Dynasty requires us to concentrate on the three figures so as to make clear the mainstream trend of Yi-ology during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing. It is a long run task to carry out research into Yi-ology and the profundity of the achievements made by the three noted figures deserves to be discussed and examined from multiple perspectives. The predecessors have made some progress from the studying the three great masters; however their researches still have some defects like being incomprehensive and unsystematic, which cannot be totally got rid of in this dissertation. The study of the academic achievements of three figures is made from the perspective of philology with an attempt to making up for the predecessors' weakness in this research.Important as it is to discuss and examine the three noted figures respectively, it is also advisable to place the discussion of three figures in a unified scholastic background. Therefore, expounded in Chapter one immediately after the Introduction are the social background and the scholastic origin about the birth of Yi-ology during the reign of the two emperors, through the analysis of which the features of textual research of that age embodied in Yi-ology of the three figures are revealed, thus providing the macro-reference coordinate for the comprehensive knowledge of the achievements of Yi-ology made by the three figures. By making reference to such coordinate, Yi-ology of the three figures can be carried out respectively, which reveals both the similarities among them and their individualities. In the introduction of their similarities and individualities are displayed their relations of mutual reference.In Chapter two, three and four, a thorough analysis and study is made of Yi-ology by Huidong, Zhang Huiyan and Jiaoxun one by one and then their life careers, academic achievements, their thoughts of Yi-ology, and the features of Yi-ology, history of Yi-ology and their influence on the later generations are discussed respectively.Huidong, the founder of the school of Wu, very representative of scholars during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing, is respected as a great master by the academic circles because of his upholding the study of Han Dynasty. Huidong inherits his family tradition of learning, respects and believes in Confucian classics of Han Dynasty and speaks highly of them.
"Attaching great importance to Yi-ology of Han Dynasty, abandoning Yi-ology of Song Dynasty" is one important characteristic of his thought about Yi-ology and starting from this he carried out an extensive discovery and in-depth discussion of Yi-ology upheld by different Confucian scholars of Han Dynasty. When he studies Yi, he, starting from the divinatory symbols, makes use of many schools of ideas of Yi of Han Dynasty to interpret again the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Yi. The profundity of academics of the Qing Dynasty finds its full expression in the process of Huidong studying Yi-ology which can be evidently shown by the fact that he quotes as many books as possible and applies multiple disciplines in studying Yi-ology. His study of Yi-ology by using philology, phonology and its critical interpretation of words, or the knowledge of Xiaoxue to explain Zhou Yi makes the feature of emphasizing text in the academics of the age of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing prominent. Huidong's public praise of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty leads the direction of research into Zhou Ti during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing and lays a foundation for the trend of Yi-ology towards Yi-ology of Han Dynasty.Zhang Huiyan, another noted figure in Yi-ology of Han Dynasty after Huidong, devoted all his life studying attentively Yi-ology of Han Dynasty, especially Yi-ology of Yufan. The reason why he specializes in Yi-ology of Yufan is that he tries to make up for the shortcomings of Yi-ology of Huidong and restore completely Yi-ology of Yufan. As '"Appreciating Yi-ology of Han Dynasty while depreciating that of Song Dynasty'' is also a prominent feature of Zhang Huiyan's idea of study of Zhou Yi. he sticks to the idea of using divinatory symbols to understand and interpret the annotations of Yi by Yufan. On the basis of further research into Yi-ology of Yufan, he taps the essence and connotations of Yufan's ideas and puts forward at the same time his worldview of "Yi goes from Taiji, the Great Ultimate, to Qian, one of Eight Trigrams" and his view about the formation of the Eight Trigrams "based on the phenomenon that the sun and the moon work in the form of the Eight Diagrams, Paoxi made the Eight Trigrams". With Yi-ology of Yufan the object of his research, Zhang Huiyan forms his feature of studying Zhou Yi by combining the interpretation of Zhou Yi and study of Zhou Yi, and attributing the interpretation of Yi to man's work. As a noted scholar of studying Yi of Han Dynasty, he also focuses his attention on the textual criticism of the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Ti and the annotations of Yi by Yufan. Besides his focus on Yufan in studying Zhou Ti. he also gives enough attention to interpreting and sorting out the ideas and thoughts of Yi-ology of scholars of Han Dynasty such as Zhengxuan and Xunshuang. On the basis of his predecessors' research, he makes further observation and investigation with his sharp eyes as an expert on textology about Yiwei and the study of Hetu and Luoshu, and reaches finally the important academic conclusion. Zhang Huiyan concentrates on Yufan in his study of Zhou Ti and following him, appear a number of works on Yi-ology of Yufan in the history of Yi-ology. These works, either remedying the defects of Zhang Huiyan, or further interpreting Yufan's works on Yi-ology on the basis of Zhang Huiyan, form a subject of Yufan specialized in the study of Zhou TiJiaoxun, a noted expert on Confucian classics and a learned scholar during the reign of
Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing, focuses his attention mainly on Confucian classics and sometimes also on many other disciplines such as history, astronomy, medicine and literature. As far as his study of Confucian classics is concerned, he sets it his goal to achieve mastery by a comprehensive study and doesn't adhere to one school's idea rigidly, thus creating a new situation for the Yi-ology of Han Dynasty during the reign of two emperors. By inheriting the tradition of studying Yi-ology of Han Dynasty and reforming it, he builds his own system of studying Zhou Yi with peculiar features and proposes such ideas as Pangtong, Shixing, Xiangcuo and Bili. The essence of the system about Yi-ology he built is that sixty-four divinatory symbols and three hundred eighty-four lines in the Eight Trigrams of Zhou Yi are regarded as a unified whole in motion. And he fits his interpretation and understanding of Zhou Ti into this unified whole and based on this, founds his methodology of studying Zhou Ti as well as the methodology of philosophy based on the theory of Pangtong. In the concrete process of studying Yi, he combines his learned knowledge of mathematics and his study of Yi, and makes valuable attempts to explore the relations between Yi-ology and natural science. Still, the feature of his Yi-ology—interpreting Yi by way of Jiajie and Zhuanzhu and stressing the textual criticism of the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Yi, fully expresses the style of scholars during the two emperors emphasizing textual research. Although scholars of later generations pass different judgments on him, he steps out of the fences of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty after Huidong and Zhang Huiyan, and establishes his own system of interpreting Zhou Yi. His creative spirit deserves to be praised and, currently, his methods of doing research are illuminating to our deeper understanding of Zhou Ti. Theoriginalities and innovations of this dissertation are as follows:(1) The predecessors' researches overstress the interpretation of the philosophical thoughts of the three figures and fail to give adequate attention to their efforts on textual research. Starting from the perspective of philology ,the dissertation makes a deep research into Yi-ology of three noted figures and makes up for the deficiencies that which makes the features of textual research of Yi-ology prominent.The so-called perspective of philology refers to the summarization of the achievements made by three masters in organizing the literatures concerning Yi-ology, or to be specific, of the work on the emendation of characters, textual research and criticism of words, the organization of the ancient annotations and the recovery of lost annotations.(2) In the process of emendating Zhou Yishu, it is found that Huidong changed the scriptures of Zhou Ti in no small number. In the part "seeking its ancient meaning and changing the scripture" when Huidong studies Yi-ology, the emendated words or phrases are analyzed and discussed point by point and the evidence and reasons for the emendation are found from his interpretation of the scripture and Zhou Yi Guyi. The conclusion is arrived at finally that the purpose of Huidong changing the scripture is to restore the original appearance of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty, and thus the misunderstanding of Huidong for changing the scripture by Confucian scholars, Ruanyuan and Zangyong is clarified.(3) As to Yi-ology by Zhang Huiyan, predecessors are mainly devoted to discussing his research system built on Yi-ology of Yufan, rather than noticing his efforts at textual criticism of
the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Ti, and his emendation of annotations of Zhou Ti by Yufan. In this dissertation Zhang Huiyan's originalities in textual research and emendation are thoroughly and forcefully analyzed and his personality as a noted master doing research is proved.(4) The predecessors' researches mostly confined to one master of the three. In the process of research, the dissertation,by placing the three noted figures against a unified scholastic background, made conspicuous are both their academic similarities and their different academic individualities which show the trace of development of Yi-ology during the reign of the two emperors, a process from the universal study of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty by Huidong, to the specialized study of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty by Zhang Huiyan, to Jiaoxun stepping out of the fences of the study Yi-ology of Han Dynasty and building his own system of Yi-ology, whilepredecessors' researches can hardly display the process.(5) The predecessors' researches mostly confined to one scholar or one dissertation on the academic research of the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing.Hownever,they did not pay adequate attention to the academic research of one specific classics . The dissertation makes analyse and discusstion on Yi-ology of three noted figures of the period during Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing in depth.Through the job,I believe that it will be great academic significance for the extension of academic research of the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing,even for the research field and perspective of the whole academic research of Qing Dynasty.
三大家固然要分别探讨,但又要置于一个统一的学术背景之下,所以本文在引言之后的第一章主要阐述了乾嘉易学产生的社会背景与学术渊源,通过对乾嘉易学产生的学术背景与渊源的分析,从而揭示出三大家易学所具备的时代学术所赋予的考据性特色,这为全面了解乾嘉易学三大家的易学成就提供了宏观的参考坐标。在这样一个坐标之下,对三大家易学分别予以研究,既总结了他们的共性,又探讨了他们的个性,在共性与个性的介绍中使他们的关系得以显现。
本文在二、三、四章,分别对乾嘉时期惠栋、张惠言、焦循的易学进行了深入地分析与研究,逐一探讨了他们的生平与学术成就,易学思想,治《易》特色,易学史、学术史地位及其对后世的影响。
惠栋在乾嘉学术中极具代表性,以倡导汉学被学术界推为一代宗师、乾嘉学派吴派的创始人物。惠栋继承家学传统,十分尊信和推崇汉儒经说,“重汉易,弃宋易”为其易学思想中的重要特征,从这种思想意识出发,对汉儒各家易说进行了广泛地发掘和深入地阐发。在具体的治《易》过程中,从象数学的角度出发,运用汉代各家易说,对《周易》经、传文进行了重新的阐释。清代学术的博大宏阔,充分表现在惠栋的治《易》过程中,遍引群书、纳入多学科治《易》便为其显证。其“重小学,以文字、音韵、训诂知识解《易》”的治《易》特色亦使乾嘉学术注重考据的特征得以凸显。自惠氏公开标榜易汉学,对乾嘉易学研究的产生了导向作用,为本时期易学研究的汉学化奠定了基础。
张惠言是继惠栋之后的又一易汉学大家,其一生精研汉易,专攻虞翻易学,他之所以专攻虞氏义,乃是基于补惠栋易学之不足,企图全面而系统地恢复虞翻易学。“扬汉抑宋”亦为张惠言易学思想中的显著特征,故其对虞氏《易》注的疏解与阐发力主取象说,在对虞氏易深入研究的基础上,挖掘出其消息说的本质
Yi-ology, like the study of other Confucian classics, reached another peak in terms of its research level, in Qing Dynasty (1616-1911), especially during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing. During the reign of these two emperors, the achievements of studying Yi-ology can be typified in three schools led respectively by three noted figures—Huidong, Zhang Huiyan and Jiaoxun, as commented by Liang Qichao in his The Latest Three Hundred Years Scholastic History of China, "there is no more than three great masters that can represent Yi-ology in Qing Dynasty; they are Huiding, Zhang Gaowen as well as Jiao Litang." When we study the history of how Yi-ology develops, Qing Dynasty has to be put in an important position, and researching into Yi-ology in Qing Dynasty requires us to concentrate on the three figures so as to make clear the mainstream trend of Yi-ology during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing. It is a long run task to carry out research into Yi-ology and the profundity of the achievements made by the three noted figures deserves to be discussed and examined from multiple perspectives. The predecessors have made some progress from the studying the three great masters; however their researches still have some defects like being incomprehensive and unsystematic, which cannot be totally got rid of in this dissertation. The study of the academic achievements of three figures is made from the perspective of philology with an attempt to making up for the predecessors' weakness in this research.Important as it is to discuss and examine the three noted figures respectively, it is also advisable to place the discussion of three figures in a unified scholastic background. Therefore, expounded in Chapter one immediately after the Introduction are the social background and the scholastic origin about the birth of Yi-ology during the reign of the two emperors, through the analysis of which the features of textual research of that age embodied in Yi-ology of the three figures are revealed, thus providing the macro-reference coordinate for the comprehensive knowledge of the achievements of Yi-ology made by the three figures. By making reference to such coordinate, Yi-ology of the three figures can be carried out respectively, which reveals both the similarities among them and their individualities. In the introduction of their similarities and individualities are displayed their relations of mutual reference.In Chapter two, three and four, a thorough analysis and study is made of Yi-ology by Huidong, Zhang Huiyan and Jiaoxun one by one and then their life careers, academic achievements, their thoughts of Yi-ology, and the features of Yi-ology, history of Yi-ology and their influence on the later generations are discussed respectively.Huidong, the founder of the school of Wu, very representative of scholars during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing, is respected as a great master by the academic circles because of his upholding the study of Han Dynasty. Huidong inherits his family tradition of learning, respects and believes in Confucian classics of Han Dynasty and speaks highly of them.
"Attaching great importance to Yi-ology of Han Dynasty, abandoning Yi-ology of Song Dynasty" is one important characteristic of his thought about Yi-ology and starting from this he carried out an extensive discovery and in-depth discussion of Yi-ology upheld by different Confucian scholars of Han Dynasty. When he studies Yi, he, starting from the divinatory symbols, makes use of many schools of ideas of Yi of Han Dynasty to interpret again the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Yi. The profundity of academics of the Qing Dynasty finds its full expression in the process of Huidong studying Yi-ology which can be evidently shown by the fact that he quotes as many books as possible and applies multiple disciplines in studying Yi-ology. His study of Yi-ology by using philology, phonology and its critical interpretation of words, or the knowledge of Xiaoxue to explain Zhou Yi makes the feature of emphasizing text in the academics of the age of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing prominent. Huidong's public praise of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty leads the direction of research into Zhou Ti during the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing and lays a foundation for the trend of Yi-ology towards Yi-ology of Han Dynasty.Zhang Huiyan, another noted figure in Yi-ology of Han Dynasty after Huidong, devoted all his life studying attentively Yi-ology of Han Dynasty, especially Yi-ology of Yufan. The reason why he specializes in Yi-ology of Yufan is that he tries to make up for the shortcomings of Yi-ology of Huidong and restore completely Yi-ology of Yufan. As '"Appreciating Yi-ology of Han Dynasty while depreciating that of Song Dynasty'' is also a prominent feature of Zhang Huiyan's idea of study of Zhou Yi. he sticks to the idea of using divinatory symbols to understand and interpret the annotations of Yi by Yufan. On the basis of further research into Yi-ology of Yufan, he taps the essence and connotations of Yufan's ideas and puts forward at the same time his worldview of "Yi goes from Taiji, the Great Ultimate, to Qian, one of Eight Trigrams" and his view about the formation of the Eight Trigrams "based on the phenomenon that the sun and the moon work in the form of the Eight Diagrams, Paoxi made the Eight Trigrams". With Yi-ology of Yufan the object of his research, Zhang Huiyan forms his feature of studying Zhou Yi by combining the interpretation of Zhou Yi and study of Zhou Yi, and attributing the interpretation of Yi to man's work. As a noted scholar of studying Yi of Han Dynasty, he also focuses his attention on the textual criticism of the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Ti and the annotations of Yi by Yufan. Besides his focus on Yufan in studying Zhou Ti. he also gives enough attention to interpreting and sorting out the ideas and thoughts of Yi-ology of scholars of Han Dynasty such as Zhengxuan and Xunshuang. On the basis of his predecessors' research, he makes further observation and investigation with his sharp eyes as an expert on textology about Yiwei and the study of Hetu and Luoshu, and reaches finally the important academic conclusion. Zhang Huiyan concentrates on Yufan in his study of Zhou Ti and following him, appear a number of works on Yi-ology of Yufan in the history of Yi-ology. These works, either remedying the defects of Zhang Huiyan, or further interpreting Yufan's works on Yi-ology on the basis of Zhang Huiyan, form a subject of Yufan specialized in the study of Zhou TiJiaoxun, a noted expert on Confucian classics and a learned scholar during the reign of
Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing, focuses his attention mainly on Confucian classics and sometimes also on many other disciplines such as history, astronomy, medicine and literature. As far as his study of Confucian classics is concerned, he sets it his goal to achieve mastery by a comprehensive study and doesn't adhere to one school's idea rigidly, thus creating a new situation for the Yi-ology of Han Dynasty during the reign of two emperors. By inheriting the tradition of studying Yi-ology of Han Dynasty and reforming it, he builds his own system of studying Zhou Yi with peculiar features and proposes such ideas as Pangtong, Shixing, Xiangcuo and Bili. The essence of the system about Yi-ology he built is that sixty-four divinatory symbols and three hundred eighty-four lines in the Eight Trigrams of Zhou Yi are regarded as a unified whole in motion. And he fits his interpretation and understanding of Zhou Ti into this unified whole and based on this, founds his methodology of studying Zhou Ti as well as the methodology of philosophy based on the theory of Pangtong. In the concrete process of studying Yi, he combines his learned knowledge of mathematics and his study of Yi, and makes valuable attempts to explore the relations between Yi-ology and natural science. Still, the feature of his Yi-ology—interpreting Yi by way of Jiajie and Zhuanzhu and stressing the textual criticism of the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Yi, fully expresses the style of scholars during the two emperors emphasizing textual research. Although scholars of later generations pass different judgments on him, he steps out of the fences of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty after Huidong and Zhang Huiyan, and establishes his own system of interpreting Zhou Yi. His creative spirit deserves to be praised and, currently, his methods of doing research are illuminating to our deeper understanding of Zhou Ti. Theoriginalities and innovations of this dissertation are as follows:(1) The predecessors' researches overstress the interpretation of the philosophical thoughts of the three figures and fail to give adequate attention to their efforts on textual research. Starting from the perspective of philology ,the dissertation makes a deep research into Yi-ology of three noted figures and makes up for the deficiencies that which makes the features of textual research of Yi-ology prominent.The so-called perspective of philology refers to the summarization of the achievements made by three masters in organizing the literatures concerning Yi-ology, or to be specific, of the work on the emendation of characters, textual research and criticism of words, the organization of the ancient annotations and the recovery of lost annotations.(2) In the process of emendating Zhou Yishu, it is found that Huidong changed the scriptures of Zhou Ti in no small number. In the part "seeking its ancient meaning and changing the scripture" when Huidong studies Yi-ology, the emendated words or phrases are analyzed and discussed point by point and the evidence and reasons for the emendation are found from his interpretation of the scripture and Zhou Yi Guyi. The conclusion is arrived at finally that the purpose of Huidong changing the scripture is to restore the original appearance of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty, and thus the misunderstanding of Huidong for changing the scripture by Confucian scholars, Ruanyuan and Zangyong is clarified.(3) As to Yi-ology by Zhang Huiyan, predecessors are mainly devoted to discussing his research system built on Yi-ology of Yufan, rather than noticing his efforts at textual criticism of
the scriptures and Yi Zhuan of Zhou Ti, and his emendation of annotations of Zhou Ti by Yufan. In this dissertation Zhang Huiyan's originalities in textual research and emendation are thoroughly and forcefully analyzed and his personality as a noted master doing research is proved.(4) The predecessors' researches mostly confined to one master of the three. In the process of research, the dissertation,by placing the three noted figures against a unified scholastic background, made conspicuous are both their academic similarities and their different academic individualities which show the trace of development of Yi-ology during the reign of the two emperors, a process from the universal study of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty by Huidong, to the specialized study of Yi-ology of Han Dynasty by Zhang Huiyan, to Jiaoxun stepping out of the fences of the study Yi-ology of Han Dynasty and building his own system of Yi-ology, whilepredecessors' researches can hardly display the process.(5) The predecessors' researches mostly confined to one scholar or one dissertation on the academic research of the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing.Hownever,they did not pay adequate attention to the academic research of one specific classics . The dissertation makes analyse and discusstion on Yi-ology of three noted figures of the period during Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing in depth.Through the job,I believe that it will be great academic significance for the extension of academic research of the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing,even for the research field and perspective of the whole academic research of Qing Dynasty.
引文
梁启超:《中国近三百年学术史》,东方出版社1996年版。
王绍曾:《<清史稿艺文志>易类拾遗概谈》,《周易研究》1989年第1期。
梁启超:《饮冰室合集》,中华书局1989年版。
清·全祖望:《鲒埼亭集外编》,《续修四库全书》据清嘉庆十六年刻本影印本。
清·黄宗炎:《图学辨惑》,《四库全书》本。
清·纪昀等:《四库全书总目》,中华书局1965年据浙江杭州刻本影印本。
清·阮元:《研经室集》,中华书局1993年版。
清·毛奇龄:《易小帖》,《四库全书》本。
张善文:《历代易家与易学要籍》,福建人民出版社1998年版。
清·胡渭:《易图明辨》,《四库全书》本。
漆永祥:《乾嘉考据学研究》,中国社会科学出版社1998年版。
杜国庠:《杜国庠文集》,人民出版社1962年。
清·皮锡瑞:《经学历史》,中华书局1959年版。
清·钱仪吉等编:《清代碑传全集》,上海古籍出版社1987年影印本。
清·李富孙辑:《李氏易解剩义》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·惠栋:《松崖文钞》,《丛书集成续编》本。
清·惠栋:《易汉学》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·江藩:《国朝汉学师承记》,中华书局1983年版。
清·钱大昕:《潜研堂文集》,《四部丛刊》本。
清·卢见曾:《雅雨堂文集》,《续修四库全书》据清道光二十年卢枢清雅堂刻本影印本。
钱穆:《中国近三百年学术史》,中华书局1986年版。
清·惠栋:《易大谊》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·李慈铭:《越缦堂读书记》,上海书店出版社2000年版。
清·惠栋:《明堂大道录》,《丛书集成初编》本。
李开:《惠栋评传》,南京大学出版社1997年版。
清·陈寿熊:《读易汉学私记》,《皇清经解续编》本。
孙启治、陈建华编:《古佚书辑本目录》(附考证),中华书局1997年版。
《续修四库全书总目提要》,中华书局1993年版。
缪荃孙、董康、吴昌绶:《嘉业堂藏书志》,复旦大学出版社1997年版。
漆永祥:《惠栋易学著述考》,《周易研究》2004年第3期。
清·黄丕烈:《荛圃藏书题识》,中华书局1993年据1919年金陵书局刊本影印本。
清·惠栋:《后汉书补注》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·王先谦:《后汉书集解》,《续修四库全书》据民国王氏虚受堂刻本影印本。
清·惠栋:《惠氏读说文记》,《丛书集成初编》本。
梁启超:《清代学术概论》,上海古籍出版社1998年版。
清·惠栋:《松崖笔记》,《丛书集成续编》本。
清·惠栋:《九曜斋笔记》,《丛书集成续编》本。
清·惠栋:《周易述》,《无求备斋易经集成》据清乾隆二十一年雅雨堂刊本影印本。
清·惠栋:《易例》,《丛书集成初编》本。
李兰芝:《易学的尚中思想》,《南开学报》1994年第3期。
清·孙堂辑:《汉魏二十一家易注》,《无求备斋易经集成》据清嘉庆四年映雪草堂刊本影印本。
唐·孔颖达:《周易正义》,北京大学出版社2000年版。
唐·李鼎祚:《周易集解》,北京市中国书店1984年据嘉庆二十三年吴县周孝垓刊本影印本。
耿志宏:《惠栋之经学研究》,台湾政治大学1984年中国文学研究所硕士论文。
清·惠栋:《周易古义》,《无求备斋易经集成》据清乾隆间淖阳县署刻本影印本。
清·戴震:《戴震集》,上海古籍出版社1980年版。
唐·陆德明:《经典释文》,《孔子文化大全》据清徐乾学《通志堂经解》本影印本。
高亨:《周易大传今注》,齐鲁书社1979年版。
清·臧庸:《拜经日记》,《皇清经解》本。
清·张惠言:《茗柯文编》,上海古籍出版社1984年版。
清·李道平:《周易集解纂疏》,中华书局1994年版。
支伟成:《清代朴学大师列传》,岳麓书社1986年版。
清·周中孚:《郑堂读书记》,中华书局1993年版。
潘雨廷:《读易提要》,上海古籍出版社2003年版。
卢松安编,山东省图书馆整理:《易庐易学书目》,齐鲁书社1999年版。
清·张惠言:《周易郑荀义》,《皇清经解》本。
马国翰:《玉函山房辑佚书》,上海古籍出版社1990年据清光绪九年长沙嫏嬛馆刻本影印本。
清·张惠言:《易图条辨》,《皇清经解续编》本。
杨向奎:《清儒学案新编》,齐鲁书社1994年版。
清·黄以周:《礼书通故》,清光绪十九年(1893)定海黄氏刻本。
《清史列传》,中华书局1987年版。
清·孙诒让:《墨子间诂》,中华书局1986年版。
清·陈廷焯:《白雨斋词话》,民国二十三年排印《词话丛编》本。
陈水云:《张惠言的词学与易学》,《周易研究》2000年第1期。
清·张德瀛:《词征》,民国二十三年排印《词话丛编》本。
刘师培:《刘申叔遗书》,江苏古籍出版社1997年版。
宋·程颐:《程氏易传》,齐鲁书社2003年版。
宋·朱熹:《周易本义》,齐鲁书社2003年版。
徐芹庭:《虞氏易述解》,台北五洲出版社1974年版。
清·张惠言:《虞氏易事》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·张惠言:《周易虞氏消息》,《皇清经解》本。
朱伯岜主编:《周易知识通览》,齐鲁书社1993年版。
朱伯岜:《易学哲学史》,华夏出版社1995年版。
萧汉明:《虞翻易学与<周易参同契>》,载刘大均主编《象数易学研究》第三辑,巴蜀书社2003年版。
刘大均:《“卦气”溯源》,《中国社会科学》2000年第五期。
刘玉建:《两汉象数易学研究》,广西教育出版社1996年版。
清·张惠言:《周易虞氏义》,《续修四库全书》据清嘉庆道光间刊《张皋文笺易诠全集》本影印本。
清·张惠言:《虞氏易礼》,《皇清经解》本。
清·纪磊:《虞氏易义补注》,《续修四库全书》据民国十二年吴兴刘氏嘉业堂刻《吴兴丛书》本影印本。
清·龚自珍:《定盦文集》,《四部丛刊》本。
清·包世臣:《艺舟双楫》,《续修四库全书》据清道光二十六年白门倦游阁木活字印《安吴四种》本影印本。
曹虹:《阳湖文派研究》,中华书局1996年版。
徐珂:《近词丛话》,民国二十三年排印《词话丛编》本。
清·焦循:《雕菰集》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·焦廷琥:《先府君事略》,清嘉庆道光间江都焦氏雕菰楼刊《焦氏丛书》本。
赖贵三:《雕菰楼易学研究》,台湾里仁书局1994年版。
清·焦循:《雕菰楼易学》,《孔子文化大全》据稿本影印本。
陈居渊:《焦循儒学思想与易学研究》,齐鲁书社2000年版。
黄寿祺:《易学群书平议》,北京师范大学出版社1988年版。
清·焦循:《易话》,清道光六年(1826年)焦氏半九书塾刊《焦氏丛书》本。
清·焦循:《易广记》,清道光六年(1826年)焦氏半九书塾刊《焦氏丛书》本。
赖贵三:《焦循定稿<仲轩易义解诂>写钞本考释》,台湾师范大学国文研究所《中国学术 年刊》第廿二期(2001年)。
何泽恒:《焦循研究》,台湾大安出版社1990年版。
清·焦循:《孟子正义》,中华书局1987年版。
陈居渊:《从<易>学的通变理论看焦循对<孟子>的理解》,《孔孟月刊》第三十三卷,第九期。
清·焦循:《易馀籥录》,《丛书集成续编》本。
屈万里:《先秦汉魏易例述评》,台湾学生书局1969年版。
罗振玉:《罗雪堂先生全集》,台湾大通书局1973年据台湾中央研院藏原稿影印本。
吕思勉:《经子解题》,华东师范大学出版社1995年版。
牟宗三:《周易的自然哲学与道德函义》,台湾文津出版社1991年版。
陈居渊:《论焦循“假卜筮以行教”的易学观》,《周易研究》2001年第3期。
李俨:《中国算学史》,上海书店1984年版。
钱保琮:《中国数学史》,科学出版社1981年版。
廖名春:《周易研究史》,湖南出版社1991年版。
《九章算术》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·焦循:《加减乘除释》,《焦氏丛书》本。
清·焦循:《里堂学易记》,台湾文海出版社《清代稿本百种汇刊》据嘉庆间楷书手稿本《雕菰楼经学丛书》影印本。
汉·许慎:《说文解字》,黄山书社1993年据清嘉庆十四年孙星衍覆宋刻本影印本。
清·焦循:《论语补疏》,《皇清经解》本。
清·焦循:《周易补疏》,《皇清经解》本。
清·朱骏声:《传经室文集》,《续修四库全书》据民国刘氏刻《求恕斋丛书》本影印本。
清·郭嵩焘:《养知书屋文集》,《续修四库全书》据清光绪十八年刻本影印本。
清·俞樾:《易穷通变化论》,《春在堂全书》本。
尚秉和:《周易尚氏学》,中华书局1980年版。
高亨:《周易古经今注》,中华书局1984年版。
李镜池:《周易通义》,中华书局1981年版。
清·皮锡瑞:《经学通论》,中华书局1954年版。
程石泉:《易学新探》,上海古籍出版社2003年版。
张舜徽:《张舜徽学术论著选》,华中师范大学出版社1997年版。
王永祥:《里堂易学》,民国22年铅印《孝鱼丛书》本。
清·张之洞撰、范希曾订补:《书目答问补正》,上海古籍出版社1983年版。
董洪利:《孟子研究》,江苏古籍出版社1997年版。
《中国数学简史》,山东教育出版社1986年版。
王绍曾:《<清史稿艺文志>易类拾遗概谈》,《周易研究》1989年第1期。
梁启超:《饮冰室合集》,中华书局1989年版。
清·全祖望:《鲒埼亭集外编》,《续修四库全书》据清嘉庆十六年刻本影印本。
清·黄宗炎:《图学辨惑》,《四库全书》本。
清·纪昀等:《四库全书总目》,中华书局1965年据浙江杭州刻本影印本。
清·阮元:《研经室集》,中华书局1993年版。
清·毛奇龄:《易小帖》,《四库全书》本。
张善文:《历代易家与易学要籍》,福建人民出版社1998年版。
清·胡渭:《易图明辨》,《四库全书》本。
漆永祥:《乾嘉考据学研究》,中国社会科学出版社1998年版。
杜国庠:《杜国庠文集》,人民出版社1962年。
清·皮锡瑞:《经学历史》,中华书局1959年版。
清·钱仪吉等编:《清代碑传全集》,上海古籍出版社1987年影印本。
清·李富孙辑:《李氏易解剩义》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·惠栋:《松崖文钞》,《丛书集成续编》本。
清·惠栋:《易汉学》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·江藩:《国朝汉学师承记》,中华书局1983年版。
清·钱大昕:《潜研堂文集》,《四部丛刊》本。
清·卢见曾:《雅雨堂文集》,《续修四库全书》据清道光二十年卢枢清雅堂刻本影印本。
钱穆:《中国近三百年学术史》,中华书局1986年版。
清·惠栋:《易大谊》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·李慈铭:《越缦堂读书记》,上海书店出版社2000年版。
清·惠栋:《明堂大道录》,《丛书集成初编》本。
李开:《惠栋评传》,南京大学出版社1997年版。
清·陈寿熊:《读易汉学私记》,《皇清经解续编》本。
孙启治、陈建华编:《古佚书辑本目录》(附考证),中华书局1997年版。
《续修四库全书总目提要》,中华书局1993年版。
缪荃孙、董康、吴昌绶:《嘉业堂藏书志》,复旦大学出版社1997年版。
漆永祥:《惠栋易学著述考》,《周易研究》2004年第3期。
清·黄丕烈:《荛圃藏书题识》,中华书局1993年据1919年金陵书局刊本影印本。
清·惠栋:《后汉书补注》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·王先谦:《后汉书集解》,《续修四库全书》据民国王氏虚受堂刻本影印本。
清·惠栋:《惠氏读说文记》,《丛书集成初编》本。
梁启超:《清代学术概论》,上海古籍出版社1998年版。
清·惠栋:《松崖笔记》,《丛书集成续编》本。
清·惠栋:《九曜斋笔记》,《丛书集成续编》本。
清·惠栋:《周易述》,《无求备斋易经集成》据清乾隆二十一年雅雨堂刊本影印本。
清·惠栋:《易例》,《丛书集成初编》本。
李兰芝:《易学的尚中思想》,《南开学报》1994年第3期。
清·孙堂辑:《汉魏二十一家易注》,《无求备斋易经集成》据清嘉庆四年映雪草堂刊本影印本。
唐·孔颖达:《周易正义》,北京大学出版社2000年版。
唐·李鼎祚:《周易集解》,北京市中国书店1984年据嘉庆二十三年吴县周孝垓刊本影印本。
耿志宏:《惠栋之经学研究》,台湾政治大学1984年中国文学研究所硕士论文。
清·惠栋:《周易古义》,《无求备斋易经集成》据清乾隆间淖阳县署刻本影印本。
清·戴震:《戴震集》,上海古籍出版社1980年版。
唐·陆德明:《经典释文》,《孔子文化大全》据清徐乾学《通志堂经解》本影印本。
高亨:《周易大传今注》,齐鲁书社1979年版。
清·臧庸:《拜经日记》,《皇清经解》本。
清·张惠言:《茗柯文编》,上海古籍出版社1984年版。
清·李道平:《周易集解纂疏》,中华书局1994年版。
支伟成:《清代朴学大师列传》,岳麓书社1986年版。
清·周中孚:《郑堂读书记》,中华书局1993年版。
潘雨廷:《读易提要》,上海古籍出版社2003年版。
卢松安编,山东省图书馆整理:《易庐易学书目》,齐鲁书社1999年版。
清·张惠言:《周易郑荀义》,《皇清经解》本。
马国翰:《玉函山房辑佚书》,上海古籍出版社1990年据清光绪九年长沙嫏嬛馆刻本影印本。
清·张惠言:《易图条辨》,《皇清经解续编》本。
杨向奎:《清儒学案新编》,齐鲁书社1994年版。
清·黄以周:《礼书通故》,清光绪十九年(1893)定海黄氏刻本。
《清史列传》,中华书局1987年版。
清·孙诒让:《墨子间诂》,中华书局1986年版。
清·陈廷焯:《白雨斋词话》,民国二十三年排印《词话丛编》本。
陈水云:《张惠言的词学与易学》,《周易研究》2000年第1期。
清·张德瀛:《词征》,民国二十三年排印《词话丛编》本。
刘师培:《刘申叔遗书》,江苏古籍出版社1997年版。
宋·程颐:《程氏易传》,齐鲁书社2003年版。
宋·朱熹:《周易本义》,齐鲁书社2003年版。
徐芹庭:《虞氏易述解》,台北五洲出版社1974年版。
清·张惠言:《虞氏易事》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·张惠言:《周易虞氏消息》,《皇清经解》本。
朱伯岜主编:《周易知识通览》,齐鲁书社1993年版。
朱伯岜:《易学哲学史》,华夏出版社1995年版。
萧汉明:《虞翻易学与<周易参同契>》,载刘大均主编《象数易学研究》第三辑,巴蜀书社2003年版。
刘大均:《“卦气”溯源》,《中国社会科学》2000年第五期。
刘玉建:《两汉象数易学研究》,广西教育出版社1996年版。
清·张惠言:《周易虞氏义》,《续修四库全书》据清嘉庆道光间刊《张皋文笺易诠全集》本影印本。
清·张惠言:《虞氏易礼》,《皇清经解》本。
清·纪磊:《虞氏易义补注》,《续修四库全书》据民国十二年吴兴刘氏嘉业堂刻《吴兴丛书》本影印本。
清·龚自珍:《定盦文集》,《四部丛刊》本。
清·包世臣:《艺舟双楫》,《续修四库全书》据清道光二十六年白门倦游阁木活字印《安吴四种》本影印本。
曹虹:《阳湖文派研究》,中华书局1996年版。
徐珂:《近词丛话》,民国二十三年排印《词话丛编》本。
清·焦循:《雕菰集》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·焦廷琥:《先府君事略》,清嘉庆道光间江都焦氏雕菰楼刊《焦氏丛书》本。
赖贵三:《雕菰楼易学研究》,台湾里仁书局1994年版。
清·焦循:《雕菰楼易学》,《孔子文化大全》据稿本影印本。
陈居渊:《焦循儒学思想与易学研究》,齐鲁书社2000年版。
黄寿祺:《易学群书平议》,北京师范大学出版社1988年版。
清·焦循:《易话》,清道光六年(1826年)焦氏半九书塾刊《焦氏丛书》本。
清·焦循:《易广记》,清道光六年(1826年)焦氏半九书塾刊《焦氏丛书》本。
赖贵三:《焦循定稿<仲轩易义解诂>写钞本考释》,台湾师范大学国文研究所《中国学术 年刊》第廿二期(2001年)。
何泽恒:《焦循研究》,台湾大安出版社1990年版。
清·焦循:《孟子正义》,中华书局1987年版。
陈居渊:《从<易>学的通变理论看焦循对<孟子>的理解》,《孔孟月刊》第三十三卷,第九期。
清·焦循:《易馀籥录》,《丛书集成续编》本。
屈万里:《先秦汉魏易例述评》,台湾学生书局1969年版。
罗振玉:《罗雪堂先生全集》,台湾大通书局1973年据台湾中央研院藏原稿影印本。
吕思勉:《经子解题》,华东师范大学出版社1995年版。
牟宗三:《周易的自然哲学与道德函义》,台湾文津出版社1991年版。
陈居渊:《论焦循“假卜筮以行教”的易学观》,《周易研究》2001年第3期。
李俨:《中国算学史》,上海书店1984年版。
钱保琮:《中国数学史》,科学出版社1981年版。
廖名春:《周易研究史》,湖南出版社1991年版。
《九章算术》,《丛书集成初编》本。
清·焦循:《加减乘除释》,《焦氏丛书》本。
清·焦循:《里堂学易记》,台湾文海出版社《清代稿本百种汇刊》据嘉庆间楷书手稿本《雕菰楼经学丛书》影印本。
汉·许慎:《说文解字》,黄山书社1993年据清嘉庆十四年孙星衍覆宋刻本影印本。
清·焦循:《论语补疏》,《皇清经解》本。
清·焦循:《周易补疏》,《皇清经解》本。
清·朱骏声:《传经室文集》,《续修四库全书》据民国刘氏刻《求恕斋丛书》本影印本。
清·郭嵩焘:《养知书屋文集》,《续修四库全书》据清光绪十八年刻本影印本。
清·俞樾:《易穷通变化论》,《春在堂全书》本。
尚秉和:《周易尚氏学》,中华书局1980年版。
高亨:《周易古经今注》,中华书局1984年版。
李镜池:《周易通义》,中华书局1981年版。
清·皮锡瑞:《经学通论》,中华书局1954年版。
程石泉:《易学新探》,上海古籍出版社2003年版。
张舜徽:《张舜徽学术论著选》,华中师范大学出版社1997年版。
王永祥:《里堂易学》,民国22年铅印《孝鱼丛书》本。
清·张之洞撰、范希曾订补:《书目答问补正》,上海古籍出版社1983年版。
董洪利:《孟子研究》,江苏古籍出版社1997年版。
《中国数学简史》,山东教育出版社1986年版。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |