英文摘要 |
Hao Ching was very unusual among scholars of the late Ming period. He was well-versed in the classics, and left a great deal of writings, but commentators have held opposite views about his scholarship. Some have seen him as a stronghold of the Ming study of classics. Others have criticized him for spreading false ideas. What has contributed to these divergent comments is a problem worthy of in-depth examination. This author has thus chosen Hao Ching's Mao-Shih yuan-chieh for a closer analysis, which aims at helping understand the essence of Hao's study and give a more judicious evaluation of his work. Mao-Shih yuan-chieh is one of Hao Ching's Chiu-ching chieh. Hao Ching in this work followed Shih hsu and refuted, with all he could, Chu Hsi for not using Shih hsu in Shih chi-chuan. Almost all the important points made therein focused on criticizing Chu. As Hao Ching relied so much on Shih hsu, he sometimes was over-bound by this work and failed to make an objective observation. In addition, Hao Ching in his study of Shih ching emphasized interpreting the meanings of the text and made a number of unique points. These personal reflections have been open to question and criticism. The appraisals of Hao's work thus have varied. In the iconoclastic climate of the late Ming, it was easier for Hao Ching, who dared to suggest new ways of approaching the classics, to be admired. In contrast, in the midst of the philological emphasis rising at the Ch'ien-Chia period of the Ch'ing dynasty, the prevailing concerns for positive evidence made it difficult to think highly of those who were noted for interpreting classics with their own views. In other words, Hao Ching was at one time highly valued and at the other time criticized depending on the contemporary intellectual climate. Seeing such differences in judgment, one cannot but sigh with sorrow. |