皮錫瑞《經學歷史》所言國朝經師紹承漢學二事商兌

A critical evaluation of Pi Xirui's claim, made in his”History of Classical Scholarship”, that two major characteristics of Qing dynasty classical studies were inherited from the Han

皮錫瑞《經學歷史》，將清代經學的復盛，歸結在紹承漢學二事：「傳家法」與「守顓門」。然此二事，皮氏定義漢、清兩朝，卻有不同標準。漢人嚴守師說，且專治一經。清人只要有師承關係，不但不需恪守家法，治經也不受一經所侷限。此外，有關顓門之學，皮氏時而將其置於二度改學之後所形成的門派，有時又與守家法畫等號。到了清代，只要治經取材漢儒經說，卓然成家，就算是顓家之學了。本文實欲強調，「傳家法」並非漢、清儒專利，況清人最推崇的鄭注，本身就是打破師法、家法的代表。清人取材漢儒經說，只是借用文獻，證成其說，或刊正漢儒謬誤，這是從事考據的基礎，與守不守漢學無關。皮氏以紹承漢學二事，說明清代經學的復盛，不僅不符合實情，也會不自覺地陷入了他所反對的門戶之爭裡。本文撰寫，主要就皮氏所定義的漢學二事，以檢驗其說，並略論清代經學的復盛，與漢學及宋學的關聯。

In his “History of Classical Scholarship”, Pi Xirui ascribes the resurgence of classical scholarship in the Qing dynasty to the revival of two academic traditions from the Han: “propagation of jiafa” (傳家法) and “fidelity to zhuanmen traditions” (守顓門). The way Pi defines these concepts, however, is different for the Han and Qing dynasties. Han scholars strictly adhered to the core teachings of their schools of thought, and they concentrated their work on a particular classical text. Qing scholars, on the other hand, were not only free to step outside the boundaries of their teachers, but could also explore more than one text. Furthermore, Pi uses the term zhuanmen inconsistently—sometimes he uses it to refer to a third-generation sub-school, while at other times he equates it with jiafa, a second-generation school.
In the Qing, as long as a scholar based his thought on Han-era classical scholarship and attracted enough students, his thought was considered a zhuanmen. This paper shows that the doctrine of “propagation of jiafa” was not a special characteristic of the Han and Qing—after all, Qing scholars had no end of praise for Zheng Xuan's notes on the classics, but they directly violated the teachings of his teacher and jiafa.
Qing classical scholars quoted from their Han predecessors merely to provide support for their ideas or correct the Han scholars' errors—in other words, for textual research purposes, not to show that they had “inherited” Han traditions.
Pi's “tradition revival” hypothesis is not only untrue, it's often essentially no different from the “contention among schools” that he opposes. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze how Pi defines the aforementioned two aspects of Han classical scholarship so that his claims can be put to the test. I also discuss briefly how the resurgence of Qing classical scholarship is related to Han and Song studies.