周春的古文《尚書》觀點──兼由其交遊略窺乾嘉《尚書》學風氣

Zhou Chun’s Views on the Guwen Shangshu: The Academic Atmosphere of Shangshu Studies in the Qianlong and Jiaqing Periods Viewed through His Social Circle

今人述及乾嘉年間的《尚書》學，輒將之與考據、漢學、辨偽等概念相綰合；但事實上，乾嘉時期不乏擅長考據、持論卻與辨偽說相異者，周春便是一例。本文先概述周春的生平與學術，以見其與主流學界的互動，並指出周春之學既有與主流學風相合者，亦有歧出的部分，以見乾嘉學風之多樣性，並作為理解周春《尚書》觀點的基礎。接著，探討周春撰《補正》的背景與心態，指出周春處於古文真偽問題聚訟的風氣中，以履霜堅冰的心態避免古文被排、被刊。以前文所述為基礎，再由四個角度分析周春補正《冤詞》的主要內容，並由此指出：研究清代《尚書》學時，不應受科學觀點與古文《尚書》真／偽二分，及漢宋學框架的限制，方能避免「被研究者主體性失落」的問題。同時由毛奇齡對辨偽論據的進一步推進，以及周春對毛奇齡論點的修正，指出辨誣、辨偽的論據互相影響，且在清代古文《尚書》考辨史中，皆為動態發展的情形。

Modern scholars, when discussing Shangshu studies during the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods, often associate this with textual research, Han Learning, and authentication. However, in reality, the Qianlong and Jiaqing eras were not lacking in scholars skilled in textual research whose arguments differed from those focused on authentication, with Zhou Chun as an example. This article first outlines Zhou Chun’s life and scholarship to demonstrate his interaction with mainstream academia, pointing out that his scholarship contained aspects both aligned with and diverging from mainstream academic trends. This highlights the diversity of academic directions during the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods, and serves as a foundation for understanding Zhou Chun’s views on the Shangshu. The article then explores the background and mindset behind Zhou Chun’s composition of the Buzheng, pointing out that Zhou Chun, amidst the heated debate over the authenticity of the Guwen Shangshu, maintained a cautious but unwavering stance to protect it. Finally, it analyzes the main content of Zhou Chun’s supplement to Yuanci from four perspectives, concluding that our understanding of Qing Dynasty Shangshu studies should not be limited by scientific viewpoints, the putative authenticity of the Guwen Shangshu, or the framework of Han-Song Learning. Moreover, Mao Qiling’s further advancement of the arguments for distinguishing between false and genuine texts, together with Zhou Chun’s revision of Mao Qiling’s points, show that such arguments influenced each other as a dynamic development in the history of textual research on the Guwen Shangshu in the Qing Dynasty.