The Modern Course and Scholarly Characteristics of the Study of Chinese Classics

In the more than year since the inaugural World Conference on Classics was held, classics and classical studies have become a hot topic in academia, providing an opportunity for in-depth exploration of related scholarly issues. We believe that, for the next stage of research in Chinese classical studies, theoretical clarification is indispensable: on the one hand, it is necessary to historically trace the process by which classical studies was established as a modern academic discipline, clarifying the research background and the direction of problems; on the other hand, it is necessary to endogenously recognize the scholarly characteristics of the classics as the foundation of Chinese civilization, grasping the whole of scholarship and the overall intellectual picture. Clarifying this course and these characteristics is of great significance for deepening the study of Chinese classics.

首届世界古典学大会召开一年多以来，古典和古典学研究已成为学术界的热点，这为深入探讨一些相关学理问题提供了契机。我们认为，就中国古典学下一步的研究而言，理论澄清工作必不可少：一方面，需要历史地回溯古典学作为现代学术的成立过程，明晰研究背景与问题走向；另一方面，需要内生性地认识古典作为中华文明基底的学理特质，把握学问整体和思想全局。明确此种历程与特质，对于深化中国古典学研究具有重要意义。

The Emergence of Chinese Classical Studies in Modern Academia

中国古典学在现代学术中的出场

In traditional Chinese scholarship, there was originally no such name as "classical studies"; Chinese classical studies is a product of the modernization of traditional scholarship, and its process of establishment can be roughly divided into three stages.

中国传统学术中本无古典学之名，中国古典学是传统学术现代化的产物，其成立过程大致可分为三个阶段。

In 1923, Liang Qichao, in his *An Academic History of China in the Past Three Hundred Years*, [1]1 Liang Qichao (1873–1929) was a prominent Chinese scholar, journalist, and reformist intellectual active in the late Qing and early Republican periods. adopted the concept of "classical studies" to refer to the study of institutions and objects during the Qianlong-Jiaqing period of the Qing dynasty. [2]2 The Qianlong-Jiaqing period (1736–1820) refers to the reigns of the Qianlong and Jiaqing emperors of the Qing dynasty, a period associated with a flourishing of evidential scholarship (*kaozheng xue*). This was an early emergence of "classical studies" in modern Chinese academia. However, Liang Qichao's overly specialized definition limited the possible boundaries of meaning of this concept; moreover, "classical studies" appears only a few times in Liang's work and was not given any particularly significant meaning. "National studies" [3]3 "National studies" (*guoxue*) refers to the study of traditional Chinese culture, history, and philosophy, often framed as a national heritage in the modern period. was at that time a more emblematic and accepted term for traditional scholarship.

1923年，梁启超在《中国近三百年学术史》中启用了“古典学”这一概念，用以指代清代乾嘉时期的名物制度考索之学，这是“古典学”在近代中国学术中的较早发端。不过，梁启超过于专门的定义限制了这一概念可能的意涵边界；而古典学在梁氏笔下仅数见，也未被赋予特别重要的意义。“国学”才是当时对于传统学术更具标识性和接受度的称呼。

It was not until the end of the 20th century that Chinese classical studies truly entered the purview of modern academia. In the mid-1990s, Chinese scholars of world history were among the first to propose that Chinese and Western classical studies should be advanced simultaneously from the perspective of comparative civilizational studies. [4]4 This refers to the mid-1990s, when Chinese historians of world history began advocating for comparative studies of classical civilizations. Subsequently, many scholars published articles offering support and responses, and the concept of "Chinese classical studies" was thus formally proposed. The characteristic of Chinese classical studies research during this period was that various scholars mostly approached the classics from a comparative angle and through the disciplines of literature and history, placing particular emphasis on the role of excavated documents in the reconstruction of classical studies, thereby regarding the pre-Qin and Han dynasties as the main period for Chinese classical studies research. This is the second stage of the modern development of Chinese classical studies.

到了20世纪末，中国古典学才真正进入现代学术的视野。20世纪90年代中期，我国世界史学者较早提议，中西古典学应在文明比较研究的视角下同步推进。此后，不少学者先后发表文章给予支持和响应，“中国古典学”的概念由此被正式提出。这一时期中国古典学研究的特点在于，各家大多从比较的角度和文史的学科切入古典，特别重视出土文献在古典学重建中的作用，从而把先秦两汉视为中国古典学研究的主要时段。这是中国古典学现代展开的第二阶段。

In the 21st century, especially in the last 15 years, research in Chinese classical studies has become more flourishing and has exhibited new characteristics. The first is localization: research in literature, history, and philosophy has shown a clear recognition of the Chinese tradition in terms of concepts and values, with the study of the Confucian classics becoming a hot topic. The second is systematization: classical studies research is not limited to the literary and historical investigation of the pre-Qin and Han dynasties but has expanded into a general exploration of the core issues of traditional Chinese civilization. The third is institutionalization: some disciplines, including philology, have actively proposed or accepted the name "Chinese classical studies," relevant national academic organizations have been successively established, and the integration of classical studies with the disciplinary system has deepened. The fourth is interaction: the in-depth development of Western classical studies research in China has provided reference and assistance for the development of Chinese classical studies. Compared with the first stage, this period shows a markedly enhanced self-awareness of "the classics"; compared with the second stage, the research focus of this period has shifted more toward transmitted texts, and the status of "canonical texts" as the main carrier of classical studies has been highlighted. At the same time, however, with the participation of multiple disciplines and perspectives, the academic spectrum has become increasingly complex, also giving rise to the scholarly question of "what is *not* classical studies."

21世纪特别是近15年来，中国古典学研究更趋兴盛，并呈现新的特点。其一是本位化，文史哲研究在观念与价值上表现出对中国传统的鲜明认可，经学成为研究的热门。其二是系统化，古典学研究不限于对先秦两汉的文史考察，而是展开为对传统中国文明核心问题的普遍探研。其三是建制化，包括文献学在内的一些学科主动提出或接纳“中国古典学”之名，相关全国性学会组织先后建立，古典学与学科体系的结合日益加深。其四是互动化，西方古典学研究在国内的深入发展，为中国古典学发展提供了借鉴和助力。相比于第一阶段，这一时期对“古典”的自觉明显增强；相比于第二阶段，这一时期的研究重心更多转向传世文献，“经典”作为古典学主要载体的地位得到凸显。但与此同时，伴随着多学科、多视角的参与，学术光谱日趋复杂，也带来了究竟“什么不是古典学”的学理疑问。

As a form of the modernization of traditional scholarship, the century-long history of Chinese classical studies, from nonexistence to existence, reveals the growing urgency of the times' search for the foundational values of civilization and also indicates the depth and complexity of the adjustment and transformation of traditional scholarship between the ancient and the modern.

作为传统学术现代化的一种形态，中国古典学一百年来从无到有的变迁史，显示出时代对于文明根源性价值的探寻日益迫切，也提示出传统学术在古今之间调适、转型的深刻与复杂。

Classics, Canonical Texts, and Political Canons

古典、经典与政典

Traditional Chinese scholarship is vast and boundless. Within it, what exactly can be called classical studies? Or is classical studies simply the sum total of traditional scholarship? We believe that Chinese classical studies has its own specific theoretical themes, primarily the study of the fundamental principles, values, history, and texts of classical China. Its core scope of documents is canonical texts, and canonicity is a prominent theoretical characteristic of Chinese classical studies.

中国传统学术浩如烟海。在其中，究竟什么可以称为古典学？抑或古典学就是传统学术之总和？我们认为，中国古典学有自身特定的理论主题，主要是对古典中国根本原理、价值、历史与典籍的研究，其核心的文献范围是经典，经典性是中国古典学突出的理论特质。

What China calls canonical texts refers first and foremost to the Classics division among the four divisions of Classics, History, Masters, and Collections. [5]5 The four divisions (*sibu*) of the traditional Chinese bibliographic system: Classics (jing), History (shi), Masters (zi), and Collections (ji). Confucian classical studies is the backbone of traditional scholarship. The *Zhuangzi · Tianxia* [6]6 The *Zhuangzi* is a foundational Daoist text attributed to the philosopher Zhuang Zhou (4th century BCE). The chapter *Tianxia* ("All Under Heaven") is a critical survey of ancient schools of thought. states: "The *Odes* express aspirations, the *Documents* record events, the *Rites* guide conduct, the *Music* harmonizes, the *Changes* illuminate yin and yang, and the *Spring and Autumn Annals* define names and statuses." [7]7 The Six Classics (*Liujing*) are the *Odes* (*Shijing*), *Documents* (*Shangshu*), *Rites* (*Liji*), *Music* (*Yuejing*, now lost), *Changes* (*Yijing*), and *Spring and Autumn Annals* (*Chunqiu*). The tradition of emotions and aspirations, the narratives of sage-kings, norms of behavior, the function of harmonization, the philosophy of change, and the great principles and proper designations found in the Six Classics together constitute the cultural core of classical China. In this sense, the study of Confucian canonical books, their ideological principles, and their historical evolution is naturally within the scope of classical studies.

中国所谓经典，首先是指经史子集四部中的经部，儒家经学是传统学术的主干。《庄子·天下》有言：“《诗》以道志，《书》以道事，《礼》以道行，《乐》以道和，《易》以道阴阳，《春秋》以道名分。”六经中的情志传统、圣王叙事、行为规范、调和功能、变易哲学与大义名分，共同构成了古典中国的文化内核。在这个意义上，对于儒家经书及其思想义理、历史演变的研究，自然是古典学的题中之义。

Going further, canonical texts are not limited to Confucian scriptures and classical studies; they have a deeper and broader meaning in terms of both school and era. The *Zhuangzi · Tianxia* positions the Confucian canonical books within a whole "whose operation is nowhere absent," [8]8 This phrase from the *Zhuangzi* describes the all-pervasive nature of the Way. considering the *Odes*, *Documents*, *Rites*, and *Music* to be merely one aspect of the Way, which must be integrated with the "old laws transmitted by the generations of history" and the "hundred schools of thought." [9]9 The "hundred schools of thought" refers to the diverse philosophical and political schools that flourished during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods (c. 770–221 BCE). The *Hanshu · Yiwenzhi*, [10]10 The *Hanshu* (Book of Han) is the official history of the Western Han dynasty, compiled by Ban Gu (32–92 CE). The *Yiwenzhi* (Treatise on Literature) is a bibliographic chapter. when discussing the origins of classical scholarship, put forward the famous theory that "the various masters originated from the royal officials," [11]11 This theory holds that the various philosophical schools originated from different official positions in the Zhou dynasty bureaucracy. arguing that the nine schools and ten traditions, [12]12 The "nine schools and ten traditions" is a classification of ancient Chinese philosophical schools, including Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism, and others. including Confucianism and Daoism, were all offshoots and remnants of the official institutions and canons, with the old canons of the Zhou officials being the earlier source of each school's doctrine. The discussions in the *Zhuangzi* and the *Hanshu* together convey a profound meaning: the fundamental principles and values that established classical China possess a thoroughgoing wholeness, transcending the scope of any single school, lineage, scripture, or book. For this reason, Chinese classical studies, which today takes the elucidation of these principles and values as its mission, cannot be limited by any single discipline or school but should integrate and incorporate the learning of the classics, masters, and hundred schools into its purview, so as to mobilize the full intellectual force of classical China. In this sense, it can be said that any classical document that helps elucidate Chinese principles and values is a canonical text in the sense of classical studies; or, canonical texts in the sense of classical studies are "words that embody the Way" that manifest Chinese principles and values.

进一步讲，经典又不限于儒家的经书与经学，而是在学派与时代上都有其更深广的意涵。《庄子·天下》将儒家经书放在一个“其运无乎不在”的整体中定位，认为《诗》《书》《礼》《乐》只是道之一端，需要与“旧法世传之史”和“百家之学”结合在一起。《汉书·艺文志》在讲述古典学术之起源时，曾提出著名的“诸子出于王官说”，认为包括儒道在内的九流十家都是官方典制的支流余裔，周官旧典才是各家学说的更早源头。《庄子》与《汉书》的论述共同传达了一种深意：古典中国得以成立的根本原理与价值具有彻底的整全性，超越于一家一派、一经一书的范围。职是之故，今天以阐明此种原理与价值为己任的中国古典学，也就不能为某一学科或学派所限，而是应将经子百家之学统合并纳入自身的视野，以便调动起古典中国全部的思想力量。在这个意义上，可以说，凡是有助于阐明中国原理与价值的古典文献都是古典学意义上的经典；或者说，古典学意义上的经典就是体现中国原理与价值的“载道之言”。

The *Shuowen Jiezi* [13]13 The *Shuowen Jiezi* is an early 2nd-century CE Chinese dictionary by Xu Shen, analyzing the structure and meaning of Chinese characters. explains the character *dian* (典, canon) as "the books of the Five Emperors." [14]14 The Five Emperors are legendary sage-rulers in ancient Chinese tradition, typically including the Yellow Emperor, Zhuanxu, Ku, Yao, and Shun. In its original meaning, *dian* does not refer to ordinary books but to the condensation of the governance and teachings of an era. The opening chapters of the *Shangshu*, the *Canon of Yao* and the *Canon of Shun*, are records of the Way of Yao and Shun. [15]15 The *Shangshu* (Book of Documents) is a collection of speeches and decrees attributed to ancient rulers. The *Canon of Yao* and *Canon of Shun* are its first two chapters. Zhang Xuecheng, in his *General Principles of Literature and History*, [16]16 Zhang Xuecheng (1738–1801) was a Qing dynasty historian and philosopher. His *General Principles of Literature and History* (*Wenshi Tongyi*) is a major work on historiography. proposed that "the Six Classics are all the political canons of the former kings," [17]17 This thesis argues that the Six Classics were originally records of the political and administrative acts of ancient sage-kings, not abstract philosophical texts. meaning that the Six Classics are a distillation of the governance of the former kings. Therefore, classical studies, which integrates the classics and masters and gathers the hundred schools, is neither a miscellaneous encyclopedia nor the doctrine of a single school; its essence, rather, always rests on the principles of order in classical China. Classical studies highlights the characteristic of Chinese civilization that emphasizes governance and teaching and does not depart from human culture; it is a study concerning the foundational color of civilization.

《说文解字》解释“典”字云：“五帝之书也。”就本义来说，“典”不是一般的书籍，而是一代政教之凝结。《尚书》开篇的《尧典》《舜典》就是对于尧舜之道的记录。章学诚在《文史通义》中提出“六经皆先王之政典”，也是说六经是先王治道的提炼。因此，统合经子、汇集百家的古典学既不是杂多的大全，也不是一门的教义，其要义毋宁说始终落在古典中国的秩序原理之上。古典学凸显出中国文明强调政教、不离人文的特质，是关乎文明底色之学。

The Evolution of Canonical Texts and the Renewal of Civilization

经典演变与文明更新

Canonical texts are established in response to the maturation of civilization and also change along with the renewal of civilization. From the pre-Qin period through the Ming and Qing dynasties, Chinese canonical texts underwent a process of expansion and transformation, bearing a distinct imprint of their times.

经典因应着文明的成熟而确立，也伴随着文明的更新而变迁。自先秦至明清，中国经典经历了一个扩充、流变的过程，具有鲜明的时代性。

Pi Xirui, in his *History of Classical Studies*, once summarized the evolution of classical studies past and present into ten eras, which pertains to the rise and fall of Confucian classical studies. If we focus on the classics themselves, the classical Chinese canon can be said to have undergone at least three major transformations. The first was the establishment of the Confucian canon during the Western Han dynasty. From the time of Emperor Wu of Han onward, the *Book of Songs*, *Book of Documents*, *Book of Rites*, *Book of Changes*, and *Spring and Autumn Annals* were formally established in the official academies, with the erudite system [18]18 The erudite system (博士制度) was a Han dynasty institution in which court-appointed scholars (boshi) were responsible for teaching and interpreting the Five Classics in the imperial academy. becoming the vehicle for canon transmission. The Five Classics served both to transmit learning and to govern affairs, thus establishing the first stable classical system in classical China. The second was the modification and reform of the classical canon during the Tang and Song dynasties. From the Han and Wei onward, Buddhism entered China; from the Northern Song onward, Neo-Confucianism arose. The great intellectual transformations from medieval to early modern China were reflected in the classical genealogy: some content from the Five Classics became the object of purely academic research, while certain more philosophical texts became the new bearers of the spirit of the age. Mr. Qian Mu once proposed the concept of a "New Seven Classics," arguing that the *Analects*, *Mencius*, *Laozi*, *Zhuangzi*, *Reflections on Things at Hand*, *Instructions for Practical Living*, and the *Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch* together constituted the basic classics of Chinese culture from the Tang and Song onward. The key point indicated by this formulation is that the cultures of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, represented by New Confucianism (Neo-Confucianism) and New Buddhism (Chan Buddhism), jointly established a new classical genealogy and intellectual pattern around the early modern period. The third was the great transformation and reshaping of the classical canon since the late Qing dynasty. The educational reforms of the late Qing and early Republic abolished the privileged status of classical studies, and the influx of new intellectual resources reshaped the Chinese people's fundamental understanding of the world. From the 20th century onward, the classical Chinese canon not only lost its original institutional support but also faced the test of new history in terms of its principles and meanings. However, after undergoing such a complex historical process, traditional classics today can still participate in history in a living manner and still possess the power to move people's hearts. This not only demonstrates the enduring vitality of the fundamental principles of classical China but also indicates the profound connection between present-day China and its own historical tradition.

皮锡瑞在《经学历史》中曾将古今经学的流变归结为十个时代，这是就儒家经学的兴衰而言的。如果着眼于经典本身而言，古典中国的经典体系可以说至少经历了三次大的变动。第一次是西汉时期儒家经典体系的确立。汉武帝起，《诗》《书》《礼》《易》《春秋》正式立于学官，博士制度成为经典传承的载体，五经既以传学，亦以治事，古典中国第一个稳定的经典系统由此建立。第二次是唐宋时期经典体系的因革。汉魏以降，佛教传入；北宋开始，理学兴起。中国中古至近世巨大的思想变革反映在经典谱系上，就是五经中的部分内容成为纯学术研究的对象，一些更具思想性的文本成为时代精神的新担纲者。钱穆先生曾有“新七经”的说法，认为《论语》《孟子》《老子》《庄子》《近思录》《传习录》《六祖坛经》共同构成了唐宋以降中国文化的基本经典。这一说法所指示出的重点，正是以新儒家（理学）、新佛学（禅宗）为代表的儒释道文化在近世前后共同确立了新的经典谱系与思想格局。第三次是晚清以来经典体系的丕变与重塑。晚清民初的学制改革取消了经学的特出地位，新的思想资源的传入重塑了国人对世界的根本认知。20世纪以降，古典中国的经典体系不但在制度上失去了原有的支撑，在义理上也面对着新历史的检验。然而，在经历了如此复杂的历史过程之后，传统经典在今天仍能以活性的姿态参与历史、仍有打动人心的能力，这不仅显示出古典中国根本原理的持久活力，也说明了今日中国与自身历史传统的深刻联系。

A noteworthy phenomenon is that each drastic adjustment of the Chinese classical canon precisely coincided with macroscopic turning points in Chinese history: the rise and fall of Han classical studies signaled the transition from antiquity to the medieval period, the modification and reform of Tang and Song classics marked the turning point from the medieval to the early modern era, and the deconstruction of late Qing classical studies occurred precisely at the threshold of the transition to the modern period. This is no accident but rather points to a fact: only the spirit of the age capable of guiding history to a higher level can become a new classic; new classics are the markers of a civilization's river entering a new course. This of course also means that although the classical canon was established at the beginning of classical civilization, it can maintain its classical character only through constant self-renewal. "Only our nation, from antiquity to the present, is both old and new." [19]19 This is a classical Chinese phrase often used to describe the enduring yet ever-renewing character of Chinese civilization, sometimes attributed to the *Book of Documents* or later commentaries. The reason Chinese classical civilization possesses enduring value is not that Chinese classics are sufficiently ancient, but that the fundamental principles and values contained within them have always remained open to history, possessing the capacity to be "constantly renewing." The reason classical studies possess a living function is not only that they investigate and examine past events, but also that classical studies aim to excavate resources from the classics for better responding to the questions of the age, and to seek how civilization's initiative releases itself in each concrete historical opportunity. The establishment of this sense of history and the acquisition of this initiative constitute the true significance of classical studies between the ancient and the modern.

一个值得注意的现象是，中国经典体系的每一次剧烈调整都恰好出现在中国历史的宏观转折点上：两汉经学的兴衰提示了古代向中古的变迁，唐宋经典的因革标记了中古到近世的转捩，晚清经学的解构更是处在走向近现代的关口。这不是偶然，而是提示出一个事实：只有能够导引历史走向更高处的时代精神才能成为新的经典，新经典是文明长河走入新航段的标志。这当然也就意味着，经典体系虽然在古典文明的开端处就已确立，却只有在不断的自我更新中才能保持其经典性。“惟我国家，亘古亘今，亦新亦旧”，中国古典文明之所以具有长久的价值，不是因为中国经典足够古老，而是因为其中蕴含的根本原理与价值始终面向历史开放，具备“常为新”的能力。古典学研究之所以具有活性的功能，不仅是因为对往事有所钩沉考稽，还因为古典学研究旨在从古典中发掘更好地应对时代之问的资源，寻找文明的主动性如何在一次次具体的历史机缘中释放自身。这种历史感的建立与主动性的获得，才是古典学在古今之间的真正意义。

(The author is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者系中国社会科学院哲学研究所副研究员）