对清代考据学批评之批评

A Cvitical Comment of Criticism of Textual Research in Qing Dynasty

前人对考据学批评较多的是“复古”、“繁琐”、“门户之见”,这些批评有可商榷之处。考据学重视先秦两汉文献是由他们的研究课题所决定的 ,具有极大的合理性 ,并非是复古。繁琐不是考据学者们的追求 ,他们讲究博征 ,注明出处是为了增强结论的科学性 ,不能不加区别地视为繁琐。考据学派中的吴派矫枉过正 ,确有较深的门户之见 ,但皖派、扬州学派都主张实事求是 ,不以汉宋论是非 。

In the past, many scholars criticized the textual research in Qing Dynasty mainly for its back-to-the-ancients, tediousness and sectarian bias. In retrospection, these criticisms are worthy of reconsideration. Textual research stresses documents of Pre-Qin and Han Dynasty period, which is determined by its subject of research and seems reasonable, so it can't be characterized as back-to-the ancient. Tediousness isn't textual researchers' goal,but they have to quote copiously from many sources, which can't be regarded as tedious. In textual research, the school of Wu's overcorrection practice indicates sectarian bias to a large extent; however, the school of Wan and the school of Yangzhou both took a water-is-water attitude. The researchers didn't judge things by statements made in Song Dynasty and had no bias against any school.