重论廖平、康有为“学术公案”

A New Discussion of the“Case of Disputed Scholarship”Involving Liao Ping and Kang Youwei

康有为《新学伪经考》《孔子改制考》是否分别源自廖平《辟刘篇》《知圣篇》,是中国近代史上一桩“学术公案”。有关廖平、康有为学术渊源的各种传言,经廖平及其门人、子嗣、后学不断增饰,逐渐变成“事实”,并衍出康有为“剽窃”说和廖平“影响”说。但复核羊城之会相关史实,廖平并未以《辟刘篇》出示康有为,而《新学伪经考》已成稿,绝不可能“剽窃”《辟刘篇》;廖平、康有为论学也未达成一致,不能夸大羊城晤谈对康学的影响。重读两人“交涉”的基本文献,廖平对康有为始终坚持“足下之学,自有之可也”,从未指控《新学伪经考》“攘窃”;戊戌政变后廖平与门人炮制“祖述”说,意在与康学划界以自保,内心并不认康有为作传人。康有为确受《今古学考》《知圣篇》影响而迅速完成经学转向,但不能在两家经学之间确立唯一对应的渊源关系。通过还原史事和细读文本,弄清廖平、康有为“交涉”的始末与真相,可对这桩百年悬案作出裁断。

Whether Kang Youwei’s“Forged Classics of the New Learning”and“Confucius as a Reformer”originated in Liao Ping’s“Refutation of Liu Xin”and“Recognizing the Sage”respectively is a well-known academic controversy in the field of late Qing history.All kinds of stories about the sources of the two men’s academic work became“facts”through the constant embellishment of Liao Ping and his disciples,descendants and successors,ending up as a story of Kang Youwei’s“plagiarism”and Liao Ping’s“influence.”However,a review of the relevant historical facts of the Guangzhou meeting shows that Liao did not show Kang his“Refutation of Liu Xin,”while Kang’s“Forged Classics of the New Learning”already existed in draft;it was therefore impossible for Kang to have plagiarized“Refutation of Liu Xin.”Liao Ping and Kang Youwei did not reach agreement on their scholarly work,so the impact of the meeting on Kang’s scholarly activities should not be exaggerated.Reviewing the basic documents about the two men’s dealings with one another,one notes that Liao reiterated that“There is naturally room for your studies,”and that he never accused Kang’s“Forged Classics of the New Learning”of plagiarism.When Liao Ping and his followers promulgated the view of“ancestral antecedents”after the 1898 Incident,they did so with the aim of drawing a dividing line with Kang’s work for the sake of their own protection;inwardly,they did not recognize Kang as an academic successor.Kang Youwei was indeed influenced by“A Study of the Ancient and Modern Classical Texts”and“Recognizing the Sage,”but he soon shifted the direction of his work on the Confucian classics.However,we cannot establish a single source of correspondence between the two schools of Confucian learning.Ascertaining the truth of the dealings between Liao Ping and Kang Youwei on the basis of the restoration of historical facts and perusal of original texts enables us to draw conclusions on what has been a moot point for a century.