2025年3月22日 周六
The inheritance and limitation of official interpretations of Confucian classics in the Ming Dynasty and the evolution of Confucian classics studies
Author:
Clc Number:

K248;B21

  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [39]
  • |
  • Related [20]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    Official interpretation of Confucian classics is a scholarly document that interprets Confucian classics in the form of official interpretation. During the Ming Dynasty, the central government was highly centralized, the compilation background, connotation, and ideological characteristics of the Ming Dynasty’s official interpretation of the classics reflect the cultural choices and political orientation of a dynasty. The official interpretation of Confucian classics and documents in the Ming Dynasty is not only an important source of information for explaining the policies of Confucian studies, but also an important witness to the inheritance and limitations of the official interpretation of Confucian classics in the Ming Dynasty. The issuance of official interpretations of Confucian classics during the Ming Dynasty led to the dominance of Cheng Zhu Neo Confucianism in the study of classics. The promotion of popularization and accessibility in the official interpretation of classics objectively promoted the dissemination of Confucian classics and the popularization of Confucian education. The official interpretation of Confucian literature represents the characteristics of cultural integration and ideological limitations in the Ming Dynasty, which had a significant impact in the field of Confucian studies, reflecting the highly centralized central government’s intervention in Confucian scholarship and control over the ideological sphere. The official Confucian classics of the Ming Dynasty reflected the academic orientation of respecting Cheng Zhu Neo Confucianism, as well as the political demand to consolidate rule and maintain people’s hearts, while the official Confucian classics of the Ming Dynasty embodied the inheritance of the spirit of applying the classics to the world since the Song and Yuan dynasties. The private writings on Confucian classics in the mid to late Ming Dynasty had both academic and governing functions, and were also the inheritance of Confucian scholarship and the practice of Confucian scholarship in governing. They highlighted the cultural significance of the transformation of Confucian classics under the influence of official Confucian scholars in the Ming Dynasty, vividly reflecting the interactive relationship and balance between the academic study of the classics and the imperial examination system. The inheritance and limitations of the Ming Dynasty’s official interpretation of the Confucian classics objectively influenced the direction and process of the development of Confucian classics, and also served as the deep root of the reactionary views of scholars towards Song studies in the mid to late Ming Dynasty and evolution of Confucian classics studies. More discourse on Confucian classics was integrated into annotations and reconciliations based on literature, thus expanding new perspectives on Confucian studies. A reexamination of the academic atmosphere of the Ming Dynasty reveals the important dimensions of the inheritance and limitations of the Ming Dynasty’s official interpretation of the Confucian classics, which conveys the new academic changes in the process of the rise and fall of academic atmosphere, and is beneficial for deepening the research on the Ming Dynasty’s official Confucian classics.

    Reference
    [1] 顾颉刚.顾序[M]//李晋华.明代敕撰书考.北京:哈佛燕京学社,1932.
    [2] 黄佐.南雍志(卷6)[M]//四库全书存目丛书(史部第257册).济南:齐鲁书社,1996:170.
    [3] 刘三吾.孟子节文[M]//北京图书馆古籍珍本丛刊(第112册).北京:书目文献出版社,1988:956.
    [4] 黄虞稷.千顷堂书目(卷1)[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2001:19.
    [5] 宋濂.宋濂全集(第6册)[M].北京:人民文学出版社,2014:1930.
    [6] 明太祖实录(卷239)[M].影印本.台北:台湾"中研院"历史语言研究所,1962:3462.
    [7] 周翔宇.明代《春秋》诠释史论[M].成都:电子科技大学出版社,2017:231.
    [8] 程颢,程颐.二程集[M].王孝鱼点校.北京:中华书局,1981:19.
    [9] 明太祖实录(卷234)[M].影印本.台北:台湾"中研院"历史语言研究所,1962:3422.
    [10] 影印文渊阁四库全书(第1册)[M].台北:台湾商务印书馆,1983:347.
    [11] 刘三吾.书传会选[M]//影印文渊阁四库全书(第63册).台北:台湾商务印书馆,1983.
    [12] 顾炎武.日知录[M].黄汝成集释,栾保群校注.上海:上海古籍出版社,2015:411.
    [13] 张廷玉.明史(卷139)[M].北京:中华书局,1974:3982.
    [14] 张廷玉.明史(卷50)[M].北京:中华书局,1974:1296.
    [15] 明太宗实录(卷33)[M].影印本.台北:台湾"中研院"历史语言研究所,1962:581.
    [16] 何良俊.四友斋丛说(卷3)[M].北京:中华书局,1959:22.
    [17] 黄宗羲.明儒学案(卷45)[M].北京:中华书局,1985:1045.
    [18] 朱彝尊.曝书亭集(卷35)[M].上海:世界书局,1937:434-435.
    [19] 明太宗实录(卷168)[M].影印本.台北:台湾"中研院"历史语言研究所,1962:1874.
    [20] 牟复礼,崔瑞德.剑桥中国明代史[M].张书生,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1992:246.
    [21] 朱彝尊.经义考(卷49)[M].影印本.北京:中华书局,1998:272.
    [22] 松下杂抄[M]//孙毓修.涵芬楼秘笈(第三辑).北京:北京图书馆出版社,2000:362.
    [23] 郭素红.20世纪以来明代《尚书》学研究的回顾与反思[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2022(6):198-207,222.
    [24] 张廷玉.明史(卷69)[M].北京:中华书局,1974:1686.
    [25] 甄洪永,孔德凌.明代经学学术编年[M].南京:凤凰出版社,2015:137-138.
    [26] 李威熊.明代经学发展的主流与旁枝[C]//林庆彰,蒋秋华.明代经学国际研讨会论文集.台北:台湾"中研院"文哲所,1996:92.
    [27] 陈颢哲.明代经学研究的解构与重建[J].中国经学,2022(1):191-206.
    [28] 张廷玉.明史(卷282)[M].北京:中华书局,1974.
    [29] 饶宗颐.明代经学的发展路向及其渊源[C]//林庆彰,蒋秋华.明代经学国际研讨会论文集.台北:台湾"中研院"文哲所,1996:15-22.
    [30] 陆容.菽园杂记(卷3)[M].北京:中华书局,1985:28.
    [31] 费密.弘道书[M]//续修四库全书(子部第946册).上海:上海古籍出版社,1995:14.
    [32] 马宗霍.中国经学史[M].上海:商务印书馆,1953:134.
    [33] 杨慎.升庵集(卷52)[M].影印本.上海:上海古籍出版社,1993:447.
    [34] 王廷相.王廷相集(卷27)[M].王孝鱼点校.北京:中华书局,1989:487-488.
    [35] 郭素红.论明中期经学对宋学的反动:以杨慎对经学的阐释为中心[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(6):145-150.
    [36] 皮锡瑞.经学历史[M].周予同注释.北京:中华书局,2012:254.
    [37] 朱彝尊.经义考(卷297)[M].影印本.北京:中华书局,1998:1527.
    [38] 王玉超.明代儒经学术与科举制衡作用下的儒家类丛书编纂[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2022(2):32-41.
    [39] 刘敬庵.说经劄记序[M]//四库全书存目丛书(经部第149册).济南:齐鲁书社,1996:5-6.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

郭素红.明代官修经解的承继、设限与经学嬗变[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2024,30(6):188~196

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:96
  • PDF: 110
  • HTML: 172
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Online: February 13,2025
Article QR Code