Assistant Professor, Department of Chinese Literature, National Taiwan University.國立臺灣大學中國文學系助理教授曹美秀Tsao, M.H.M.H.Tsao2017-09-082018-05-292017-09-082018-05-292013-101013-2422http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/282363http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/282363/1/0042_201310_4.pdfContemporary Sang-shu(尚書) research, affected by the scientific spirit and method emphasized by scholars from the beginning of the Republican period, has tended to focus on the fruits of bian-wei(辨偽). This has unfortunately led to a relative ignorance of the possible diversity present in late Qing dynasty Sang-shu studies, especially the works concerning bian-zhen(辨真), which take the opposite view of bian-wei. To approach this lack in scholarship, this paper attempts to return to the background of the Qing intellectual environment to observe the development of Sang-shu studies. I take Hong Liang-pin’s(洪良品) works as my main example since they were completed later and integrate numerous materials. I then compare them with bian-wei works. In this way, I hope to break through the recent views of Qing dynasty Sang-shu studies, and see its development from a wider angle to provide a new point of view from which to observe the bian-zhen and bian-wei debate. Together this will help us better construct and understand Qing intellectual history.受清末至民初逐漸形成，並廣泛為學人強調的科學精神及方法之影響，今人對清代《尚書》學的關注，集中於與辨偽相關的成就，而忽略晚清《尚書》學可能的多面性，尤其是持論與辨偽相反的，對《尚書》古文諸篇之辨真相關著作。本文試圖回到清代的學術背景，考察《尚書》學的發展，並以成書時間較?、資料蒐羅較齊備的洪良品為例，分析其對古文諸篇的辨真理論，同時與辨偽者之重要論點及考辨方法相比較，一方面打破既有看待清代《尚書》學的視野，而以較寬廣的角度，探討《尚書》學於晚清的發展情形；一方面藉由雙方論證方法之比較，提供觀察辨真及辨偽觀點的另一個視角。二者皆有助於吾人對清代學術史的建構與解讀。30014202 bytesapplication/pdf《尚書》、辨偽、辨真、洪良品、閻若璩(Shang-shu, bian-wei, bian zhen, Hong Liang-Pin, Yan Ruo-Qu）journal article10.6281/NTUCL.2013.10.42.04http://dx.doi.org/10.6281/NTUCL.2013.10.42.04http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/282363/1/0042_201310_4.pdf