2025-09-182025-09-18http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11861/25568Evidential scholarship (Kaojuxue, 考據學), a discipline centered on textual verification and authentication, flourished in Qing-dynasty China (17th–19th centuries), particularly during the Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns, giving rise to the Qian-Jia Evidential Scholarship 乾嘉考據學 tradition. This intellectual movement later spread to Japan and Korea, dominating East Asian academia for nearly three centuries. Previous studies classify Qian-Jia scholars geographically—e.g., Wu School 吳派 (Hui Dong 惠棟), Wan School 皖派 (Dai Zhen 戴震), and Yangzhou School 揚州學派 (Jiao Xun 焦循). However, such frameworks oversimplify individual contributions and the internal complexity. In response, this project adopts a Sino-Japanese comparative perspective to explore the core characteristics of evidential scholarship.<br> Jiao Xun (1763–1820) and Yasui Sokken 安井息軒 (1799–1876) represent the pinnacle of mature evidential scholarship, yet their Shangshu 尚書 studies remain understudied. Critiques of the apocryphal Old Text Shangshu 古文尚書 and the forged Kong Zhuan 孔傳 marked the genesis of Qing evidential scholarship, while Shangshu studies mirrored broader trajectories of Qing intellectual history. Consequently, their Shangshu studies have been selected as the focus of this research. This project primarily analyzes research methods and underlying philosophies, aiming to make three breakthroughs:<br> 1. Jiao Xun’s Ambiguous Affiliation. Despite openly admiring Dai Zhen and criticizing Hui Dong’s rigid Han Learning 漢學, Jiao’s Yugong Zhengzhu Shi 禹貢鄭注釋 exclusively upheld Ban Gu 班固, and his Shangshu Bushu 尚書補疏 praised the forged Kong Zhuan. This stance is typical of the Wu School. Crucially, he failed to master the Dai Zhen school’s refined method of “deriving meaning from phonology” 因聲求義.<br> 2. Yasui Sokken’s Hybrid Approach. His Shosetsu Tekiyō 書說摘要 heavily relies on Han scholars and extensively cites Qian-Jia works, irrespective of whether they belong to the Wu or Wan schools. When conflicts arise, he favors Han views—a tendency characteristic of the Wu School. Nonetheless, his scholarship also retains stylistic elements of the Edo tradition.<br> 3. Sino-Japanese Comparative Features. Both scholars share: (1) “Rejecting Song Learning in Favor of Han Learning” 反宋歸漢; (2) “Challenging the Old Text and Exposing the Forged Kong Zhuan” 疑古辨偽; (3) “Evidence-Based Documentary Analysis” 文獻實證. The first two points reflect shared intellectual frameworks, while the third represents evidential scholarship’s most prevalent feature.<br> However, neither scholar mastered the Wan School’s core method, “deriving meaning from phonology”, which Dai Zhen encapsulated as “Seek rational inference, not rigid adherence” 但宜推求，勿爲株守—termed here “Reason-Based Inference” 理據推求. The essence of this method lies in discerning semantic relationships through phonological systems. This method, alongside cultural and personal factors, distinguishes the internal differences among evidential scholarship schools.<br> Jiao Xun’s legacy resides in his critical reflection on textual methods and attempts to forge new avenues in Jingxue (經學, Classical Studies), though methodological limitations led to ultimate failure. Although Yasui’s intellectual grasp was less innovative, it did not hinder the further development of evidential scholarship during the Meiji period. The influx of Western knowledge precipitated modern transformations in both countries, yet evidential scholarship successfully integrated with modern disciplines, retaining enduring scholarly relevance.<br> As an initial phase of broader research on East Asian Shangshu studies, this project will expand to regional comparisons, revealing evidential scholarship’s adaptability across intellectual traditions.<br>