清代虽以“汉学”著称于后世,然而有关四书的研究却始终以朱熹《四书章句集注》为大宗,汉魏古注一直没能占据文化界的主流。除了外因科举制度外,更自有其内在的因素。朱注较之汉魏古注有三大优点:一是在义理上适应了后期封建社会的需要;二是在审文义上远轶古注,训诂考据亦大体正确;三是简明。可见朱注之通行,符合学术的自然规律。但值得注意的是,汉魏古注的“精华”大都在朱注中继续焕发着活力。从纯理论上看,一部书的诠释空间限制了其注本之间的差异。宋儒与清儒的起跑线没有绝对的、不可逾越的差距,朱学王学在义理上的分歧所占四书五经章句之比例亦微乎其微。只有达成这种认识,我们才可能全面地认识和评价清代朱熹的《四书章句集注》依然通行的原因与意义。 Although the Qing dynasty was known as “Sinology”, its research on the Four Books has always been based on Zhu Xi’s “Four Books and Ancestors”, but the ancient Han and Wei Dynasties notes failed to occupy the mainstream of the cultural circle. In addition to the external examination system, but also its own internal factors. Compared with the Han and Wei Dynasties Zhu Zhu has three major advantages: First, in the sense to adapt to the needs of the late feudal society; second is far in the Senate righteous ancestral ancient Note, the test is also generally correct; Third is concise. Visible Zhu Note of the passage, in line with the laws of nature of the academic. However, it is worth noting that most of the “essences” of ancient Han and Wei dynasties continue to rejuvenate in Zhu Zhu. In purely theoretical terms, the space of interpretation of a book limits the differences between its notes. The starting line between Song Confucianism and Qing Confucianism does not have the absolute and insurmountable gap. The differences between the Confucian classics and the Confucian classics in Confucianism account for a negligible proportion of the four classics and the five classics. Only by reaching this kind of understanding can we fully understand and evaluate the reasons and significance of Zhu Xi’s “Four Books Annotations” still passing through the Qing Dynasty.