论江永与西学  

On Jiang Yong(江永)and Western Learning

作　　者：徐道彬[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽大学徽学研究中心,安徽合肥230039

出　　处：《史学集刊》2012年第1期54-63,共10页Collected Papers of History Studies

基　　金：教育部人文社科规划基金项目"清代礼学与徽州社会"(10YJA770060);教育部人文社科重点研究基地;安徽大学徽学研究中心招标项目"徽州学者的西学研究"(2011sk680zd)

摘　　要：在清代数学和天文学史上,关于江永对待西学的态度及其贡献,历来颇有争议。及身而至的便有梅瑴成的不满、钱大昕的批评,其后更有钱熙祚的指责、钱宝琮的肯定。综观后人评说,大半出于政治立场的批评,而较少出于学术层面的求实评价。其中,"三钱"对江永的评判,就代表了不同时期人们的知识水平和政治意识。文章通过江永《翼梅》对梅文鼎学术的批评与总结,借以纠正人们对江永与梅文鼎关系的误解,进而发掘出江氏在清代天算学史上的地位与影响,并由此探讨"西学东渐"时期传统士大夫在学术与政治之间的艰难困境和应对策略。In the history of mathematics and astronomy of Qing Dynasty,Jiang Yong＇s（江永）attitude towards Western learning has always been controversial.Mei Juecheng（梅瑴成）,Qian Daxin（钱大昕）and Qian Xizuo（钱熙祚） were all critical of Jiangyong though Qian Baocong（钱宝琮） agreed with him.The assessment of later generations for the most part is criticism out of political stance and is less real academic evaluation.The three Qian＇s（三钱）criticism of Jiang Yong represents the knowledge level and political awareness of different periods.This paper explores the position and influence of Jiangyong in the history of mathematics and astronomy of Qing Dynasty by making use of Jiangyong＇s criticism and summary of Mei Wending＇s（梅文鼎） learning so as to correct the misunderstanding of relationship between Jiangyong and Mei Wending,and hence probes into the dilemma between learning and politics that the traditional scholar-bureaucrats confronted and their coping strategy when Western learning spread to the East.

关 键 词：江永 《翼梅》 实事求是 “西学中源” 

分 类 号：K249[历史地理—历史学] O112[历史地理—中国史]