本文以顾炎武对韩愈散文的接受为研究对象，共分为三章。 第一章探讨顾炎武的韩愈散文阅读，共分为七个部分。阅读条件探讨了顾炎武一生中接触韩文的可能性；阅读时间推断其一生中具体的阅读时间与场合；阅读内容根据他的引用总结了他印象最为深刻的篇目，并与选本选篇比较以见其共性；阅读媒介勾勒了在经典化的时代中，韩文阅读借以发生的无处不在的多重媒介；阅读方法还原了顾炎武求知与建构的两种取向；阅读流程倒推了顾炎武先行默诵，再行核对的步骤；阅读效果及目的推断了韩文阅读对其写作的反哺及其以韩文为资源进行思想重建的倾向。 第二章分别讨论顾炎武韩文接受与儒学、与文学和儒学、与文学的关系。在儒学上，顾炎武在排佛、道统重建、为学宗旨、经世致用上都以韩文为资源，以复杂的心态对当世儒学进行调整。在文学和儒学的关系上，顾炎武既以韩愈为批判的靶子，批评当世的文学分科与功利化；另一方面，又以韩愈和韩文为典范，规范散文及其背后的行为方式，以收归文权的方式维护官方价值观，使其承担政治责任，教化风俗。而在文学方面，顾炎武既承认了韩愈的创新，但又透露出对其创新局限性的不满，这与顾炎武面对经典的重压无路可走，但又要强调今人的自主性的复杂心态相互发明。 第三章着眼于顾炎武对韩愈的深层共鸣与思维模式。顾炎武企图以音韵复古的方式使风俗还淳，这使其面对多用古韵的韩愈产生了矛盾的心态，既欣赏，又贬斥，体现了其不时透露的心结。而面对异族统治下士人进退出处的问题，顾炎武也以韩愈为范例，寄托了对年轻一代的告诫，点到为止，意味深长。在深层思维模式上，顾炎武有极强的心理预设，他难以做到直面韩文，他不时扭曲、装点韩文，使其符合自己的文学观。但这事实上源于他强烈的救世情怀，韩文成了他借势而为的工具。 余论部分一方面在顾炎武对韩愈形象的继承与塑造上加以总结，指出存在着两个分裂的儒学韩愈与一个被符号化了的文士韩愈，而从文本出发的思考模式正是其解构的可能性所在。另一方面，也尝试探讨了接受研究进一步深化的两种可能。

This study is based on Gu Yanwu’s reception of Han Yu’s prose, consisting of three chapters. Chapter one is about how Gu Yanwu read Han Yu’s prose, which is composed of seven parts. Reading condition is about the possibility that he came into contact with Han Yu’s prose; reading context talks about the pieces that gave him great impression, and shows the similarity with selected works popular at that time; reading media demonstrates how multiple the approaches were after Han Yu is seen as a sage in literature; reading method analyses Gu Yanwu’s pursue for knowledge and construction; reading procedure rebuilds his steps that began with recitation, ended with verification; reading effects asserts that his writing ability was benefitted from Han’s prose, and he read with certain purpose to adjust ideology. Chapter two pays attention to the relationship between his reception and Confucianism, and the relevance of literature to Confucianism, and literature. In Confucianism, he used Han’s prose as a source to attack Buddhism, to reconstruct Confucianism’s history and orthodoxy, to proclaim his academic proposition, and to search for pragmatic ways to solve social issues, which exposed his delicate feelings to the new dynasty. In the relevance of literature to Confucianism, on the one hand, he targeted at Han, attacking him on the account of the branched literature out of Confucianism and the literature contaminated by profit; on the other hand, he considered Han as a paragon of virtue to set a standard for prose in order to guide the way of interaction between people via prose, to take back the authority of literature to government, to construct and defend the ideology. In literature, he acknowledged Han’s innovation, while dissatisfied with the limitation of Han’s originality, which is exactly his complexity in the dilemma of yielding to the pressure under classics and his volition to express their own voices out of the ancients. Chapter three focuses on his emotional resonance and his pattern of thought. Gu believed if they returned to the ancients in pronunciation, people would be more simple and honest. As a result, Han Yu, who used ancient pronunciation occasionally in his poets, is considered the one who damaged the correct pronunciation, which reveals Gu’s ambivalent attitude towards him. And facing the problem that whether they should serve the new dynasty, Gu also showed his implicit advice towards youngsters with Han’s prose. As for thinking patterns, Gu usually distorted Han’s text in order to borrow Han’s great power to argue for his opinion, which is based on his strong intention to save the society. In the conclusion, Gu’s strategy to reconstruct Han’s image is pointed out, in which he shaped two extreme Han’s image in Confucianism and one plain image in literature, leaving space for deconstruction under the historical and literary thinking pattern. At the end, based on this study, the possibility to deepen the method of reception study is reconsidered.