本文通过探讨清代考据学派如何辩驳朱熹的《大学章句》及其相关问题，比较二者诠释《大学》的不同历史背景、诠释框架及具体观点，以确定二者在准确理解和诠释《大学》原典上的利弊得失，尤其是要凸显考据学派在纠《大学章句》之偏方面的贡献。 朱熹是宋代理学思想的集大成者。他通过融合儒、佛、道三教，建立起一个以理气关系为基础、以心性论为核心、以天人合一的圣贤人格为追求的理学思想体系。其基本理论观点，也成为其经典诠释的思想框架。这使得其《大学》诠释呈现为一个完整、严密、深刻而又简要的思想体系。但是，由于其诠释框架并非完全来自对儒家经典本身思想的系统总结，它还受到了外来思想以及朱熹自身理论偏好等的影响，以之诠释《大学》，自然会出现若干曲解或误解。再加上受历史条件和知识视野的局限，《大学章句》还存在不少考订不周的问题，这就为后世的《大学》诠释留下了新的学术发展空间。 清代考据学派普遍反对援佛释儒，也反对理学家以自己的理论偏好改铸儒家经典，强调在严密考订的基础上，由点及面地复原经典之原貌。其对《大学章句》的辩驳主要涵盖三个方面：其一，对《大学章句》理论结构的修正。朱熹将《大学》划分经传、调整原文顺序并以己意补“格物致知”传，对此，考据学派从文体、文意等角度出发对其合理性展开辩驳。其二，对朱熹猜测《大学》作者的辨疑。考据学派或支持朱熹“曾子之意而门人记之”的推断，或认为《大学》的作者出于七十子后学，甚至怀疑《大学》是禅学文献。其三，对《大学章句》具体内容阐释的修正。考据学派强调训诂、考证之法，注重经典诠释的证据性，且在义理阐释上多直接切入实际的人伦物事之中，反对空谈义理。经过清代考据学派的考辨，经典的训诂、考证问题得以强化，宋代以来擅自改经的不良风气得以扭转。但是，由于考据学派关注细节有余，理论概括、整体把握相对不足，始终没有形成能够超越朱熹《大学章句》的文本。这也是清代考据学派虽大力修正宋明理学、却无法动摇朱熹经典诠释地位的重要原因。

The dissertation of the article is comparing the different historical backgrounds, the interpretation framework and the specific opinion of annotation of The Great Learning between the The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty and Zhu Xi through exploring how Zhu Xi’s thought expressed in The Great Learning Chapters was argued and refuted by The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty in order to discover their gain and loss on the accurate understanding and annotating of the original, especially to highlight the The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty’s contribution on correcting the deficiency of The Great Learning Chapters. Zhu Xi epitomized the thoughts of Neo-Confucianism. Through integrating three religions — Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, he established an integral system of Neo-Confucianism which based on the relation between Li and Qi, set Confucian Temperament Theory as a core and put the moral idealizing personality which was characterized by the theory that man is an integral part of nature as the pursuit. His fundamental theoretical viewpoints had also become his ideological framework used to interpret Confucian classics which made his interpretation of The Great Learning integral, rigorous, profound and brief. However, his ideological framework was not concluded from the systematic summary of the Confucian classics. It was also affected by the thought of Buddhism and Taoism, as well as the theoretical tendency of Zhu Xi. So there were many perversions in Zhu Xi’s classics interpretation. In addition, The Great Learning Chapters still had many deficiencies in the textual research due to the limitation of historical conditions and Zhu Xi’s knowledge horizon. Thus there were new academic spaces left on the interpretation of The Great Learning. Most of The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty opposed to utilize the thought of Buddhism to annotate Confucianism and opposed Neo-Confucianists to recompose the text and the thought of Confucian classics with their theoretical tendency. They emphasized that the classics should be restored from part to whole on the basis of rigorous textual research. They argued with The Great Learning Chapters on many aspects especially the following three parts: The First was about the modification on the theoretical structure of the book. Zhu Xi divided The Great Learning into two parts——Jing and Zhuan, changed the text sequence and appended a passage of Ge-Wu-Zhi-Zhi. The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty argued with Zhu Xi on the three parts from the point of view of literary form and the article content. The second part concerned about the doubt of the author. Some people supported Zhu Xi’s speculation, even positioned Zi Si as the writer. Some people thought that the book expressed the thought of the Confucian whose academic origin was derived from the thought of 72 sages. Some people even suspected that The Great Learning was the literature of Zen. The third topic was the modification of the concrete opinions expressed in The Great Learning Chapters. The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty laid great emphasis on the evidence, attached great importance to the interpretation of the Confucian classics with the perspective of emphasizing human relations (according to feudal ethics) and opposed merely spiritual meditation. With the hard work of The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty, the method of textual research and word interpretation was strengthened and the unhealthy practice of modifying classics with one’s theoretical tendency was amended. Though The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty attached much attention on the detail, the theoretical summary and the integral understanding of the classics were not enough. So a text which can surpass Zhu Xi’s The Great Learning Chapters was never formed. This is the reason why The School Of Textology Of The Qing Dynasty can’t challenge Zhu Xi’s status in the interpretation area while they modified his interpretation.