晚清易学处于汉易与宋易、古文与今文、中学与西学相互对立而又相互取鉴的交错往复之中；既受制于传统易学的理论体系，又有其鲜明的时代特色；既有因维护其自身特性和传统而呈现出的保守封闭性，又有因吸收西学以适应社会变化而表现出的开放融摄性；因而呈现出复杂多变的学术面貌，可以视为传统易学向现代易学过渡的转型阶段。就发展脉络而言，晚清易学大致可以分为四个阶段，第一阶段是汉宋易学对峙时期，第二阶段是汉宋易学融合时期，第三阶段是易学与今文经学会通时期，第四阶段是西学视域下之易学新转向时期，每一阶段之间既有内在理路的沿续，又有研究范式的突破。本文立足于文献典籍，以社会史和学术史的双重视角，对各个阶段的易学发展状况进行宏观把握，在此基础上对易学人物及其著述进行微观分析，将易学核心论题——象数与义理之学放在汉宋之争、古今之别、西学融入、现代转向等视域中展开研究。以易学史演进的内在逻辑为基础层层推进，力图勾勒出晚清易学的发展轨迹及衍变规律，尝试构建一个符合晚清时代特征及其学术思潮的易学体系。

   第一章着重梳理汉宋易学从清初至嘉道时期的发展过程及其奠定的易学景观。学界往往将乾嘉易学等同于汉易，其实不然，从清初至中期，宋易作为官方学术一直赓续不辍，其规模及影响非汉易所及。乾嘉时期，汉易进入全面复兴阶段，宋易逐步式微。整体而言，嘉道时期，汉宋易学延续乾嘉时期奠定的格局，沿着各自的轨道向前推进，呈现出双峰对峙的态势。

第二章侧重于探讨咸同时期汉宋易学走向合流的趋势。汉宋易学在经历相互对峙、相互攻驳的发展阶段之后，各自的治学弊端已显露无遗，加之时局所迫，学者普遍认识到应汉宋兼采。起初采取以“宋易为主、兼采汉易”及以“汉易为主、兼采宋易”的方式，至同治时期迎来了以“回归《易传》、超越汉宋”、致力于深入融合二者的发展高潮。本章将汉宋易学兼采分为三种类型，每种类型选取一位代表人物进行个案研究，第一节考察“宋易为主、兼采汉易”的丁寿昌易学，第二节考察“汉易为主、兼采宋易”的纪磊易学，第三节考察“回归《易传》、超越汉宋”的黄以周易学，这三位易学家可以反映咸同时期汉宋易学合流的发展趋向。

第三章致力于厘清光绪时期今文经学复兴下的易学发展状况。无论是汉宋兼采还是试图超越汉宋，都是在汉宋易学内部进行讨论和研究，而此时的易学发展状况，通过对《周易》象数体例及文字训诂的探索，已难以形成宋明理学式的义理思想、哲学内涵；对《周易》义理内涵的阐发，也难以消除与经文原意之间的紧张关系，在汉宋易学合流的趋势中，传达着象数与义理难以调和的内在冲突。与此同时，随着民族危机的加深，至光绪朝中期，今文经学经世致用观念逐渐兴盛，形成了以今文经学解释《周易》的潮流，意在讥切时政、建议制法。其中较有代表性的人物有庄忠棫、王闿运、康有为、廖平、皮锡瑞、萧德骅等人。本章以康有为、廖平、皮锡瑞三家易学为研究对象，揭示这一时期易学演变特征，三位学者在今文经学影响下，思想观念、治《易》理路颇为接近，均将卦爻辞作者推于孔子，掀起易学今古文之争。

第四章重点讨论西学视域下之易学新转向。汉宋合流及今文经学的出现，引起了以诸子之学、佛老思想注解《周易》的繁盛局面，这一诠释边界的不断扩大为西学融入传统易学提供了契机。光绪后期，西方知识及观念大量涌入，为本已厌倦汉宋之别、今古之争的学者注入了新鲜血液。部分学者采用西学知识解释《周易》，出现了易学与西学融合的发展势头，其中较有代表性的是章太炎、刘师培、张之锐等人。章太炎提出“《易》为历史之结晶”，刘师培将《周易》与诸学科一一衔接起来，反映了古文经学家对传统易学的突破。而致力于易学与西学之全面会通者，当属晚清学者张之锐，其《易象阐微》一书以科学合《易》道，开科学易之风气，预示着传统易学向现代易学的转轨。

结语部分主要总结晚清易学的四种研究进路及诸多特点。晚清易学在传统象数与义理的基础上，又出现了“以史治易”和“科学易”两种研究进路，为现代易学研究拓宽了思路。晚清易学极为博杂，本节主要总结了六个方面的特点，一是易学著作数量众多，二是治《易》类型纷繁丛杂，三是解《易》内容新颖独特，四是研《易》特征务于实学，五是晚清易学的史学化倾向，六是晚清易学家群体具有明显的地域性特征，以期揭示这一时期易学发展的主要特征和整体概貌。

此外，需要注意的是，晚清时期尚有部分学者仍然坚持传统汉易或宋易本位，不为学术潮流所动，这一趋向贯穿着晚清易学发展过程始终，成为晚清易学的一股潜流。晚清易学短短几十年，历经汉宋对峙与融合、古今中西之争这一复杂历程，涵盖了整个学术史的演变过程，糅合了先秦以来的易学文化内涵。这一现象是绝无仅有的，其学术史意义不言而喻。

Classic of Changes in the late Qing Dynasty is in the midst of the interplay between Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty, ancient and modern texts, middle school and western studies, which are opposed to each other and were taken from each other; it was subject to the theoretical system of traditional Classic of Changes with its distinctive characteristics of the times. It was conservative and closed because of maintaining its own characteristics and traditions, and open and inclusive because of absorbing Western learning to adapt to social changes; Therefore, it presented a complex and changeable academic outlook, which could be regarded as the transition stage from traditional Classic of Changes to modern Classic of Changes. As far as the development context was concerned, the Classic of Changes in the late Qing Dynasty could be roughly divided into four stages. The first stage wasthe confrontation period between Han and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty. The second stage was the integration of Han and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty studies, the third stage was the integration of Classic of Changes and modern Confucian classics, and the fourth stage was the new turn of Classic of Changes from the perspective of Western learning. Each stage had both the continuation of internal logic and the breakthrough of research paradigm. This paper was based on literature classics. From the dual perspectives of social history and academic history, this paper made a macroscopic grasp of the development of Classic of Changes in each stage, and on this basis made a microscopic analysis of the characters and their writings of Classic of Changes, and studies the core topic of Classic of Changes the study of image, number and righteousness in the perspective of the dispute between Han and Song Dynasties, the difference between ancient and modern times, the integration of Western learning and the modern turn. According to the internal logic of the evolution of the history of Classic of Changes, this paper tried to outline the development track and evolution law of Classic of Changes in the late Qing Dynasty, and tried to build a Classic of Changes system that conforms to the characteristics of the late Qing Dynasty and its academic trend of thought.

The first chapter focused on combing the development process of Classic of Chamges in Han and Song Dynasties from the early Qing Dynasty to Jia and Dao Dynasties and the landscape of Classic of Changes. Academic area often equated Classic of Changes in the Qianjia  dynasty with Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty. During Qianlong period, Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty continued as an official academic, and its scale and influence were beyond Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty's reach. During Jiadao period, Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty entered a comprehensive revival stage, while Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty gradually declined. On the whole, during the Jia-Dao period, the Yi-ology of Han and Song Dynasties continued the pattern laid in the Qian-Jia period and advanced along their own tracks, showing a situation of double peaks confrontation.

The second chapter focuses on the trend of confluence of Han and  Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty studies in the same period of Xian Dynasty. After the development stage of confrontation and refutation between Han and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty studies. Their respective academic drawbacks have been exposed, and forced by the current situation, scholars generally realize that they should adopt both Han and Song Dynasties. At first, they adopted the methods of " Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty as the mainstay and Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty as another one" and " Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty as the mainstay and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty as another one". In the Tongzhi period, they ushered in the development climax of returning to The Biography of Classic of Changes and surpassing Han and Song Dynasties, and devoted themselves to the in-depth integration of the two. This chapter divides Han and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty studies into three types. Each type elects a representative figure for case study, The first section investigates Ding Shouchang's " Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty as the mainstay and  Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty", the second section investigates Ji Lei's " Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty as the mainstay and  Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty", and the third section investigates Huang Yizhou's "Returning to The Biography of Classic of Changes and Surpassing Han and Song". These three Classic of Changes scholars can reflect the development trend of the confluence of Han and  Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty in the same period.

The third chapter is devoted to clarifying the development of Classic of Changes under the revival of Confucian classics in Guangxu period. Whether it is adopting both Han and Song Dynasties or trying to surpass Han and Song Dynasties, They are all discussed and studied within the Classic of Changes studies of Han and Song Dynasties. At this time, the development of Classic of Changes. Through the exploration of the image-number style and textual exegesis in The Book of Changes, it is difficult to form the philosophical thought and philosophical connotation of Neo-Confucianism in Song and Ming Dynasties, and it is difficult to eliminate the tension between the meaning of The Book of Changes and the original meaning of scriptures. In the trend of the confluence of Han and Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty studies, it conveys the internal conflict between image-number and meaning that is difficult to reconcile. At the same time, with the deepening of the national crisis, by the middle of Guangxu Dynasty, the concept of statecraft and practical use of modern Confucian classics gradually flourished, forming a trend of explaining The Book of Changes with modern Confucian classics, aiming at ridiculing current politics and suggesting making laws. Among them, the representative figures are Zhuang Zhongyu, Wang Kaiyun, Kang Youwei, Liao Ping, Pi Xirui, Xiao Dehua and others. This chapter takes Kang Youwei, Liao Ping and Pi Xirui as the research objects, and reveals the evolution characteristics of Classic of Change studies in this period. Under the influence of modern Confucian classics, the three scholars are quite close in their ideas and ways of governin Classic of Changesi, and they all push the authors of hexagrams to Confucius, thus setting off a dispute over modern and ancient Classic of Changes studies.

The fourth chapter focuses on the new turn of Classic of Changes from the perspective of western learning. The confluence of Han and Song Dynasties and the emergence of Confucian classics in modern texts have caused the prosperous situation of annotating The Book of Changes with the study of various schools of thought and the thought of Buddhism and elders. The continuous expansion of this interpretation boundary provides an opportunity for Western learning to integrate into traditional learning. In the late Guangxu period, a large number of western knowledge and ideas poured in, which injected fresh blood into scholars who were tired of the difference between Han and Song Dynasties and the dispute between modern and ancient times. Some scholars use Western knowledge to explain The Book of Changes, which shows the development momentum of the integration of Yi and Western learning. Among them, Zhang Taiyan, Liu Shipei, Zhang Zhirui and others are more representative. Zhang put forward that "The Book of Changes is the crystallization of history", and Liu connected The Book of Changes with various disciplines one by one, which reflected the breakthrough of ancient Chinese classics scholars in traditional Yi studies. Zhang Zhirui, a scholar in the late Qing Dynasty, devoted himself to the comprehensive integration of Classic of Changes and Western learning. His book Yi Xiang Interpretation combines Classic of Changes with science and opens up the atmosphere of scientific Yi-ology, which indicates the transition from traditional Classic of Changes to modern Classic of Changes .

The fifth chapter mainly summarizes the four research approaches and many characteristics of Classic of Changesin the late Qing Dynasty. On the basis of traditional images, numbers and meanings, Classic of Changes in the late Qing Dynasty initiated two research approaches, namely, taking The Book of Changes as a history book and Science Classic of Changes , which laid the basic program of modern Classic of Changes research. Classic of Changes in the late Qing Dynasty was extremely complicated, This chapter mainly summarizes the characteristics of six aspects.First, there are a large number of works on Classic of Changes ; second, the types of Yi-ology are numerous and complicated; third, the content of Yi-ology is novel and unique; fourth, the characteristics of Yi-ology should be studied in practice; fifth, the historiography tendency of Yi-ology in the late Qing Dynasty; sixth, the group of Yi-ology scholars in the late Qing Dynasty has obvious regional characteristics, etc., in order to reveal the main characteristics and overall general picture of the development of Yi-ology in this period.

In addition, it should be noted that some scholars in the late Qing Dynasty still adhered to the traditional  Classic of Changes in the Han dynasty or Classic of Changes in the Song dynasty standard, which was unmoved by the academic trend. This trend ran through the development process of Yi studies in the late Qing Dynasty and became an undercurrent of Yi studies in the late Qing Dynasty. The Yi-ology in the late Qing Dynasty lasted for just a few decades, and experienced the complex course of confrontation and integration between Han and Song Dynasties and the dispute between ancient and modern China and the West, covering the evolution process of the whole academic history and blending the cultural connotation of Yi-ology since the pre-Qin period. This phenomenon is unique, and its academic history significance is self-evident.