CAJ | 학술논문

梁启超和严复可称晚清民初思想界双峰并峙的两位巨人，他们的学术和思想有许多相同点，但亦有明显差异。1908年，两人对改革家王安石的集中评论为我们认识其异同提供了极佳的视点。两人当时各自的处境不同，严复地位极高，而正值壮年的梁启超游亡海外，希望得到清廷重用，因此，他们对王的评议也就有所差异。在政术方面，梁启超对王安石新政以肯定为主，辅之以批评；严复对王安石的评议前后一贯，有肯定也有批评。在心术方面，梁启超对王安石称颂不已；严复对王安石有褒有贬，认为其理想本身就有问题。在学术方面，梁启超关注王安石的经学思想，强调“求大义以经世”；严复则侧重于文学和哲学两方面，从哲学的高度来考察王安石的思想，故批评多于赞许。上述歧异不仅彰显了梁启超、严复思想的各自情状和不同内涵，也体现了两人对待历史的态度与方法，折射出晚清思想界的复杂面相。
량계초화엄복가칭만청민초사상계쌍봉병치적량위거인，타문적학술화사상유허다상동점，단역유명현차이。1908년，량인대개혁가왕안석적집중평론위아문인식기이동제공료겁가적시점。량인당시각자적처경불동，엄복지위겁고，이정치장년적량계초유망해외，희망득도청정중용，인차，타문대왕적평의야취유소차이。재정술방면，량계초대왕안석신정이긍정위주，보지이비평；엄복대왕안석적평의전후일관，유긍정야유비평。재심술방면，량계초대왕안석칭송불이；엄복대왕안석유포유폄，인위기이상본신취유문제。재학술방면，량계초관주왕안석적경학사상，강조“구대의이경세”；엄복칙측중우문학화철학량방면，종철학적고도래고찰왕안석적사상，고비평다우찬허。상술기이불부창현료량계초、엄복사상적각자정상화불동내함，야체현료량인대대역사적태도여방법，절사출만청사상계적복잡면상。
Liang Qichao and Yan Fu, the twin giants in the late Qing and early Republican era, while sharing many common intellectual and academic ideas, differ remarkably. Their concentrated critiques in 1908 of the Chinese historical reformer Wang Anshi provide a fairly good vantage-point for comparison. The two of them live in totally different circumstances： while Yan occupies a comparatively superior position, the middle-aged Liang, in overseas exile, hopes desperately for appointment from the government. Consequently their critiques of Wang differ. As concerns statecraft, Liang, with some criticism, mainly speaks positively of Wang＇s New Deal, while Yan holds an everlasting balanced praise-and-critique attitude. Concerning the craft of mind,Liang sings the praises of Wang, while Yan speaks half in praise and half in critique, insisting that Wang＇s ideal itself was mistaken. Regarding scholarship, Liang＇s focus is on Wang＇s thought about the canons, laying emphasis on ＂seeking for ‘Da Yi＇ or ‘great rightness＇ to govern the world＂, while Yan concentrates on Wang＇s literature and philosophy, examining Wang＇s thought from the viewpoint of philosophy with more criticisms than praises. Such differences demonstrate clearly not only Liang and Yan＇s different intellectual bottom-lines, but also their different attitudes and methods toward history, which further reflects the complicated truth of the late Qing intellectual community.