陳澧是晚清倡導「漢宋調和」最重要的人物之一。考察他的「漢宋調和」論之後我們可以發現，儘管陳澧不斷強調「宋學」的不可或缺，但他接受的只是宋儒的重視義理的治經傳統，至於宋儒的理學則對他完全沒有影響。他所關注的「宋學」並不是指宋明以來的理學，他一生亟亟從事的「漢宋調和」，其實是在處理清代漢學內部的問題，其目的不過是要強調與重申「由考據而通義理」這一漢學原本的治學理念。所謂漢學的內部問題可以分為兩個層面，第一是治學中「文學」（治經）與「德行」的分離，第二則是「文學」之中「考據」與「義理」的緊張。針對兩個不同層面的「漢宋」問題，陳澧採取了「兩通之」與「兩分之」的不同調和方式。可是他的努力卻難以得到並世漢學諸人的理解，他的尷尬處境反映了漢學理念與漢學實踐之間的脫節。這種脫節正是清代「漢宋之爭」的根源所在。因此，漢學的內在矛盾才是清代「漢宋之爭」在思想史上更深層次的涵義。

Chen Li 陳澧was one of the most important advocates of the reconciliation of Han and Song approaches to Studying the Classics in the late Qing. Examining his theory, we find that despite constantly advocating the indispensability of Song Studies, what he in fact accepted was merely Song scholar’s traditional emphasis on yili 義理, to the point that he was not at all influenced by Neo-Confucianism. The Song Studies that interested him was not the Neo-Confucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties; rather, his life’s work reconciling Han and Song was an attempt to deal with an internal problem in Qing dynasty Han Studies, the aim of which was to stress and reiterate Han Studies original approach of understanding the meaning of doctrine (yili) through textual research (kaoju考據). This problem can be stratified into two layers. The first was the division in the process of research between wenxue文學 (studying the classics) and dexing 德行 (morality), and the second was the tension between kaoju and yili in wenxue. Chen Li adopted two different ways of reconciling these two layers, namely to connect the two and separate the two. However, Han Studies scholars of the time could not comprehend his efforts, an awkward outcome that reflected the divorce between theory and practice in Han Studies, which was precisely at the root of the Han/Song debate in the Qing dynasty. The deeper implication of the Han/Song debate in Qing dynasty intellectual history was therefore this innate contradiction in Han Studies.