康有為《新學偽經考》《孔子改制考》是否分別源自廖平《辟劉篇》《知圣篇》,是中國近代史上一樁"學術公案"。有關廖平、康有為學術淵源的各種傳言,經廖平及其門人、子嗣、后學不斷增飾,逐漸變成"事實",并衍出康有為"剽竊"說和廖平"影響"說。但復核羊城之會相關史實,廖平并未以《辟劉篇》出示康有為,而《新學偽經考》已成稿,絕不可能"剽竊"《辟劉篇》;廖平、康有為論學也未達成一致,不能夸大羊城晤談對康學的影響。重讀兩人"交涉"的基本文獻,廖平對康有為始終堅持"足下之學,自有之可也",從未指控《新學偽經考》"攘竊";戊戌政變后廖平與門人炮制"祖述"說,意在與康學劃界以自保,內心并不認康有為作傳人。康有為確受《今古學考》《知圣篇》影響而迅速完成經學轉向,但不能在兩家經學之間確立唯一對應的淵源關系。通過還原史事和細讀文本,弄清廖平、康有為"交涉"的始末與真相,可對這樁百年懸案作出裁斷。

Whether Kang Youwei’s "Forged Classics of the New Learning" and "Confucius as a Reformer" originated in Liao Ping’s "Refutation of Liu Xin" and "Recognizing the Sage" respectively is a well-known academic controversy in the field of late Qing history.All kinds of stories about the sources of the two men’s academic work became "facts" through the constant embellishment of Liao Ping and his disciples,descendants and successors,ending up as a story of Kang Youwei’s "plagiarism" and Liao Ping’s "influence." However,a review of the relevant historical facts of the Guangzhou meeting shows that Liao did not show Kang his "Refutation of Liu Xin",while Kang’s "Forged Classics of the New Learning" already existed in draft;it was therefore impossible for Kang to have plagiarized "Refutation of Liu Xin". Liao Ping and Kang Youwei did not reach agreement on their scholarly work,so the impact of the meeting on Kang’s scholarly activities should not be exaggerated.Reviewing the basic documents about the two men’s dealings with one another,one notes that Liao reiterated that "There is naturally room for your studies",and that he never accused Kang’s "Forged Classics of the New Learning" of plagiarism.When Liao Ping and his followers promulgated the view of "ancestral antecedents" after the 1898 Incident,they did so with the aim of drawing a dividing line with Kang’s work for the sake of their own protection;inwardly,they did not recognize Kang as an academic successor.Kang Youwei was indeed influenced by "A Study of the Ancient and Modern Classical Texts" and "Recognizing the Sage", but he soon shifted the direction of his work on the Confucian classics.However,we cannot establish a single source of correspondence between the two schools of Confucian learning.Ascertaining the truth of the dealings between Liao Ping and Kang Youwei on the basis of the restoration of historical facts and perusal of original texts enables us to draw conclusions on what has been a moot point for a century.