錢穆先生的《中國近三百年學術史》體大思精，議論明快，引人入勝者多，可資討論者亦不少。本文僅就錢先生對清代常州《公羊》學之批評，提出一些資料的補充與個人的淺見。在行文的策略上，則尊重錢先生之價值判斷，而深化其提出之議題，並將焦點集中在常州學者的學術淵源及論學上討論，以此為基礎，對錢先生關於常州學術的論斷，稍作修正。就學術淵源而言，雖然章太炎、梁啟超、劉師培及錢先生皆曾討論，然一則所論僅及大端，二來尚未有綜合比較，故本文首先綜合四位先生對常州學術淵源之討論，然後循其文人之背景與沾染蘇州惠氏說經之風的特色，廣引資料，深化補充，以明二者融合之跡；就論學策略而言，漢學家藉反八股以疏離宋學的原因，在於批判其陳腐與禁錮人心；宋學家則批漢學家立場激進，只見八股之弊，而未能深體程、朱學術之醇；至於常州學者，既受漢學風氣之影響，又無法自外於八股制度，乃有折中之論。在應試策略上，尊重制藝制度；在論學策略上，則以西漢微言大義對治東漢訓詁考據，並藉其「義理性」與宋學產生對話。常州學派的論學宗旨，大較在此。至於錢先生批判背後之價值根源，顯然是他一貫尊重宋學的立場，這當然與他對民國初年學術大環境的憂慮密切相關。只不過他太強調蘇州惠氏之根源，目為漢學的旁衍歧趨，而未審科舉對常州之制約，即宋學幽靈始終貫穿在常州學派的血脈中。

Qian Mu's masterful book, Zhongguo jin sanbainian xueshushi (A History of Chinese Scholarship in the Past Three Centuries), has been the source of significant debate since its publication. This paper presents some supplementary materials and offers a reevaluation of his criticism of the Changzhou School's Gongyang studies. This study makes a deeper examination of this particular issue, while respecting Qian Mu's value system, and focuses on a discussion of this school's origins and scholarly strategy. On the basis of Qian Mu's original thesis, some corrections are proposed. Although Zhang Taiyan, Liang Qichao, Liu Shipei, and Qian Mu have all discussed the origins of this school, it is possible to further extend their discussion and also to make a comparison of their views. This paper presents a broad range of materials for the purposes of contextualizing the four scholars' theories and of shedding light on the origins of the Changzhou School. It then examines the background of this school and the ways in which it was affected by the classics teaching of the Hui family of Suzhou. The Han School scholars criticized the Song School scholars for the latter's close association with the practice of the eight-legged essay, underscoring the hackneyed and restrictive aspects of this writing form. The Song School scholars, on their part, chided the Han School scholars for their overlooking the fact that the eight-legged essay could serve as a bridge to the great tradition of the Cheng-Zhu scholarship. Although the Changzhou scholars were influenced by the Han School, they were unable to detach themselves from the eight-legged essay. They took a middle position. They would not slight the eight-legged essay, which was the prescribed form for composing the examination papers. Yet in their own scholarly pursuits they emulated the idea of "subtle words with profound implications" from the Western Han scholarship so as to engage the Song School scholars in a "hermeneutic" dialogue. Qian Mu clearly favored the Song School and he himself was a product of the larger academic environment of the early Republican era. He overemphasized the influence of the Hui family-and hence the Han School-in the development of the Changzhou School and overlooked the Song School undercurrents in the Changzhou School.