將京都大學的中國（古典）學稱為「京都學派」的習慣，不僅是中國學者，在普通人之間似乎亦落實了。而我則對此風潮懷有疑問。因為，現在京都大學並不存在著帶有明確的共通理念與穩固的組織而進行活動的中國學之學派等。過去，確實存在有被稱為「支那學」的學派活動，人們將其文獻實證主義作為「京都學派」的特色。但那已經是過去的事了。現在的京都大學的中國學，正在從「支那學」的層次中脫離出來，在方法論與領域上均有大的進展。本來，「支那學」自身的內容與方法就是極為廣泛且多樣的，並非是可以單純地用文獻實證學來矮化的。最重要的原因是，文獻實證學不過是作為學問的不可欠缺的基礎而已，不應當看作是方法論。 然而，現在的京都大學的中國學是從「支那學」出發的，並且至今為止受到了「支那學」的巨大影響，這是無法否定的。京都大學的中國學從「支那學」繼承了什麼？又應該克服什麼呢？此乃我們所面臨的課題。本文提出了京都大學的春秋學研究，作為探討此課題的嘗試。 歷來在京都大學講授中國哲學史的教授，基本上都對春秋學進行了研究。特別是取得了優秀成果的有：狩野直喜、小島祐馬、重澤俊郎、日原利國。他們的研究有著共通點與基於各自的個性的差異點。差異點方面：狩野將基礎置於清朝考證學，有著作為古典學者的強烈性格。小島則由於對現代中國的強烈關心，注目於春秋學的革命論與歷史觀。初期以《左傳》為中心，從事於純粹的文獻學研究的重澤，晚年站在唯物史觀的立場上，批判了春秋學的唯心主義。日原則著眼於春秋學在政治權力上的作用，從今古文論爭的架構中，將其作為儒法的思想鬥爭來把握。 共通點方面：他們最為重視公羊學，尤其是漢代的公羊學，務欲解明作為其政治意識形態的性格與意義。在這種態勢之中，潛蘊著對春秋學所帶有的政治社會思想性的洞察。此一觀點，即並非將經學看作單純的解釋學，而是從政治社會學思想的觀點來考察其中所蘊含的思想意義。此一問題意識正可謂京都大學中國哲學史的研究方法之傳統。

When we talk about the sinological studies at Kyoto University, the term “the Kyoto school” is always used not only within scholars but in general. But I doubted on this term, for I think it is an imagine without evidence. Nowadays there is no more active school of sinology in Kyoto University. It is certain that the school called “Kyoto-sinology” had existed formerly, but that has long since been a thing of the past. There is, however, no denying that the sinological studies at Kyoto University have kept several her own traditions all the time. The tradition of study on Ch'un-ch'iu-hsüeh (春秋學) is one of them. Most professors of the history of Chinese philosophy at Kyoto University, such as Kano Naoki (狩野直喜), Ojima Sukema (小島祐馬), Shigezawa Toshio (重澤俊郎) & Hihara Toshikuni (日原利國), invested much of their energy in studying Ch'un-ch'iu-hsüeh, and made many great achievements. Their characteristics and methods of research were different. Kano was rather an orthodox scholar of Confucianism; Ojima paid attention to the theory of history and revolution with much concern contemporary China; Shigezawa criticized its idealism standing on historical materialism; Hihara analyzed its political influence in the struggle between chin-wên-hsüen (今文學) and ku-wên-hsüen (古文學). On the other hand, they had a common ground. They all attached great importance to Kung-yang-hsüeh (公羊學) in the Han period, and examined its ideology. It is because the regarded ching-hsüeh (經學) not as mere exegesis, but as supreme expression of thought, and this point of view is the very tradition of the sinological studies at Kyoto University.