本文的主要關注點為「反抗史觀」制約下日治時期漢詩文的研究與詮釋問題，焦點集中在「將漢學的提倡本質地等同於對漢文化的認同、維繫」的民族主義論點，為清理這個研究脈絡，本文將藉助陳瑋芬呈現日本漢學極端保守的文化政治位置的研究成果，以之為參照系，對照出台灣漢文人的漢學保存論中，存在著將台灣漢學嫁接到日本漢學，進而生產出日本統治意識形態論調的歷史事實。這種漢學保存論在殖民統治初期即由瀛社的同仁李逸濤提出，進入大正時期，在儒教團體崇文社的祭祀與徵文活動中，台灣儒教甚至演化出將台灣儒學定位為日本儒教支流的論調。本文後半段則集中討論時任瀛社副社長的魏清德，其漢學觀及國民性書寫。除了指出他的湯島聖堂朝聖之旅以及為此行所發表的漢學論，對「斯文會」及日本漢學表達了臣服之意外，也將對他基於這種日本漢學觀而創作出的闡揚日本國民性的漢詩文，進行初步的分析與探討。經由以上各歷史脈絡的釐清，本文將證明，日治下所謂「漢學」存在著這樣一個將日本漢學全盤移植過來的說法，這是為殖民統治服務的漢學論，因此討論日治下的所謂「漢學」，不能那麼不證自明地就將漢學論、漢詩文書寫等同於對漢文化的認同，等同於中國或台灣民族主義。

By focusing on the nationalism argument which considers ”to advocate the Sinology is equal to maintain the identity of Chinese cultures”, this article aims to examine the researches and interpretations of Han poetries during the Japanese occupation, which were restrained by ”the historical viewpoint of resistance”. To clarify this research context, the result of Wei-fen Chen's research about the extremely conservative cultural and political position of Japanese Sinology is referred. It shows that the Sinology preservation theory tried to graft Taiwanese Sinology onto Japanese Sinology and as the result embraced the ruling ideologies of Japanese imperialism. Such Sinology preservation theory was proposed by Yi-tao Li from the poetry society during the early colonial period. During Taisho Period, the position of Taiwanese Confucianism as a branch of Japanese Confucianism was even proposed in the ceremonial and soliciting activities of Chong-wen Society, a Confucianism society.The second half of this article focuses on the attitude towards Sinology and the writing of national character of Cing-de Wei, the vice president of Ying-ren Society. In addition to Wei's pilgrimage to Yushima-Seido, his theory of Sinology written after the pilgrimage, and his obedience to Sih-wen Association and Japanese Sinology, this article also briefly analyzes and discuses his Han poetries based on his attitude towards Japanese Sinology, which exalt the national character of Japan. Through the clarification of different periods along the history, this article will be providing evidence that there was an idea of taking Japanese Sinology as ”authentic Sinology” under Japan's rule. This so-called Sinology was for colonial purposes; therefore, the ”Sinology” under Japan's rule can not be taken to prove that Sinology and Chinese poetries equal to identity of Chinese cultures or equal to Chinese or Taiwanese nationalism.