晚清张佩纶提出庄子为屈原凭吊者的观点,颇为新颖奇特,发前人所未发。他先通过“考证”得出庄子为楚人的结论。进而,通过比附庄屈之文,认为庄子每作一文都直接和屈原有关,或有所劝诫,或为之鸣不平,或深痛凭吊。其实,在思想主张、处世原则等多方面,庄屈之间都存在质的差异,二者绝不可能成为惺惺相惜的诤友。张氏之论固然流于穿凿附会,但确属有感而发,其中渗透着他的出身与志向,更是对宦海沉浮的委婉诉说。张佩纶的此种言说方式,在晚清非常流行,有所不同的是张氏旨在寄托人生不幸,而非政治宣传。 In the late Qing Dynasty, Zhang Peilun put forward the view that Chuang Tzu was the holder of Qu Yuan. It was rather novel and strange, and had never been sent before. He first passed “textual research” to conclude that Chuang Tzu is Chu. Furthermore, through the texts of concubinage, I think every copy of Chuang Tzu’s writings is directly related to Qu Yuan, or exhorted him to be unfair or deeply troubled. As a matter of fact, there are qualitative differences between the ideas and the principle of life. Both of them can never become sympathetic friends. Zhang’s theory of course flow through the chisel attached, but it is indeed a sense that the infiltration of his origin and ambition, but also the ups and downs of officialdom euphemism to tell. Zhang Peilun’s way of saying this was very popular in the late Qing dynasty. What differentiated Zhang was his purpose of pinning life’s misfortune over political propaganda.