北宋古文家認為孔子、孟子、韓愈、歐陽脩一脈相承，早已建立了儒家道統在我身上的共識，古文家自認繼承了「道統」。古文家與道學家的相同點都是：「道勝於文」，道學家也能肯定古文家以深厚的學養而從事寫文章。不同點則是：道學家認為古文家先文後道，甚至於空言明道、學文棄道。古文家其實並非如此。本文檢索宋人的材料，並未發現北宋古文家捨棄「道統」，轉而自認為繼承「文統」的說法。然而，後人將「道統」與「文統」二分對舉，其說法過於簡化，一直發展到清朝初年，更有人認為道統由道學家所繼承，古文家不在其內。這個說法，不合乎北宋古文家寫作古文的初衷，不適用於他們身上。

Northern Song Classicists (guwenjia) consider Kongzi, Mengzi, Han Yu, Ou Yangxiu as a successively identical group of literati who established Dao Orthodoxy (daotong) of the Ru School. This viewpoint then became the prevailing belief among scholars, that is, the Classicists inherited “Dao Orthodoxy”. The Classicists, and Dao Learning Scholars (daoxuejia) both hold that “Dao is superior to wen,” and Dao Learning Scholars also affirm the cultural refinement of the Classicists as an a priori condition before compositional writing. Where the Classicists and Dao Learning Scholars differ, is that Dao Learning Scholars take it for granted that the Classicists take wen as a priori, and enact Dao as a posteriori (xianwen er houdao), or even claim that the Classicists approach, and illuminate Dao artificially, and they learn wen, but abandon Dao. However, this view is a misrepresentation of the beliefs of the Classicists. This article explores the literature of the Song literati, and concludes that the Northern Song Classicists did not abandon the view of “Dao Orthodoxy”. However, later critics set a binary opposition between “Dao Orthodoxy,” and “Wen Orthodoxy”. This classification is an over-simplification, and many critics, even those in the early Qing period, take “Dao Orthodoxy” as a direct derivation from Dao Learning Scholars, not the Classicists. However, this interpretation does not correspond to the original works of Northern Song Classicists, and therefore, is not attributable to their writings and interpretations.

道;文;道統;文統;道學家;古文家

Dao (the Way);Guwen;Dao Orthodoxy;Wen Orthodoxy;Dao Learning Scholars;Classicists