& ltp& gt& ltp& gt& ltp& gt《论语》中两次出现的&ldquo三年无改于父之道&rdquo，引起了历代经学家们的持续讨论。一方面，这句话完整的版本存在人称和言谈对象的模糊性问题，因此需要补全句意才能准确理解其含义。另一方面，这句话的语境已然缺失，因此常常存在&ldquo政治继承&rdquo和&ldquo三年之丧&rdquo两种关于语境的猜测；而这两种对语境的理解也涉及到了历史上&ldquo孝治派&rdquo和&ldquo孝道派&rdquo两种对&ldquo孝&rdquo的含义的不同理解。本文在梳理以上问题的基础上，进一步将&ldquo三年无改&rdquo与经学史上其他类似的命题进行对比讨论，得出了&ldquo改&rdquo或&ldquo不改&rdquo两种观点分别与&ldquo质&rdquo&ldquo文&rdquo两种对人的不同理解有关的结论。最后，本文还通过探讨这两种理念在&ldquo孝&rdquo的概念形成、演变过程中发挥中的作用，以及它们二者如何统一体现在&ldquo三年无改&rdquo的经学文本中、并且使得不同时代经学家进行解读的。& lt/p& gt & ltp& gt关键词：《论语》孝三年无改经学史& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt

& ltp& gt& ltp& gt& ltp& gtThe sentence &ldquoFor three years & #40the son) does not alter from the way of his father&rdquo shows up twice in the Analects, the Confucian classic, causing heated discussion by Confucian scholars. On the one hand, the object in this sentence is very confusing, thus requiring the sentence is intended to complement an accurate understanding of its meaning. On the other hand, the context of this sentence is already missing, so there are often two kinds of speculation: "political inheritance" and "three years of mourning", on the context and these two understanding of context is also related to the "filial piety faction" and "filial governance faction ", which are two kinds of understanding of the meaning of &ldquofilial piety&rdquo in history. On the basis of discussion on the above issues, this paper further compares "for three years no change" with other similar propositions in history, reaching a conclusion that the pros and cons of these issues denote a close affiliation with "literacy" and "nature" respectively, which are two kinds of understanding about human. Finally, this paper also explores how these two concepts play their roles through the establishing and evolving process of the "filial piety" concept, as well as how the unification and tension is reflected in the "for three years no change" issue, and motivates the interpretation by Confucians at different times.& lt/p& gt & ltp& gtKey Words: The AnalectsFilial piety&ldquoFor three years no change&rdquoThe history of Classical studies& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt

[1]（晋）何晏注,（宋）邢昺疏.论语注疏[M].台北：艺文印书馆，1954

[2]（宋）朱熹.朱子全书[M].上海：上海古籍出版社，2010

[3]（宋）朱熹.四书章句集注[M].北京：中华书局，2012

[4]（汉）班固撰,（唐）颜师古注.汉书[M].北京：中华书局，1962

[5]（南朝梁）皇侃.论语义疏[M].北京：商务印书馆，1937

[6]（清）刘宝楠.论语正义[M].北京：中华书局，1990

[7]（清）钱大昕.潜研堂文集[M].上海：上海古籍出版社，2010

[8]（清）宋翔凤.过庭录[M]北京：中华书局，1986

[9]（明）陆九渊.象山语录[M].上海：上海古籍出版社，2000

[10]唐明皇注,邢昺疏.孝经注疏[M].台北：艺文印书馆，1954

[11]（南朝宋）范晔.后汉书[M].中华书局，2003

[12]（汉）郑玄注,（唐）孔颖达疏.礼记正义[M].台北：艺文印书馆，1954

[13]（清）沈之奇.大清律辑注[M].北京：法律出版社，2000

[14]（汉）荀悦撰,（明）黄省曾注.申鉴注校补[M].北京：中华书局，2012

[15]（汉）董仲舒著,（清）苏舆注,钟哲疏.春秋繁露义证[M].北京：中华书局，1992

[16]程树德.论语集释[M].北京：中华书局，2013

[17]陈壁生.孝经学史[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社，2015

[18]陈壁生.经学、制度与生活——《论语》“父子相隐”章疏证.上海：华东师范大学出版社，2010

[19]瞿同祖.中国法律与中国社会[M].北京：中华书局，2007

[20]徐复观.汉代思想史[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社，2001

[21]娜塔莉?戴维斯.档案中的虚构[M]，饶佳荣,陈瑶等译.北京：北京大学出版社，2015

[22]王长坤.先秦儒家孝道研究[D].西安：西北大学博士论文，2005

[23]邹辉杰.试论曾子学派的“孝”[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文，2001

[24]赖积船.《论语》“其N”结构中“其”的语义推衍[J].湖南科技大学学报（社会科学版），2005，（11）

[25]黄开国.论儒家的孝道学派——兼论儒家孝道派与孝治派的区别[J].哲学研究，2003，（3）