本文討論近代早期兩位同時受業於學院第一位中文教席雷慕沙（Jean-Pierre Abel- Rémusat, 1788-1832）門下兩位法國漢學家之間有關《道德經》的鬩牆論戰，他們分別為繼任教席的儒蓮（Stanislas Aignan Julien, 1797-1873）與未獲教席的鐵（Guillaume Pauthier, 1801-1873）。這場前後超過三十年的衝突，大約在1841- 1843 年間達到的高峰。儒蓮的霸氣在漢學界並非新聞，雖然部分學者將兩人的爭論歸諸風氣，本文作者認為，也應該探討箇中的學術性理由，尤其是兩人翻譯與詮釋中國文獻的進路。雖然師出同門，但是較早入門的(爫叟)鐵研究側重義理、哲學性詮釋的方式，而年紀較長的儒蓮則採取類似中國訓詁的方式。本文試圖探索歐洲漢學界這場從傳教士獨攬的漢學知識體系，轉型為學院的漢學過程中涉及經典翻譯與詮釋進路的鬩牆論戰，來探索與釐清十九世紀上半葉法國的漢學家對於中國經典尤其是《道德經》翻譯的不同進路、箇中關鍵論題和其他學者的意見。

This paper aims to explore the quarrels concerning the translation of Daodejing between fellow Sinologists Stanislas Aignan Julien (1797-1873) and Guillaume Pauthier (1801-1873), both of whom were disciples of Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat (1788-1832). As second generation nineteenth-century French Sinologists, Julien and Pauthier both took different approaches towards Chinese studies from that of their master, whose approach resembled ones employed by early Jesuits. The dispute was not only a matter of personal grievances or emotional behavior, but also an issue that can be clarified by analyzing the methods and reasoning behind both their writings and comprehension of classical Chinese texts. The disagreement was initiated no later than 1842 following the first complete French translation of Daodejing published by Julien, following a philological approach. Four years earlier, Pauthier, who had failed to succeed the professorship of Abel- Rémusat, published his own partial translation of the same classic in 1838, but rather took a philosophical approach. Their disputes proceeded in a series of publications, which continued until 1873, the year of their respective deaths. The author analyzes the main themes of their contestations by way of textual criticism and attempts to ascertain how these very themes may reflect their different approaches to Daodejing.