本文旨在釐析譚獻對駢散文之態度，以及其態度背後之學術主張。按論文主駢散不分，實為晚清文章家之主調，亦如論學而主漢宋調合一般。然不論是論學的漢宋調合抑或者論文的駢散不分，都只是一個籠統的概念而已。其間之細微變化，還有待從對學者論說的具體分疏中，一一爬梳。與譚獻在學術上同漢學家爭學統，而另立漢學譜系相對應的是，譚獻在文章上的駢散不分，亦有與古文家爭文統之意識存焉。雖然乾嘉前輩在理論上為駢文的獨立性開闢道路，但譚獻在文章的態度上反而近於古文家，認為文章要有載道之功能。只不過譚獻心中之道，是西漢經學的大典禮大制作，而不是宋明理學家言心言性之道；譚獻心中之文，是西漢文章的駢散不分，而不是韓愈以下的散行單體。在他看來，文章與經術互為表裏，文章之優劣即為學術之優劣。譚氏既以西漢駢散不分之經術文章為極則，對於後世為文能秉此道者，乃不吝褒美；而於違反此道者，則屢有微辭。此譚獻論文之大觀，而文章所以關乎經術者以此。

This paper aims to discuss Tan Xian’s attitudes towards parallel prose and prose and reveal his viewpoints hidden in these attitudes. During the late Qing periods, it was the mainstream argument not to distinguish parallel prose from prose when talking about articles, just as to mingle Han learning with Song learning when discussing academics, and at the same time, it was actually a general opinion, whose nuanced distinctions should be differentiated and analyzed through great efforts. On the one hand, Tan Xian constructed a new pedigree of Han learning so as to compete for academic orthodox with those scholars belonging to Han learning. On the other, he didn’t distinguish parallel prose from prose when making reference to articles, intending to compete for literature orthodox with ancient prose writers. Tan’s attitudes towards articles was close to those of ancient prose writers, and he insisted that articles should have the function of spreading Confucian principles and instructions. However, as for these principles and instructions, Tan preferred the basic rites and institutions and the great manufactures and works remained with Confucian classics during the Western Han Dynasty, rather than the ethical preaching and moral lecturing given by the Neo-Confucians in the Song and Ming Dynasties, and in the same breath, the articles in his mind were referred to those written by Western Han authors, which combined parallel prose and prose, not to those written by the authors after Han Yu in the middle Tang Dynasty, which had just a single style of prose. Tan believed that articles and Confucian academics were connected closely with each other, and the quality of articles was equivalent with the quality of a certain academics. Based on this standpoint, Tan made various comments on the articles since the Western Han Dynasty.