《汉篆研究》在广泛搜集整理大量汉代篆文材料并借鉴前人研究成果的基础上，通过对汉篆文字载体的分期分类、对汉篆文字构形的描述分析，推进汉篆文字的考释和诸多理论问题的研究。论文主要分为以下三个部分。汉篆文字材料研究。纵观石刻、铜器、陶文、印章等汉篆文字材料的研究历程，可以看出，近年来相关研究的“现代性”日益凸显。对相关材料重新断代分类的结果可以揭示汉篆内部的正俗差异。其中，形制特征对瓦当文字的影响最为明显。汉篆文字构形分析。汉篆中的形体演变现象，包括构件的增繁、省简，笔画的析断、并连、延伸、截缩和字形类化、感染等。一些汉篆材料上有错别字。校释44组铜器、印章、砖瓦、陶器上的文字，进而对部分器物的年代和性质做出新的判断。相关理论问题探索。重点探讨汉篆与《说文解字》、与秦篆、与汉隶的关系。首先，汉篆发展有自源性和他源性。一方面，汉篆对秦篆有所继承、其内部有正俗之别，但始终具备“典范性”的根本性质。其较高的地位和价值，又时常被人为拔高。另一方面，汉篆中确实有隶变现象，但不应因此就过于强调隶书对汉篆的影响。此外，汉代文字材料上的书体分布十分复杂，篆隶混用的情况并不罕见。其次，许慎作《说文》的目的是通过建立自洽的小篆系统来说解字理。他选择小篆正是由于篆书的“典范性”，并客观上规避了古今文之争。《说文·叙》中的“秦书八体”和“新莽六书”性质不同，后者才是汉代实际行用字体的归纳。而唐写本《说文》的“悬针篆”和大徐本所谓“玉箸篆”，实同出一源，都与汉代手写篆书有关系。第三，传世文献和《说文》引通人说中的例子都证明，汉代上层社会普遍具有篆文读写能力，但“篆”一词多作为艺术术语使用，汉人不谈论其得名原因也不强调篆隶之别。最后，在译介欧美学者关于秦汉文字使用、《说文》与文字规范化等问题研究成果的基础上，尝试从历史性、传统性、现代性“三个维度”观察汉篆“典范性”的来由与发展，由此摒弃长期以来对汉篆、对《说文》、对隶变的种种误解。

Study on Han Zhuan is based on the collection of related materials and previous studies. Though reaching on staging and classification of the materials and analyzing the structure of the graphs, this dissertation focuses on improvement of interpretations and promotion of studies on several theoretical problems. Therefore, it contains three main parts:First, on the materials, Chapter 1 sorts out the history of the studies on stelas, copper wares, potteries and seals since Song Dynasty, showing that the recent research has become more “modernized” than ever before. Chapter 2 presents the results of staging and classification of the materials above, describing the differences among different periods and types. Specifically, the structural characteristics of eaves tiles influence the graphs most.Second, on the graphic forms, Chapter 3 analyses some examples of form changing in Han zhuan graphs, including components multiplication, simplification; strokes merging, breaking, stretching, truncating; and assimilation. Some materials also carry errors or miswritten graphs. Interpretations on 44 groups of cultural relics are corrected, and the age or nature of some of them are newly discovered.Third, on the some theoretical problems, Chapter 4 emphasizes that Han zhuan develops both internally and externally. Inheriting the style of Qin zhuan, Han zhuan also contains the standard forms and the vulgar ones but the nature of Han zhuan is still “canonical”, which has been always elevated by Han people. Simultaneity, commonness can be easily found between zhuan and clerical scripts in Han Dynasty. At the same time, styles distribute complexly on various materials, many of which carry both zhuan and clerical characters. By examining them cautiously, this dissertation files an opposition to the trend that unilaterally emphasizing the influence of clerical scripts to zhuan without thinking about the internal sources in zhuan’s development. Xu Shen’s intention to accomplish Shuowen jiezi說文解字is to explain the motivation of the characters by building a self-consistent system of zhuan graphs, so his choice result from the “canonical” nature of zhuan and evades the dispute between guwen and jinwen古今文之爭. Chapter 4 qualitatively discusses the “Qínshū bātǐ秦書八體”, “Xīnmǎng liùshū新莽六書” and the style of manuscript of Shuowen in Tang Dynasty. It can be proved by the handed-down documents and 44 examples that Xu Shen cited “tōngrén”通人 in his book that Han’s aristocrat and intelligentsia are generally equipped with the capabilities of reading and writing zhuan characters. However, they use the term “zhuan” as a terminology in the field of arts, and do not talk about neither the reason why “zhuan” was named nor what the difference between zhuan and clerical scripts.The last section introduces some related studies by Western scholars and utilizes them into a wider range, such as examining Han zhuan’s nature and development again with the “three-dimension” theory in order to discarding misunderstandings on Han zhuan, Shuowen and clericaliztion隸變 of Chinese characters.