先秦兩漢「訓詁解經」觀念的形塑與實踐歷程 ——以鄭玄經注為中心

Abstract

戰國時期，墨家、法家等學派持續撰作「經」、「說」、「解」等著作或篇章，約略同時或稍晚，儒家學者也逐漸發展出「訓詁解經」的進路。「訓詁解經」專指隨文釋義的儒家經解著作，聚焦於此，旨在揭示訓詁、注釋在詮解經典文本時所創發的原動力，藉以補充過往側重討論歷史脈絡、政治局勢、官私學術、專家專書的不足之處。故本文以「訓詁解經」為核心議題，通考先秦兩漢「訓詁解經」觀念的形成脈絡，並以鄭玄的經解技藝，及其注釋所建立的新經學體系為主要討論對象，嘗試綜論「訓詁解經」觀念的形塑、演進與實踐歷程。具體而言，即是討論先秦兩漢交錯紛湧的思想、學術背景中，訓詁、注釋及其所衍生的注釋體式如何萌芽，又如何得到漢代學者普遍地肯認，駸駸成為詮釋聖人之言與聖人之文，最有效且最具合法性的方法？訓詁、注釋又如何在準確闡釋文本的過程中，同步呈顯、改易、形塑「經」的主體性？甚而將各種不同來源、意旨又復紛紜有別的經典文本，融攝整比為完密的知識體系？ 在上述問題意識的預設與視角中，訓詁、注釋這一種特殊的體裁，本身便是有待開發，深具潛力的思想資源。訓詁、注釋本身並未侷限先秦兩漢學者表述經學、訓詁學觀念與思想；只是後世讀者遞師成見，罕能從訓詁與注釋中，詮察、解蔽先秦兩漢學者的觀念與思想。而訓詁、注釋所闡發的知識、觀念與思想，也是一種獨特的語境，這些知識、觀念與思想既不能脫離文本，卻又在文本的脈絡或罅隙之中，煥發新意，擘創新猷。解讀並且定位訓詁與注釋中的知識、觀念與思想，既是文本與注釋之間的異代神遇、交鋒，讀者也介入、完成一場跨越時空的深刻對話，開顯經注中蘊藏的多元動能。 本文更進一步主張：經、注可以是一種「互為主體性」（intersubjectivity）的關係。從「互為主體」的脈絡與譜系而言，西漢後期，「互為主體」的經注關係，便已在揚雄、劉歆、桓譚、王充等「通學」的群體中悄然誕生，指標性的事件便是桓譚、王充將《太玄》視為「太玄經」，其後流風未歇，覆被於曹褒書於二尺四寸簡的《新禮》及其自作之《章句》、王逸「離騷經」及《楚辭章句》、鄭玄群經諸緯注釋、高誘「淮南鴻烈解經」等學者與著作。從「互為主體」議題的內容而言，經的主體性在西周末至漢初的經典化歷程中，已獲得普遍認可；訓詁、注釋的主體性則未必然，有待多方檢覈。從經、注意旨相近的層面來說，訓詁、注釋的主體性表現於訓詁、注釋對經典內容的解蔽成效，訓詁、注釋所解蔽的經義愈多，便愈能被研經有得的讀者肯認訓詁、注釋的真確性。另一方面，訓詁、注釋也能將原文散在各處的訊息統貫於一處，形塑原文可能也並未完整建構、梳理的新知識，使讀者在初窺一隅之際，便為讀者全幅展示原文所蘊含的整體圖像；就經、注有異的層面來說，訓詁、注釋以其為經代言的角色，與東漢以來逐漸發展成熟的「直注經下」形式，可使異質性的內容合法地、直觀地附入經書文本中。讀者依注通經的同時，其實是不斷接受訓詁、注釋內容潛移默化地暗示，再度將這些異質性的內容，轉化為原典內蘊弗顯的意義。是以先秦兩漢儒家經學文本、訓詁、注釋之間，其實是多音複調的辯證場域，經、注既可互相闡發，彼此融渾無間，也可以是競爭話語權、彼此不斷重塑的思想光譜。 根據此一「互為主體」的新理解，本文除了梳理、建構先秦兩漢「訓詁解經」的脈絡與觀念，並搴舉鄭玄經注作為關鍵個案，析論鄭玄經注對先秦兩漢「訓詁解經」脈絡的取汲、甄別與匯歸。本文的前半部分，亦即第二章〈先秦兩漢經學與訓詁學脈絡的重建〉、第三章〈先秦兩漢「經典」與「解釋」觀念史論考〉，分別考察先秦兩漢經學與訓詁學的脈絡與重要觀念，依次梳理「作者、文獻型態」（從傳經到解經）、「解釋對象」（從解釋口傳知識到解釋書面文本），「訓詁著作名義、體裁」、「通學」等脈絡演變，並分析「經典」、「解釋」、「六經（五經）一體」、「經學」、「文本義」、「訓詁學」等觀念的起源、演變與實踐，目的是尋證一種新興經注關係（「互為主體」）的來龍結穴與表裏精粗；本文的後半部分，則具體分析鄭玄群經諸緯注釋，藉以印證前述兩章的脈絡，並在骨肉豐腴的個案中，辨察神思流轉的蹤跡。第四章〈從「師儒相傳」到「自注己意」：探索鄭玄解經的動態思維歷程〉考察鄭玄如何繼承、轉化與批判前行者的遺產，在傳世舊說與自抒新解的雙向建構中挺立己說；並嘗試從多種面向捕捉、復現鄭玄微茫瞬逝的思考歷程，進而提出「重構鄭《注》」的方法論與實踐。重構的意義，即將鄭玄有關文本中某一字詞的全面理解，以及鄭玄自身特殊的新說，以較為嚴格的經學、訓詁學、詞義學標準集中呈現；重構後，不僅可完整通覽鄭玄有關某一字詞的整體理解，更重要的啟發是思考鄭玄解經、立論的「過程」，在「過程」中深察鄭學之所以然，並據此解釋過往鄭學史上的疑難癥結。是以此章依序從前行注釋者的遺產、作者自道、後世新編等不同面向，由外而內地深入鄭玄的動態思維歷程，究明鄭學轉益多師，匯綜先秦兩漢經學、訓詁觀念與實踐，及其前後著作互相映發而又隨文釋義的思路與旨趣。第五章〈周公、孔子與禮制：鄭《注》整比融攝群經諸緯所建立的新知識與新思想〉，集中於鄭學的主要課題：周公、孔子與禮制，逐一分析《周禮注》、《儀禮注》、《禮記注》、《尚書注》、《論語注》、《毛詩箋》、《周易注》、《孝經注》、《春秋》佚說、緯書鄭玄說等著作，藉由疏通相關經說，考釋疑難訓詁，析論鄭《注》如何建立原文所未見的新知識、新思想。 綜之，本文考察先秦兩漢現存唯一藉由訓詁、注釋建立的完整經學體系——鄭學，從經解技藝的角度，在解構、重組與還原的動態思維中，更精細地照見鄭學的所以然，藉此描繪鄭玄所建構的新知識與新思想。進一步，更標舉經注「互為主體」的新理解，疏通過往甚少討論的先秦兩漢經學、訓詁學觀念與脈絡，並考釋相關疑難文句與訓詁，應有助讀者反省閱讀經注過程中，習焉不察而又難以避免的先入之見、文本權力關係。是以本文除了對先秦兩漢訓詁、注釋如何作為一種新興的、具有潛力的思想資源，提供一個可行的、深具發展遠景的個案；也將閱讀經注，視為重建經學的一種新思路，其意蘊與重要性遂亦日新弗替。

During the Warring States period, intellectual schools such as the Mohist and Legalist schools continued to produce works or chapters such as the Jing (經), Shuo (說), and Jie (解). At approximately the same time or somewhat later, Confucian scholars also gradually developed an approach of “interpreting the Classics through xungu” (訓詁解經). The term “interpreting the Classics through xungu” refers specifically to Confucian exegetical works that explain meanings in accordance with the wording of the text. Focusing on this approach aims to reveal the generative force that commentarial and xungu practices brought forth in the process of interpreting the Classics, thereby supplementing the limitations of previous studies that have tended to focus on historical contexts, political circumstances, official and private learning, or individual scholars and their particular works. Accordingly, this article takes “interpreting the Classics through xungu” as its central subject of inquiry, comprehensively examines the context in which the concept of “interpreting the Classics through xungu” took shape during the Pre-Qin and Han periods, and takes Zheng Xuan’s techniques of exegetical interpretation, together with the new system of Classical Learning established through his commentaries, as its principal objects of discussion, in an attempt to provide a comprehensive account of the formation, development, and practical trajectory of the concept of “interpreting the Classics through xungu.” More specifically, this study asks: amid the intermingling and burgeoning intellectual and scholarly currents of the Pre-Qin and Han periods, how did xungu and the commentarial forms that developed from it first emerge, and how did they come to receive widespread recognition among Han scholars, gradually becoming the most effective and legitimate method for interpreting the words and writings of the Sages? How did xungu, in the process of accurately elucidating the texts, simultaneously reveal, alter, and shape the subjectivity of the Jing (經)? And how did it further incorporate, integrate, and systematically organize Classical texts of diverse origins and purposes, which were themselves highly varied and distinct from one another, into a coherent and comprehensive system of knowledge? Within the presuppositions and perspective of the problematic outlined above, xungu and commentary, as a special kind of material, are themselves intellectual resources that remain to be explored and possess considerable potential. In fact, xungu and commentary themselves did not restrict scholars of the Pre-Qin and Han periods in articulating their concepts and ideas concerning Classical Learning and xunguxue; rather, later readers, having successively inherited the preconceptions of their teachers, have rarely been able to discern and elucidate, from xungu and commentary, the concepts and ideas of scholars of the Pre-Qin and Han periods. The knowledge, concepts, and ideas articulated through xungu and commentary likewise constitute a distinctive context. These knowledge, concepts, and ideas can neither be detached from the texts, nor, however, do they remain confined to them; rather, within the contexts or gaps of the texts, they generate new meanings and open up new intellectual possibilities. To interpret and situate the knowledge, concepts, and ideas contained in xungu and commentary is not only an encounter and intellectual engagement across different historical periods between texts and commentaries; it also involves the reader's intervention in and completion of a profound dialogue across time and space. Through this process, the reader draws upon the diverse intellectual forces contained in the commentaries on the Classics and endows the reading of the Classics and their commentaries with a significance that is continually renewed over time. This study further argues that the Jing and zhu can constitute a relationship of “intersubjectivity.” From the perspective of the context and genealogy of “intersubjectivity,” the intersubjective relationship between the Jing and zhu had already quietly emerged in the late Western Han among such members of the “comprehensive learning” (tongxue) community as Yang Xiong, Liu Xin, Huan Tan, and Wang Chong. A landmark event was Huan Tan’s and Wang Chong’s treatment of the Taixuan as the Taixuan Jing. Thereafter, this intellectual current continued to spread and was manifested in such scholars and works as Cao Bao’s Xin Li, written on bamboo strips measuring two chi and four cun, together with his own Zhangju; Wang Yi’s “Lisao Jing” and Zhangju; Zheng Xuan’s commentaries on the various wei associated with the Classics; and Gao You’s Huainan Honglie Jie Jing. With regard to the substance of the issue of “intersubjectivity,” the subjectivity of the Jing had already gained widespread recognition in the process of its canonization from the late Western Zhou through the early Han. The subjectivity of xungu and commentary, by contrast, was not necessarily recognized and remains subject to verification from multiple perspectives. From the perspective of the proximity of the intentions of the Jing and zhu, the subjectivity of xungu and commentary is manifested in their effectiveness in elucidating and dispelling obscurities in the contents of the Classics. The more meanings of the Classics that xungu and commentary can elucidate and clarify, the more readily readers who have attained results through the study of the Classics can recognize the authenticity of the commentary. On the other hand, xungu and commentary can also bring together in one place information that is dispersed throughout the original text, shaping new knowledge that the original text itself may not have fully constructed or organized, so that, when readers have only begun to glimpse one part of it, they are already presented with the overall picture contained within the original text. From the perspective of the differences between the Jing and zhu, xungu and commentary, through their role as spokesmen for the Jing, together with the form of “directly commenting below the Classic” (zhizhu jingxia), which gradually developed and matured from the Eastern Han onward, can legitimately and directly incorporate heterogeneous contents into the textual body of the Classical books. At the same time as readers follow the commentaries in order to understand the Classics, they are in fact continually receiving the subtle suggestions conveyed by the contents of xungu and commentary, and once again transforming these heterogeneous contents into meanings implicitly contained within but not explicitly manifest in the original texts. Thus, among the Confucian Classical texts, xungu, and commentaries of the Pre-Qin and Han periods, there existed, in fact, a polyphonic and dialogical field of dialectical interaction. The Jing and zhu could mutually elucidate one another and become seamlessly integrated with each other; they could also constitute an intellectual spectrum in which they competed for discursive authority and continually reshaped one another. In sum, this study examines Zheng Learning (Zhengxue), the only extant complete system of Classical Learning from the Pre-Qin and Han periods established through xungu and commentary. From the perspective of exegetical techniques, it seeks, through a dynamic mode of thinking involving deconstruction, reorganization, and restoration, to perceive more precisely the underlying rationale of Zheng Learning and thereby delineate the new knowledge and new ideas constructed by Zheng Xuan. Furthermore, by highlighting a new understanding of the “intersubjectivity” of the Jing and zhu, this study seeks to elucidate the concepts and contexts of Classical Learning and xunguxue in the Pre-Qin and Han periods, which have rarely been discussed in previous scholarship, while also examining and interpreting related difficult passages and instances of xungu. This should help readers reflect upon the preconceptions and relations of textual power that, in the process of reading the Classics and their commentaries, are habitually overlooked yet difficult to avoid. Accordingly, this study not only provides a viable case study with considerable prospects for further development of how xungu and commentary in the Pre-Qin and Han periods may be approached as emerging and potentially significant intellectual resources; it also regards the reading of the Classics and their commentaries as a new approach to reconstructing Classical Learning. The implications and significance of this approach therefore continue to renew themselves without cease.