「義」與「例」的辨析：元代《春秋》學的詮釋面向

Abstract

本論文以「元代《春秋》學」為研究範疇，參稽吳澄、汪克寬等八位學者經解的詮釋方法及論述要旨，尋繹其解釋《春秋》大義之途徑，探討元儒如何在承繼宋儒的情況下，反省前人詮解之誤區並嘗試導正的進程，彰顯元代《春秋》學之特質。研究步驟與所得成果如下： 其一，通過科舉程文資料的研究，考見胡安國《春秋傳》在元代科舉中影響力逐漸擴展的歷程。當時的試題大多要求考生解釋胡《傳》用「例」之義，這一方面說明「例」的方法符合考試需求，另一方面反映考官與考生共同認知到「例」是胡《傳》詮釋《春秋》大義的重點。 其二，元代《春秋》學者「宗胡」一系的代表首推汪克寬、李廉。兩家闡釋胡《傳》的視域及補苴的內容不盡相同，卻都強調胡安國以「例」解「義」之方法，拈出「例」在胡《傳》詮釋途徑中的重要地位。 其三，元代不滿胡《傳》之「例」的學者，如吳澄、俞皋、鄭玉，則賦予「例」新的定義，展開「例」之新詮。三家學者之「例」都擁有相同的規範，反對「一字褒貶」的詮釋效力，說明元代《春秋》學者已然出現對宋儒多用「變例」解經的省思，乃至於出現不直接由「例」取「義」的途徑，成為嶄新的詮釋型態。 其四，無論是「宗胡」或「非胡」的學者，多承宋儒「以己意去取三《傳》」的觀念。相較之下，程端學「非例」與黃澤、趙汸「用例」的不同詮釋模型，前者對三《傳》「全面否定」，後者則「試圖歸返」三《傳》，態度歧異，卻同樣將檢討重心上溯至三《傳》。表示元代學者在沿襲宋儒既有的詮釋脈絡之外，也嘗試越軼宋儒以開展新的進路。 透過上述研究成果，可見元代學者釋義取徑的模型雖然有別，卻均能析出關懷經典「義自何出」的信念，此一持續進取之面貌與歷來「黨同」、「株守」評價截然不同。此外，本論文亦反省經學史以科舉制度「宗胡」、經學體制「宗朱」，認為元代《春秋》學存有二種派系的觀點，進一步指出元代學者之「宗胡」屬於《春秋》學之主張，「宗朱」則廣泛存在於當時經學之體制，二者屬於不同階層，並非互斥的關係。換言之，「宗胡」學者亦屬程頤、朱熹學術體系之一環，當時學者詮釋經典的不同取徑，其實是在程頤、朱熹所建構的學術脈絡中，探析孔子大義所作出的努力，擁有填補程、朱缺乏《春秋》經解而產生的體系罅隙之共同關懷。

This dissertation probes into Chunqiu Scholarship in the Yuan Dynasty by addressing how Yuan Confucians interpreted Chunqiu and how they inherited and introspected the Chunqiu Scholarship of Song Confucians. Therefore, the following four issues shall be discussed in the dissertation: 1. Through the analysis of answer templates for imperial examinations, this study shows the trajectory of academic development and the expanding influence of Chunqiu Hu Shi Zhuan. 2. Yuan Confucians who followed Hu Anguo's Chunqiu Scholarship would emphasize his specific interpretation, which involves interpreting the significance of Chunqiu with "Li." 3. By contrast, other Yuan Confucians who were unsatisfied with Hu Anguo's interpretation of "Li" would endow "Li" with new meanings. These scholars would often reject the notion of "praise or criticize with a single word," exhibiting their introspection of Chunqiu Scholarship in the Song Dynasty. 4. Most Yuan Confucians followed Song Confucians' concept of deciding which parts of the Three Commentaries on Chunqiu to use based on their own ideas. In contrast, Cheng Duanxue, Huang Ze, and Zhao Fang took a different approach. However, they also focused their scrutiny on the Three Commentaries. This means that Yuan Confucians, while inheriting the existing interpretative context of Chunqiu Scholarship in the Song Dynasty, also attempted to go beyond it and embark on new research endeavors. Based on the above research results, this dissertation points out that although Yuan Confucians had different approaches to interpreting Chunqiu, they all shared the idea of caring about the " where the significance come out" of the classics. This situation significantly differs from previous assessments made in the field of research. Furthermore, this dissertation also reveals that Yuan Confucians were primarily engaged in exploring the grand principles of the significance of Chunqiu within the academic context established by Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi. They shared a common concern to fill the gap in the system caused by the lack of interpretations of Chunqiu by Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi.