宋代正統論與王霸論的交涉與劃界

Abstract

本研究關注宋代正統論與王霸論之交涉，並選用三組案例作為研究對象： 第一組李覯與王安石，這是說明尊王與王霸的關係，李覯特別強調尊王與尊君的思想，並以此批判孟子，由重視君臣秩序穩定的角度談王霸；這與王安石從心術動機分辨王霸形成鮮明對比。前者稱「秩序的王霸論」，後者稱「批判的王霸論」。同時，程朱理學與王安石又形成另一對比，此對比是指他們的王霸論是建立在相同的心術動機前提下，就分歧的政治實踐立場進行學術上正統／異端之爭，此將一併論及。 第二組是歐陽修、章望之、蘇軾，回顧章氏援王霸觀念入正統討論中，另設「霸統」以全歐陽修之說。最終此舉不僅受蘇軾批評，也不被歐陽修採納。同時蘇軾的王霸論即在此答覆正統問題的情境下表述，他的立場與李覯、司馬光一致，皆屬「秩序的王霸論」論者。 第三組是司馬光與朱熹，以總合二論的交涉和劃界。首先，無論是司馬光〈答郭純長官書〉還是《資治通鑑．魏紀》，就文本脈絡來看，王霸往往與正統一併討論，王霸並非當作一個獨立課題，而只是由於正統辯駁中為回應章望之「霸統」的創設，或為論曹魏、蜀漢俱稱帝的正統問題時先由「秩序王霸論」的歷史論證以追溯古今帝王方伯之異，以此表述自己處理正統問題的態度。其次，朱熹是宋代由王安石、程顥以下完成「批判的王霸論」的代表者，同時他亦批判司馬光的正統觀念，欲作《通鑑綱目》表述別樣的正統觀念，且採取與時人有別的尊蜀漢方式。總結而言，朱熹將正統論與王霸論雙行別置，採取一種部門化的論述策略，正統論的原則是「根據事實」，王霸論則是「託諸理想」，他同樣重視兩個主題，但又切分得非常清楚，反對任何將兩種主題混淆互涉的前人做法。

This study focuses on the interaction between the theories of “political orthodoxy” (zhengtong正統) and “king-hegemon” (wang-ba王霸) in the Song dynasty, and selects three sets of case studies as objects of analysis. The first case set, Li Gou(李覯) and Wang Anshi(王安石), serves to illustrate the relationship between “reverence for the king”(尊王) and the wang-ba distinction. Li particularly emphasized the idea of reverence for the ruler and, on that basis, criticized Mencius, defining the wang-ba distinction from the perspective of valuing the stability of the hierarchical order. Wang, by contrast, based his distinction on inner moral intention (xinshu心術) and ethical motivation. The former may be described as the “order-oriented form” of the king/hegemon theory, and the latter as its “critical form”. At the same time, Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism(程朱理學) and Wang Anshi form another point of contrast. Namely, despite sharing a common premise of moral intention in their respective theories of the wang-ba distinction, they diverge significantly in their political praxis, resulting in an intellectual dispute over orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This chapter will also examine this contrast. The second set features Ouyang Xiu(歐陽修), Zhang Wangzhi(章望之), and Su Shi(蘇軾). This chapter examines how Zhang invoked the concept of wang-ba in discussions of orthodoxy, proposing the notion of “hegemodoxy” (batong霸統) as a revision to Ouyang’s formulation. Eventually, Zhang’s approach was not only criticized by Su but also rejected by Ouyang. In addition, Su’s theory of wang-ba was specifically articulated within the discursive context of debates over orthodoxy. Su’s position aligned with those of Li Gou and Sima Guang(司馬光), all of whom subscribed to the order-oriented form of the king/hegemon theory. The third group consists of Sima Guang and Zhu Xi(朱熹). This chapter aims to offer a synthetic discussion of the interaction and demarcation between the two theoretical paradigms, zhengton and wang-ba. First, from the textual context of Sima Guang’s letters and historical writings, it is evident that the concept of wang-ba is frequently discussed alongside orthodoxy. Rather than treating wang-ba as an independent subject, Sima articulated it primarily in response to Zhang’s formulation of “hegemodoxy,” as well as in the context of addressing the issue of legitimacy regarding the imperial claims of Cao Wei(曹魏) and Shu Han(蜀漢). He did so by tracing historical distinctions between emperors and regional lords, referring to wang and ba respectively—an approach that is characteristic of the order-oriented form of the king/hegemon theory. Secondly, following the intellectual developments initiated by Wang Anshi and Cheng Hao, Zhu Xi, who came to represent the culmination of critical form of the king/hegemon theory in the Song dynasty, offered a sharp critique of Sima Guang’s view of orthodoxy. As a result, he and his student composed the Outline and Details of the Comprehensive Mirror (Tongjian gangmu,《通鑑綱目》) to present an alternative conception of orthodoxy, and adopted a distinctive approach to honoring the Shu-Han regime, which differed from that of his contemporaries. In summary, Zhu Xi deployed the logic of compartmentalization in his discursive strategy, channeling the theory of orthodoxy and wang-ba into separate and parallel discursive domains. More precisely, his principle for addressing orthodoxy was “based on facts,” while his treatment of wang-ba was “anchored in ideals.” While affirming the significance of both, he drew a clear distinction between them, rejecting any prior attempts to conflate or even entangle the two.