(347)
|
| 朱子春秋學的衍異：方苞春秋學的創作意圖與意義解釋 |
| Subsequent Change of Zhu Zi’s Chun Qiu: Limited in Sage’s Intent of Creation and Meaning Explanation of Fang Bao’s Chun Qiu |
 |
| 作者 |
丁亞傑 |
| Author |
Ya-Chien Ting |
| 關鍵詞 |
春秋、
書法、
朱子、
張自超、
方苞
|
| Keywords |
Chun Qiu,
writing mode,
Zhu Zi,
Chang Zi-chao,
Fang Bao
|
| 摘要 |
從朱子到方苞，解釋《春秋》的方法，不斷的在流動。經典意義，就在這過程中，不斷的被建構，也不斷的被深化。本文即以這種參照方式，見出經典意義的流變。方苞雖有意識的區別與聯繫經史之異，而在這一過程中，其所建構的具體內容為何，這些是經典的意義還是聖人的意圖，或逕是方苞本人的理解，是本文所欲探究的課題。方苞區分現有之《春秋》為兩部份，一是魯國舊史，一是聖人新經。方苞分別以舊史之文與《春秋》之法稱之。舊史於書寫魯國歷史確有史例，但備書史事；新經則是失禮則書，若得禮而書，一以明嫌，二以著變。 舊史有諱恥而書，新經則徵過而書。由於舊史備書史事，所以並無刪削史事以見義的書例，新經則有此例。從朱子、張自超到方苞，都設定據事直書為解讀《春秋》的方法，並據以掌握孔子創作《春秋》之意。可是朱子本身，即已懷疑《春秋》全錄魯史，則《春秋》不必作。張自超則不自覺的視《春秋》介於複製與修正魯史之間，而無定論。方苞承據事直書的解經方法，而欲區分何者是魯史，何者是《春秋》，以明經史異同，卻走向朱子所反對的書法義例之說。且自定義例，以為是聖人之意，在方法上，與傳統《春秋》學者無別。 |
| Abstract |
From Zhu Zi to Fang Bao, methods of explanation of Chun Qiu change continually. Meaning of classics were constructed and deepened during the process. The paper used these contrast method to discuss the change of meaning of classics. Fang Bao discriminated and connected the difference of classics and history. During the process, what’s the concrete content? Did the construction were meaning of classics or the purpose of sage or just interpretation of Fang Bao? These questions were discussed in the paper. Fang Bao divided Chun Qiu into two parts. One was the old Lu’s history, the other was new classic of sage. He named them articles of old history and method of Chun Qiu separately. The old history focuses on real story but full of small events. The new classic focuses on rituals. Obedience and disobedience of rituals would be recorded detail. The first purpose is to express curiosity, the second purpose is to express change. From Zhu Zi, Chang Zi-chao to Fang Bao, they all treat Chun Qiu’s methodology was to base on events and record directly. But Zhu Zi had doubted that Chun Qiu were not just the record of history. Chang Zi-chao asserted that Chun Qiu’s nature was between duplicate and correction of Lu’s history. Fang Baosucceeded the method to base on events and record directly. He discriminated Lu’s history and Chun Qiu and expressed the differences of history and classic. But he was on the way to the writing mode, which Zhu Zi opposed. He used a set of writing mode and say them coming from sage. In methodology, he had no difference with traditional scholars expertise on Chun Qiu. |
|
|
|
