宋代經生復仇觀的省察與詮釋

本文旨在省察宋代經生對復仇觀的詮釋，要點有三：一、復仇觀中的「禮／法衝突」涉及孝義倫理與國家法制間的矛盾，先秦以降即爲爭議焦點，宋代經也繼承唐•陳子昂、柳宗元、韓愈等人有關此一議題的論述，對「禮書」中的復仇經義，有了新的思路，使復仇倫理走向更爲細緻化的建構－「禮／法兼顧」、「徙地避仇」，以及有條件的復仇觀。二、自中唐啖助、趙匡、陸淳等提出「捨傳求經」的解經方式後，在政治局勢與時代學風的交互影響下，宋代經生對《春秋》，「三傳」的復仇經義，尤其是對《公羊》，「九世／百世猶可以復仇」等主張與何休「君子量力復仇」的立場，有超乎尋常的質疑與批判。此種對復仇經義的反思，與其視爲批判傳文，毋寧苛且爲宋代經生希冀更合理／實用的詮釋復仇，以求在國困民危的時代挑戰中得以通經致用，挽救積弱不振的國家局勢。南宋的胡安國，尤其自覺性的藉古喻今，密切結合復仇議題與時政，提出許多異於前人的論點。三、隨著時局對復仇議題的強烈關注，宋代經生對復仇經義的吉布命不再侷限於《周禮》、二戴《禮記》與《春秋》「三傳」而遍及儒家經典，唯大抵聚焦於周平王，此正與當時標榜復仇的時代意識密切相關，＜餘論＞即述論其略況以及當時經生的國仇觀。

關鍵字

復仇；復仇觀；宋代；經生；禮／法衝突

並列摘要

This paper examines the range of views on revenge held by classical scholars during the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE). The first section of this paper surveys historical concepts about revenge as played out across texts from pre-Qin times up to the Song period, with an eye toward the tension between the ethics of revenge and legal practices. Continuing the lines of inquiry opened by Tang scholars such as Chen Zi'ang (陳子昂), Liu Zongyuan (柳宗元), and Han Yu (韓愈), Song scholars complicated Tang interpretations of revenge in the early ”rites” classics. This crop of new scholars in the Song developed increasingly complex theoretical positions regarding revenge, such that ”balancingli (禮) and legal justice” and ”establishing the territorial boundaries of revenge” became some of their proposed strategies through which revenge could be accommodated or qualified. In the mid-Tang, scholars such as Dan Zhu (日炎助), Zhao Kuang (趙匡), and Lu Chun (陸淳) advocated ”abandoning the commentaries to focus on the classic” 的their interpretive approach to the Chunqiu (春秋) The subsequent section of this paper traces the influence of such an approach on Song scholars, who criticized ideas about revenge embedded in the three commentaries to the Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋三傳). In particular, Song scholars attacked the notion in the Gongyang (公羊) commentary that ”revenge is permissible across nine generations” or ”a hundred generations”; likewise, the critics found fault with He Xiu's (何休) view that ”the gentleman (君子) ought to carry out revenge if it is within his capacity to do so.” However, such aversions to revenge signified less a rejection of the idea as proposed in the commentaries than an attempt to draw on the authority of the classics to support contemporary legal policies aimed at stabilizing a society in political upheaval. Worthy of note are the arguments put forward by Hu Anguo (胡安國) of southern Song, who self-consciously borrowed past concepts of revenge and applied them to contemporary politics in ways that largely departed from his predecessors. Lastly, as interest in theories concerning revenge grew intense among literati, owing to the political exigencies of the times, Song scholars broadened their inquiry into revenge beyond the traditional corpus of rites texts the Rites of Zhou, Greater Dai's and Lesser Dai's Book of Rites (大戴/小戴禮記), and the three commentaries to the Chunqiu (春秋三傳)-to include works across the Confucian canon, but centering their discussion on the passivity of King Ping of Zhou (周平王) when it comes to revenge for his murdered father. This paper concludes with an assessment of the hermeneutic of Sung scholars forwarding policies about revenge by refer ring back to scriptural evidence