- 期刊
《毛詩正義》訓詁術語探析－兼論歷代訓詁術語之因革
An Analysis of the Scholia Terminology from the Mao Commentary: A Discussion of the Changes in the History of the Scholia Terminology
摘要
《毛詩正義》乃《詩經》注解代表作，然自宋代或質疑其「疏不破注」，至清代學者尤為訾議。唯近代又漸有學者開始反思，認為「疏不破注」只是一大體原則，並非義疏體之解經體例。考各家之說主要從經學或文獻的角度立論，然義疏在訓詁內在脈絡層面對舊注如何繼承或突破，尤以訓詁本身具體實踐上對舊注如何因革損益，則向來鮮受關注。本文因此鎖定訓詁方法之表徵－訓詁術語為對象，探討術語涵義及所蘊含的訓詁觀念，並藉以觀察其繼承或突破前人之處，或可做為探討「疏不破注」議題另一參考側面。本文首先針對《正義》「當爲」、「當作」、「讀（當）爲」、「讀曰」、「讀如」、「之言」六大重要術語分別予以論述，結果發現自表面觀之，孔《疏》與鄭《箋》術語用法雖大致相若，然已略有不同。再從鄭《箋》與孔《疏》於同一條例運用術語的具體作法予以考察，發現《疏》各條例雖大致沿用《箋》術語涵義，然每一術語或多或少有溢出鄭《箋》框架而以己意改之者，應係孔《疏》對於訓詁術語展現相當的自主性，適可藉以考察漢、唐術語之因革。蓋訓詁術語在漢代仍屬於草創階段，術語名稱與涵義皆尚未完全確立，混用之處仍在所難免；歷經六朝降至唐代，《疏》體進一步確立傳統術語之涵義作用；下逮清代，進而將漢代術語之涵義、作用明確予以定義。然以今觀之，段玉裁等說並不盡符合漢注用法，反倒更貼近唐疏用法，或可視為對漢、唐術語之概括說法，卻進而認定唐代應對漢代亦步亦趨，不容有異。然也正因如此，其所恢復的「漢學」，實則已融合漢、唐二種風貌，從而形成獨特的清代「漢學」。
並列摘要
The Mao commentary is representative of commentary of Book of songs. However, since the Song dynasty, there were doubts about the principle on "the exegesis does not break the commentary" (shu bupo zhu), and scholars in the Qing dynasty had discussed it. Only in recent times some scholars begun to consider that the principle is only a general one, not an example of the interpretation for the body of the exegesis of characters meaning. Each school's opinions are mainly from the views of the Classics. However, how the explanation of Chinese characters inherited or broke through the old ideas at the inner context level of scholia, especially how the exegesis itself was gained or lost due to changes, has always received little attention. Therefore, this article will focus on deepening the features of the scholia research methodology. This article will discuss six essential terms of the Commentary: "it works as" (dang wei), "it works doing" (dang zuo), "it is read as" (du (dang) wei), "its reading says" (du yue), "it is read like" (du ru), and "the saying of" (zhi yan). The results show that the terminology of Kong's Exegesis (shu) and Zheng's Notes are roughly the same, but slightly different. Then, based on the same cases, it can be observed that the cases in Exegesis generally follow the meaning of the terms of the Notes. However, each term has more or less overflowed from the framework of Zheng's Notes and changed according to its meaning. This fact should be attributed to the fact that Kong's Exegesis shows autonomy in scholia terminology and it can be used to investigate the origin and evolution of terms from the Han and Tang. However, from today's point of view, Duan Yucai's and others' opinions do not fully conform to the usage of Han commentaries but are closer to the usage of Tang exegesis or can be seen as a general statement of Han and Tang terminology. So the next step should be to confirm that the exegesis of characters in the Tang may follow the exegesis tradition in the Han and that should be no difference. For this reason, the Han studies merged the two styles of the Han and Tang dynasties and thus formed a unique "Han studies" in the Qing dynasty. Since the scholia terminology was still in the initial stage in the Han dynasty. Names and meanings were not fully established, and mixed uses of them were inevitable. During the Tang dynasty, the Exegesis style established the meaning of the traditional terminology for the exegesis of characters. In the Qing dynasty, the meaning and function of the terms from the Han dynasty became clearly defined.
參考文獻
延伸閱讀
- 黃忠慎（2013）。《毛詩李黃集解》析論－以書寫體例與解釋方法為考察中心。臺大中文學報，(42)，113-153。https://doi.org/10.6281/NTUCL.2013.10.42.03
- 黃忠慎（2020）。林岊《毛詩講義》析論。國文學報，(67)，1-30。https://doi.org/10.6239/BOC.202006_(67).01
- 賴位政（2018）。以詩解《詩》─《管錐編．毛詩正義》的詮釋立場、實踐與意義。政大中文學報，(30)，185-216。https://doi.org/10.30407/BDCL.201812_(30).0006
- 張雅琪（2015）。《毛詩正義》單疏本研究〔碩士論文，國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1005201615095946
- 游智偉（2012）。The Literature Review of China's Policy towards International Regimes: The Assessment of Regime Theory, Rational Adaptation and International Socialization。中國大陸研究，55(4)，1-30。https://doi.org/10.30389/MCS.201212_55(4).0001