「反經」與「返經」之辨－－經權關係詮釋史批評及《公羊傳》「權者反於經」本義重探

Criticism on the Interpretion History of ＂Jing-Quan＂ and Re-exploration on the Original Meaning of ＂Quan Zhe Fan Yu Jing＂ in Gongyang Zhuan

蔡智力(Zhili CAI)

《哲學與文化》 46卷8期 (2019/08) Pp. 141-155

摘要

《公羊傳》「權者反於經」中蘊含的經權關係，學者之詮釋分為「反經」和「返經」兩派。前者將「反」訓為反，認為經可背反；後者訓為返，否定經可背反。本文將首先分析「反經說」的文本與邏輯依據，認為該說在這兩方面都存有缺陷。其次析論「返經說」，此說主要在程朱對「反經說」批判的基礎上提出，但由於論證薄弱，尚未得到認同。本文重新檢討「返經說」，認為「返經」是先秦儒者共同面對的時代問題，而「權」字本義亦止於衡量而不涉背反，最後具體分析《公羊》本文，論證祭仲之被許為中權即在於他能返歸忠國生民之正經。

關鍵字

《春秋》 ； 《公羊傳》 ； 權者反於經 ； 經權說

並列摘要

Scholars' interpretations on the sentence ＂Quan zhe fan yu jing＂ in Gongyang Zhuan, can be divided into two groups: those interpreted as ＂oppose to constancy＂ and those as ＂return to constancy＂. The former explained ＂fan＂ as ＂oppose＂, and advocated that constancy can be changed or even opposed; while the latter annotated ＂fan＂ as ＂return＂, and denied that constancy can be even changed. These two perspectives were opposite to each other, and consequently, the theory of ＂oppose to constancy＂ criticized its opponent knew only constancy without knowing expediency, on the contrary, the theory of ＂return to constancy＂ regarded its objector as the initiator of trickery. This article intends to reconsiders the theory of ＂return to constancy＂, in which demonstrates that ＂return to constancy＂ was originally an important academic topic among pre-Qin Confucian scholars, and that the original meaning of the word ＂quan＂ is ＂measure＂, but not ＂opposition＂, and then concretely analyses the typical case of practicing expediency by Zhai Zhong in the text of Gongyang Zhuan, and finally infers that the theory of ＂return to constancy＂ is more reasonable than the other.

並列關鍵字

The Spring and Autumn ； Gongyang Zhuan ； ＂Quan Zhe Fan Yu Jing＂ ； Constancy-Expediency

參考文獻

王金凌，〈公羊傳的居正與行權〉，《輔仁國文學報》6(1990.6)。

宋．朱熹，《朱子全書》，上海：上海古籍出版社∕合肥：安徽教育出版社，2002。

宋．張栻，《論語解》，《景印文淵閣四庫全書》第 199 冊，臺北：臺灣商務印書館，1986。

宋．陳淳，《北溪字義》，《景印文淵閣四庫全書》第 709 冊。

宋．程顥、程頤，《二程集》，北京：中華書局，1981。