- 期刊
何楷《詩經世本古義》析論
An Analysis and Discussion of Ho K'ai's "Shih-ching shih-pen ku-i"
摘要
本文論述重點如下：其一，今傳何氏的傳記資料相當簡略，僅知他精通經學，做官時常常糾彈大臣。最重要的著作是《詩經世本古義》。其二，《詩經世本古義》，將《詩經》三百五篇打散，分成二十八時世，並用二十八星宿來命名。每一時世內之詩篇，何氏皆重訂其詩旨。其三，何氏將《詩經》的詩篇依時世，加以編排，為了證成他自己的說法，不惜牽引很多史實；有時不免牽強附會。其四，朱熹的《詩集傳》雖是當時官學，但何氏很少採用他的說法，可見朱子的影響力已逐漸減弱。其五，清人評論何氏的有姚際恆、《四庫全書總目》二家，都從何氏《詩經世本古義》改編詩篇原來順序來批評，忽略何氏提倡漢學這一層意義。何氏的書，可以說是宋學影響力逐漸減弱，漢學已慢慢興起的一項指標。
關鍵字
無資料並列摘要
The main points of this essay are as follows: 1) Surviving biographical materials on Ho K'ai are relatively sketchy; we know only that he was expert in the learning of the classics, and that he often censured important ministers while serving as an official. His most important work is the ”Shih-ching shih-pen ku-I” (Ancient Meanings of the Shih-ching's Generational Basis) 2) The ”Shih-ching shih-pen ku-I” takes the 3O5 poems of the ”Shih-ching” (Classic of Poetry) and breaks them up, dividing them into groups based on twenty-eight ”generations” of time-periods, and further names these groups on the basis of the twenty-eight constellations. Ho then establishes anew the meaning of each of the poems in these twenty-eight time-periods. 3) Ho K'ai arranges the poems of the ”Shih-ching” on the basis of the time periods, and in order to lend credence to his own explanations, he spares no efforts in his citation of numerous historical examples. Sometimes his interpretations tend to be rather forced. 4) Although Chu Hsi's ”Shih chi-chuan” (Collected Commentaries on the ”Shih-ching”) formed part of the official's learning at the time, Ho K'ai did not make use of Chu's explanations. It is apparent that Chu Hsi's influence had gradually begun to weaken. 5) Those of the Ch'ing dynasty who evaluated Ho's work included Yao Chi-heng and the author of the entry on his work in the ”Genearal Catalogue of the Compcte Texts of Four Treasuries (Szu-k'u ch' uan-shu tsung-mu)”. Both criticized Ho's ”Shih-ching shih-pen ku-I” from the standpoint of its rearrangement of the original order of the Shih poems, yet overlooked the significance of Ho's promotion of Han Learning. Ho's book can be looked upon as a marker showing how the influence of Sung Learning had gradually declined, while the school of Han Learning had slowly arisen.