復原與發明－竹添光鴻《論語會箋》之注經途徑兼論其於日本漢學發展史上之意義

Recovery and Invention: The Commentarial Method of Takezoe KōKō's Rongokaisen-Its Significance in the Development of Japanese Sinology

金培懿(Pei-Yi Chin)

《中國文哲研究集刊》 30期 (2007/03) Pp. 307-353

https://doi.org/10.6351/BICLP.200703.0307

摘要

《左傳會箋》、《毛詩會箋》與《論語會箋》等「三《會箋》」，不僅為竹添光鴻晚年學思成熟後之三大注經事業，同時亦堪稱日本學者箋注經書之殿軍。然因「三《會箋》」長篇大卷，且學界又流傳其引據清人之說，卻不注所出，導致《左傳會箋》之後的《毛詩會箋》、《論語會箋》乏人研究。
本文試圖透過研究《論語會箋》之解經法，以及考察其各種徵引情形等，其中特以竹添援引劉寶楠《論語正義》之情形為觀察焦點，以明徵引之詳實外，並試圖究明竹添是如何仿效清儒為經書作新疏？以探經典注釋之逮徑為何？又此注釋逮徑具有何種意義？進而再從日本漢學發展史的觀點來探究由江戶到明治，日本學者在注解《論語》時，有何種方法上的嬗變？又此方法代表何種意義？進而為竹添光鴻之學問，作一歷史定位。

關鍵字

日本漢學 ； 經典注釋 ； 竹添光鴻 ； 論語會箋 ； 劉寶楠 ； 論語正義

並列摘要

Takezoe KōKō's ”Three Collected Commentaries,” including Collected Commentaries on the Zuo zhuan, Collected Commentaries on the Mao Tradition of the Poetry Classic and Collected Commentaries on the Analects, are not only three major classical commentaries that were products of his mature thought, but also the last representative works of classical commentary by Japanese scholars. However, because the three collected commentaries were voluminous and because they were held to have appropriated Qing scholars' ideas without documentation, Collected Commentaries on the Mao Tradition of the Poetry Classic and Collected Commentaries on the Analects, published after Collected Commentaries on the Zuo zhuan, are seldom researched by scholars. This article attempts to analyze the exegetical method of Collected Commentaries on the Analects, and examine its various documentation methods. Focusing on Takezoe KōKō's citations of Liu Baonan's Lunyu zhengyi, the study not only aims to elucidate Takezoe KōKō's full and accurate documentation, but also attempts to answer the following areas of inquiry: How did Takezoe KōKō follow the examples of Qing scholars to write new commentaries for Chinese classics? What is his method of commentary on the classics? What is the significance of his commentarial method? From the view of the development of Japanese sinology, what were the methodological transformations of Japanese scholars' commentaries on the Analects from the Edo to the Meiji period? And what is the significance of their methods? Finally, the article will assess the historical position of Takezoe KōKō's scholarship.

並列關鍵字

Japanese sinology ； classical commentary ； Takezoe KōKō ； Rongo Kaisen ； Liu Baonan ； Lunyu zhengyi