中國大陸、臺灣、日本的《韓非子》研究

本文的目的在於勾勒出近代的中國大陸和臺灣，以及從德川時代迄今日本的《韓非子》研究的主要脈絡和特點。經過相關文獻的探討，本文將提出如下四個觀點：第一，在海峽兩岸的《韓非子》研究中，無論是二十世紀初或當今，個別學者所處於的政治環境和對此的態度、或價值判斷乃構成了他們論述內容的主軸。第二，從二十世紀初民國時期迄今海峽兩岸的學者，基本上都期待《韓非子》哲學可以有助於達成中國的富國強兵。在這樣的理解格局中，共產革命之後中國大陸的學者基本上稱讚《韓非子》批判儒家思想的態度。臺灣學者雖然同樣也是要追求中國社會現代化之方法，但針對《韓非子》哲學的價值和貢獻的部分，總體而言採取了比較懷疑，甚至嚴厲批評的態度。第三，與如上所述海峽兩岸的情境相比，日本《韓非子》研究則是從荻生徂徠與其弟子們對文本的興趣開始。德川時代學者對《韓非子》具有這樣的態度，從荻生徂徠的時代開始大約一百年後的19世紀初期，帶給日本《韓非子》文本研究的黃金時代。以及第四，自明治至昭和時代初期（從1870年代到1930年代），《韓非子》研究從傳統註解方式轉到近代文獻學和哲學分析的方向展開。該段時期的研究引進法理學、社會學、政治理論、以及馬克思主義等，並且採用了其中所使用的許多專有名詞，而這樣的過程成為後續《韓非子》思想研究發展之基礎。總之，假設綜合比較中國大陸、臺灣、日本的《韓非子》研究的當今情況，日本近代以來的《韓非子》研究，相比於當代中國大陸以及臺灣的《韓非子》研究，並沒有藉此展開時局評論的意圖。臺灣的《韓非子》研究通常在動機的部分就含有反韓的預設或反駁其預設的出發點。換而言之，在臺灣學界只要正面評價《韓非子》思想的學者，某種程度需要面對「反韓非」的情結或預設來展開其論述。

關鍵字

韓非；《韓非子》；《韓非子》研究；法家

並列摘要

This article aims to provide a broad outline of Hanfeizi studies in China, Taiwan and Japan during the past two centuries, and what I would like to suggest through my discussion can be summarized into the following four points. First, Hanfeizi studies in both China and Taiwan has been deeply impacted by the political environment and the value orientations of individual scholars. This may well have been caused by the fact that early twentieth century Chinese intellectuals believed that the Hanfeizi's philosophy would be instrumental both in the construction of a strong and wealthy state, and in the destruction of traditional Confucianism, which was viewed as reactionary and opposed to modernization. While this sentiment rapidly disappeared from mid-20^(th) century Taiwan, it remained prevalent in mainland China until the end of the Cultural Revolution. Second, the Hanfeizi's negative attitude toward Confucianism, which was praised by scholars in mainland China, has been questioned and even harshly criticized by scholars in Taiwan, who also sought to find a path to modernity for Chinese society. In Taiwan, Neo-Confucian values have predominated both in education and academic research, so the Hanfeizi's anti-Confucian stance had to be repudiated before scholars could begin their ＂research.＂ Third, and in contrast to the situation in mainland China and Taiwan, Japanese Hanfeizi studies began with Ogyû Sorai and his students' interest in the meaning of the text itself. This scholarly tradition reached its golden age during the early 19^(th) century, when as many as five prominent scholars produced detailed and sophisticated commentaries almost simultaneously. Fourth, there are a wealth of examples illuminating the transformation of Japanese Hanfeizi studies during the Meiji to early Shōwa period, when scholars moved from writing commentaries on the text to conducting modern philological and philosophical analysis. The adoption during this period of theoretical terms taken from jurisprudence and socio-political theories like Marxism provided the basis for further research during the past half century, as Japanese Hanfeizi scholars slowly but surely deepened their understanding of the text without being directly influenced by political events. In sum, Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese scholars have taken very different attitudes toward the Hanfeizi, particularly during the past fifty years. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, Japanese scholars have rarely been interested in applying the Hanfeizi's political theory to discussions of contemporary Japanese socio-political issues. In fact, I could not find a single Japanese author who argued that the thought of the Hanfeizi would help improve actual socio-political institutions in Japan. Also, unlike in Taiwan, Japanese scholars have generally avoided taking an antagonistic view of Han Fei's role in the development of Chinese thought. To put things in a slightly different light, one could say that a unique situation exists in Taiwan, in that Taiwanese Hanfeizi research has been led by Contemporary Neo-Confucian interpretations of Chinese philosophy.