- 學位論文
惠棟與張惠言《易》學重探──「考古義」與「自為解釋」的雙重價值
A Re-examination of Hui Dong and Zhang Hui-Yan's Interpretations on Zhou Yi
若您是本文的作者，可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。
摘要
惠棟與張惠言是清代漢《易》的兩位代表性人物。有別於焦循之擺落漢《易》自立新法，惠、張二人選擇立基於漢儒的基礎上申說，對漢《易》的價值有深刻的認同。除了有豐富的著述成果之外，他們為清代漢《易》所開拓的研究觀念與方法，也造成了廣泛的影響。 近代對惠棟與張惠言的研究，幾乎都強調他們致力於考索漢儒《易》說，並重視文字、音韻、訓詁，重新恢復了沉埋已久的漢《易》。正因為如此，近代學者們也批評惠、張的《易》學只能亦步亦趨地重述漢儒《易》說，缺乏自身的創見，且過分看重象數而輕忽義理。這些批評並非全無道理，然而皆未能凸顯清代漢《易》學者有別於漢儒的獨立價值。 有鑑於此，本文特別強調惠棟與張惠言《易》學在「考古義」與「自為解釋」兩方面的學術價值，而尤其著意於後者。「考古義」指的是客觀地去考索和理解漢儒《易》說，進而統整各家《易》例；「自為解釋」指的是在考古義的成果基礎上，進一步引申、發揮，甚至增補、修正，最後構築出一套屬於自己的獨特《易》學體系。前人對惠、張的研究，往往太過重視「考古義」的部分，而忽略了「自為解釋」之成就，因此也就沒有特別去意識到清儒與漢儒《易》說的區別。 本文第一章首先觀察惠棟在乾隆年間高揭漢學大纛之前，清初學者對於漢《易》的態度，以及漢《易》材料逐步進入清初學者《易》學闡釋的漸進過程。第二章與第三章則分別專述惠棟與張惠言的《易》學體系。除了呈現和比較兩者「考古義」的成果之外，更詳細著墨於兩者「自為解釋」的核心思路，期能彰顯出二人《易》學之異彩。惠棟最核心的主張在以《易》理解釋〈中庸〉、〈禮運〉，從而開展出其工夫理論與明堂制度。張惠言則從虞翻《易注》中重構出一套獨特的消息理論，以此為核心申說禮制與人事。第四章則統整惠、張兩人《易》學相通之處，指出清代學者中受其沾溉與影響者，藉此略窺清代漢《易》一支在《易》學史上的特色。
並列摘要
Hui Dong and Zhang Hui-Yan were the two representative scholars of Zhouyi (周易; The Book of Changes) in the Qing Dynasty. Unlike Jiao Xun’s forsaking Hanyi (漢易; the study of Zhouyi in the Han Dynasty) and devising new interpreting methods, Hui and Zhang’s interpretations are strictly based on Hanyi, and this shows their belief in Hanxue (漢學; the study of Confucian classics in the Han Dynasty). In addition to a variety of books, they also expanded some ideas and methods about Hanyi research, which had widespread influence until the late Qing Dynasty. Recent researches on Hui Dong and Zhang Hui-Yan mostly emphasized that they surveyed almost all the documents about Hanyi, paid much attention to approaches to grammatology, phonology, and semantics, and reconstructed the long-obscure Hanyi. That is the reason why many scholars nowadays comment that Hui and Chang’s interpretations of Zhouyi are just paraphrases of those of the scholars in the Han Dynasty, which shows Hui and Chang’s ingenuity. Moreover, they overemphasize Image-numberology (象數) and downplay the moral philosophy (義理). Although these criticisms are justifiable to some extent, they fail to uncover the uniqueness of Hui and Chang’s interpretations compared with those of the scholars in the Han Dynasty. Consequently, this thesis focuses on two aspects──“ancient interpretations” (考古義) and “extensive interpretations,” (自為解釋) and lays more emphasis on the latter. “Ancient interpretations” are derived from objectively analyzing and comprehending the rules scholars in the Han Dynasty followed to explain Zhouyi. “Extensive interpretations” are developed from the foundations laid by the ancient interpretations. They extend, replenish, and even amend the ancient ones to form a unique theory system of Zhouyi. Former researches on Hui and Zhang overstated “ancient interpretations” and understated “extensive interpretations.” As a result, the differences between the scholars’ interpretations in the Han Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty were not accentuated. This thesis starts with exploring the status and evaluation of Hanyi before Hui Dong promoted Hanyi, and then explains how Hanyi materials were progressively utilized to annotate Zhouyi in the early Qing Dynasty. Chapter 2 and 3 discuss Hui and Zhang’s theory systems of Zhouyi respectively. Besides exhibiting and comparing their contribution to the research of “ancient interpretations,” the two chapters elaborate on the core thoughts of their “extensive interpretations.” Hui Dong applied his unique thought of Zhouyi to Zhongyong (中庸) and Liyun (禮運), and developed his own practical theory and Mingtang System (明堂制度). Zhang Hui-Yan, basing his thoughts on the annotations of Yu Fan, reconstructed a unique theory of “Xiaoxi,” (消息) and applied it to explaining human affairs, ancient decrees and regulations. Finally, the last chapter sorts out the similarity between Hui and Zhang’s interpretations, lists some scholars of Zhouyi influenced by Hui and Zhang in the Qing Dynasty, and furthermore reveals five distinguishing features of Hanyi in the Qing Dynasty.
參考文獻
陳榮捷：《朱熹》，臺北：東大出版社，1990年
漆永祥：《乾嘉考據學研究》，北京：中國社會科學出版社，1998年
蔡長林：《從文士到經生──考據學風潮下的常州學派》，臺北：中央研究院文哲所，2010年
林慶彰：〈中國經學史上的回歸原典運動〉，收入《中國文化》2009年02期，頁 1-9
張素卿：〈惠棟論《易》之「大義」與「微言」〉，收入國立臺灣師範大學國文學系《國文學報》第五十六期，2014年12月，頁123-147。