名教與新經：袁宏《後漢紀》的史論及其思想

The Historical Comment and Thought of Yuan Hong's Annals of the Later Han

蘇子齊(Zi-Qi Su)

指導教授 ： 張蓓蓓

國立臺灣大學/文學院/中國文學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201601096

摘要

袁宏，字彥伯，東晉人，時有「一代文宗」之譽，史才亦為當世所推重，現存最完整的作品為編年體史書《後漢紀》，記載東漢一朝自「光武帝崛起」至「曹丕代漢」的史事。《後漢紀》的內容，依性質可粗略分為「史事敘述」與「史論」兩部分，關於袁宏「史事敘述」所保存的史料價值、展現的特色，前人多與南朝宋范曄《後漢書》相較，已論之甚詳，殆無可議。至於探討其「史論」者，大多認為受到了「魏晉玄學」影響，然而在理論上無所推進，再次證明了「東晉玄學」難有代表作品，以及西晉郭象確為「玄學思想」的最終代表，亦顯現東晉學術思想的單薄與陳陳相因。但實際根據袁宏《後漢紀》五十五則「史論」（含徵引華嶠《漢後書》史論四則）可以發現，與「玄學」的關係並不緊密，而是對於古代聖王與《五經》多所措意，不但主張「名教」有益於萬物，更致力闡發「名教」背後的「聖王」作意，屢屢徵引《五經》以證其說，期許後世的王者與士人，能把握聖王創制名教的原初精神，以避免「名教」的僵化與隳壞。比起以「玄學家」視之，他更像是一位好古敏求的「儒者」，遂與龔鵬程視東晉為「失落的儒學史」的說法有所呼應，亦可檢證過往以「魏晉玄學史」框架套用在「東晉」一代的有效性。

本文聚焦在闡發袁宏《後漢紀》五十五則「史論」所展現出的思想內容及其性質，首先顯示其「史論」在體式上的特色：一方面證明其「史論」具有劉咸炘所謂「子家之嘉言」的特色，「說理」的篇幅甚於「評史」，因此無論在「性質」還是「篇幅」上，都與過往作為「史事敘述」附庸的「史論」有別。另一方面，整理其「史論」對於聖王的推崇和《五經》的徵引，顯現與玄學家之關懷大異，亦可見錢穆「史即新經」的讚譽當非虛美之詞；其次，從「史論本文與玄學的關係」、「袁宏與當時玄談的思想差異」與「後人對袁宏的玄學論證」三方面切入，試圖廓清論者將《後漢紀》史論歸於「玄學」而得出的泛泛評價；最後，正面探討作為袁宏史論思想主幹的「名教」思想，並依據其「史論」論述的名教作意與人物批判，闡發其「名教」思想的特性，以及後人奉行「名教」的梯階與準繩。透過以上各方面的探討可知，袁宏《後漢紀》的史論及其思想，足以視作東晉一代「儒者」，在面臨主弱臣強的當代困局，以及「魏晉玄學」長久以來的「自然」與「名教」論述下，重拾「發話權」並且回應過往質疑的一種嘗試。

關鍵字

袁宏 ； 《後漢紀》 ； 史論 ； 東晉思想 ； 玄學

並列摘要

Yuan Hong, courtesy name Yanbo, lived during the Eastern Jin, and was praised by his contemporaries as the greatest literary talent of his generation. His talents as a historian were also praised by the people of his time, and the most complete of his extant works is the Annals of the Later Han (Houhanji) that records the history of the Eastern Han, beginning with the rise of Emperor Guangwu and ending with Cao Pi replacing the Han. The contents of the Houhanji can be roughly divided into two parts, narrative accounts of historical events and Yuan Hong’s comments on those events. Scholars have already compared the former’s value as a historical source and unique characteristics with Southern Dynasties Song historian Fan Ye’s Book of the Later Han. There discussions are very detailed, and there is nothing left to debate. In regard to Yuan’s comments on those events, many scholars believe that he was influenced by Wei-Jin Neo-Daoism (Xuanxue). However, given that he made no contributions to Neo-Daoist thought, his work again shows how difficult it is to classify any work as representative of Eastern Jin Neo-Daoism, and that Guo Xiang of the Western Jin is the last true representative of Neo-Daoist thought. It also shows the insubstantial and repetitive character of the period’s academic thought. But if one actually examines Houhanji’s fifty-five comments on historical narratives (including the four quoted from Hua Jiao’s Houhanshu), it is clear that they do not share a close relationship with Neo-Daoism and have much to say about the Five Classics of the ancient sage kings. They not only argue that Mingjiao (ethical norms) is beneficial to the myriad creatures, but also attempt to explain the intentions of the sage kings that lie behind the creation of Mingjiao. These comments on historical events repeatedly cite the Five Classics in order to prove his arguments, and also express the hope that later kings and scholars would be able to grasp the original spirit that lay behind the sage-kings’ creation of Mingjiao in order to prevent Mingjiao from ossifying or collapsing. In comparison with treating Yuan Hong as a Neo-Daoist thinker, it is better to view him as a Confucian (Ruzhe) who loved antiquity and was nimble in pursuing knowledge of it. This echoes Gong Pengcheng’s assertion that the Eastern Jin period contains a “forgotten history of Confucianism,” and can also be used to assess the usefulness of applying the Wei-Jin Neo-Daoism framework to the Eastern Jin.

This essay focuses on explaining the thought and character of Yuan Hong Houhanji’s fifty-five comments on historical events. It first explains the unique aspects of the format of Yuan Hong’s comments, and shows that they display the characteristic labeled by Liu Xianxin as the “good words of the masters,” and that more space is devoted to “explaining principle” than to “assessing history.” Because of this, they differ from earlier comments on historical narrative both in regard to their character and their use of space. The other aspect of this part of the thesis is to analyze his praise of the sage-kings and citations of the Five Classics, which show that his concerns were very different from those of Neo-Daoist scholars, and also the truth of Qian Mu’s assertion that “historical records became the new classics.” After that, the thesis will address “the text of the comments on historical narratives and their relationship to Neo-Daoism”, “the difference between the thought of Yuan Hong and the Neo-Daoist discussions of his times,” and “the proof of later assertions about Yuan Hong’s ties to Neo-Daoism” in order to dispel the general impression of the text created by scholars asserting that the Houhanji’s comments on history are Neo-Daoist. Finally, the thesis will analyze Mingjiao, which served as the basis for Yuan Hong’s comments on history. Based on his comments’ discussion of the intentions of Mingjiao and critique of various historical figures, it will explain the uniqueness of his thought on Mingjiao as well as his views on the steps whereby later people could implement Mingjiao, as well as the standards for it. Thus Yuan Hong Houhanji’s comments on history and their thought are best seen as an attempt on the part of an Eastern Jin Confucian who, confronting the difficult political situation posed by having a weak ruler with strong ministers as well as Wei-Jin Neo-Daoism’s longstanding discussion of nature and Mingjiao, attempted to once more take up the right to speak and respond to the questions posed by past generations.

並列關鍵字

Yuan Hong ； Annals of the Later Han ； Historical Comments ； Eastern Jin Thought ； Neo-Daoism

參考文獻

田餘慶：《東晉門閥政治》（北京：北京大學出版社，2013年12月）。

康中乾：《魏晉玄學》（北京：人民出版社，2008年9月）。

羅宗強：《玄學與魏晉士人心態》（天津：天津教育出版社，2006年1月）。

卓季志：《《後漢紀》與袁宏之史學及思想》（臺北：花木蘭文化出版社，2009年3月）。修改自氏著：《《後漢紀》與袁宏之史學及思想》（臺中：國立中興大學歷史學研究所碩士論文，王明蓀先生指導，2006年）。

段宜廷：《魏晉荀學》（臺北：國立政治大學中國文學研究所博士論文，劉又銘先生指導，2016年）。