禮、例與事——東漢末年何鄭之爭研究

何休與鄭玄是東漢經學的兩位代表性人物，後人尊之為「學海」與「經神」。二人一方面撰作了完整之「經注類」著作並對後世產生重大之影響，另一方面亦於東漢末年完成了一次針對《春秋》三傳的經學論爭。此次論爭被范曄記錄於《後漢書》當中，並在敘述中將其與前之陳元與范升、李育與賈逵，馬融與劉瓌的三次「爭論古今學」事件相連，共同構成了今古文之爭的發展脈絡。最後范曄以為，何鄭之爭後「古學遂明」，可見何、鄭二人的論辯在經學上發展中具有的深刻影響。近代對於何休與鄭玄的研究，幾乎都集中於二人完整的「經注類」著作，並強調在這些著作中呈現出的二人的解經方法與經學觀念。近年以來，隨著鄭玄研究重新受到關注，在通論性著作之外，亦有學者開始對何鄭之爭這一事件進行專題研究。但其視角或集中於輯佚版本之梳理，或關注其結果高低之評判，研究思路亦所是自何休與鄭玄二人整體的經學觀念入手，反觀這一次經學論爭，故以其中觀點為「非定論」、「意氣之爭」。這些批評並非無據，然而皆忽視了這一次論辯本身具有的獨立價值，以及何鄭之爭與其他幾次今古文之爭間的關聯意義。有鑒於此，本文特別強調何鄭之爭在經學史當中的位置及二人在論辯中呈現出的解釋傾向與論辯方法。而在何休與鄭玄二人當中，由於鄭玄未有完整的《春秋》經註類著作留存，故目前針對鄭玄的《春秋》學研究相對亦少。因此，本文在論述中亦格外關注鄭玄對《春秋》的理解，並藉其論辯中呈現的觀點，釐清《春秋》在鄭玄經學體系中的位置。本文在緒論當中首先針對范曄的說法，對「今古文」與「今古文之爭」的定義進行了釐清，並對傳統的「四次今古文之爭」的說法進行調整，提出「四個階段的今古文之爭」的觀點，藉此強調論爭在橫向上的廣泛性與縱向上的連結性。正文第一章考察的何鄭之爭的發生與何鄭《春秋》論辯六書的流傳與輯佚問題，討論之重心在於文獻，兼及清代儒者對何鄭之爭的兩條解釋脈絡。第二章討論的是何鄭《春秋》論辯六書的內容，本文將其分為「禮」、「例」與「事」的三種，並進一步申說何、鄭二人對此三類內容的理解，及這三類內容在論辯中的展開方式。而在內容之外，因與「事」相關之條目數量最少，故本文亦在第二章中兼論二人對此類條目的論辯方法及鄭玄「入室操戈」之意。在釐清了文獻與內容之後，正文第三章與第四章論述的核心便是論辯之「方法」，其中第三章論與「禮」相關之條目，本文通過對何、鄭二人論辯方法的分析，發現二人對禮與聖人之關聯，以及解釋《春秋》禮制時所用之文獻與方法均有不同，而這種不同是可以從二人如何搭建「聖人」與「經典」之間的關聯的角度進行解釋的。此外，從鄭玄對《春秋》中與禮相關的內容的論述，亦可以推知《春秋》一書在其經學體系當中的意義。第四章論述的核心是「例」，文中同樣在梳理了二人對這一類條目的論辯方法後，從何休與鄭玄二人在論辯中對「有效義例」之成立標準的不同認識入手，說明其義例系統的「封閉性」與「開放性」差異，並進一步回顧全文，同樣立足於「標準」與「標準的建立」之角度，考察何鄭之爭與前之李、賈之辯的承繼關係，從而將何鄭之爭放回經學史的敘述，略窺這一場發生於東漢末年的經學論爭所具有的轉向性特點。

關鍵字

何休；鄭玄；今古文之爭；《公羊墨守》；《左氏膏肓》；《穀梁廢疾》

並列摘要

He Xiu and Zheng Xuan were two representative figures of Eastern Han Confucian Classics，and were revered by later generations as the 'XueHai'(學海) and the 'Jing Shen'（經神）. In addition to their complete works of 'Annotations documents', which had a significant impact on later generations, they also completed a Confucian Classics debate on the Three Legends of the Spring and Autumn Annuals（《春秋》三傳） in the late Eastern Han Dynasty. This debate was recorded by Fan Ye in The Book of the Later Han Dynasty（《後漢書》）, and it was linked to the three previous controversies between Chen Yuan and Fan Sheng, Li Yu and Jia Kui, Ma Rong and Liu Gui, which together formed the context of the debate for the development of the modern and ancient literature. Finally, Fan Ye said that after the dispute between He and Zheng, 'Ancient Learning became Thriving'（「古學遂明」）, which shows the extensive influence of this debate between He and Zheng in the development of the scriptures. Modern studies of He and Zheng have focused almost exclusively on their complete works of 'annotations documents', emphasizing the two people’s interpretation methods and Confucian Classics concepts presented in these works. In recent years, with the renewed interest in Zheng Xuan's studies, scholars have begun to study the He-Zheng Debate as a special topic in addition to general works. However, their focus is either on the combing of anonymous editions or on the evaluation of their results, and their approach is also to look at the overall conception of Confucian Classics between He Xiu and Zheng Xuan, and to reflect on the debate on Confucian Classics, which has been described as 'inconclusive' and 'a debate only on their own opinions. These criticisms are not unfounded, but they all overlook the independent value of the debate itself, and the significance of the connection between the debate between He-Zheng Debate and other modern and ancient literary debates. In view of this, this paper particularly emphasizes the position of He-Zheng Debate in the history of Confucian Classics and the tendency and method of explanation in the debate. Among He Xiu and Zheng Xuan, there are relatively few studies on Zheng Xuan' s Spring and Autumn because he has not retained complete' 'Annotations documents’ on this Classics. Therefore, this paper also pays special attention to Zheng Xuan ' s understanding of the Spring and Autumn and clarifies the position of this book in Zheng Xuan's Confucian classics system through the viewpoints presented in his argument. In the introduction, this paper first clarifies the definitions of modern and ancient Literature and the debate between modern and ancient Literature according to Fan Ye’ s statement, adjusts the traditional statement of ‘four times debates between modern and ancient Literature’, and puts forward the view of ‘debates between modern and ancient Literature in four stages’, to emphasize the universality of the debate in the horizontal and the connectivity in the vertical. The first chapter examines the occurrence of the debate between He and Zheng and the spread and compilation of the six books of He-Zheng Spring and Autumn debate（何鄭《春秋》論辯六書）. The focus of discussion is on the document, and the two interpretations of the debate between He and Zheng by Confucians in the Qing Dynasty. The second chapter discusses the content of the six books of He-Zheng Spring and Autumn debate. This paper divides them into three types, namely, Ritual, Principle and Event , and further affirms their understanding of the three types and the way these three types are carried out in the debate. In addition to the content, because the number of items related to Event is the smallest, this paper discusses the two people s debate methods on such items and the meaning of Rushicaoge （「入室操戈」：persuasion others in their own ways）in Chapter 2. After clarifying the document and content, the core of the third and fourth chapters is the method of debate. The third chapter discusses the items related to Ritual. Through the analysis of the debate methods of He and Zheng, this paper finds that the two people have different opinions on the relationship between Confucian Classics and the sage, and the document and methods used to explain the ritual system of Spring and Autumn. This difference can be explained from the perspective of how the two people build the relationship between Confucian Classics and the sage. In addition, from Zheng Xuan ' s discussion on the content related to ritual in Spring and Autumn, we can also infer the significance of this Classic in its Confucian Classics system. The core of the fourth chapter is the Principle which also sorts out the debate methods of the two people on this kind of items. Starting from the different understandings of the establishment standards of effective principles by He Xiu and Zheng Xuan in the debate, this paper explains the differences between the Closed System（封閉系統） and Open System（開放系統） of principles. In the end, this chapter reviews the full text., also based on the perspectives of ‘standards’ and ‘the establishment of standards’, this paper examines the inheritance relationship between the debate between He and Zheng and the debate between Li and Jia before them, so as to put the He-Zheng debate back to the narration of the history of Confucian classics, and to see the turning characteristics of this Confucian classics debate that occurred in the late Eastern Han Dynasty.