胡安國《春秋傳》詮解《春秋》書弒析論
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2015-12-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立台灣師範大學國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract
《春秋》書「弒」之經文共二十五則，胡安國《春秋傳》屢次從弒君經文提到《春秋》之義的重要，故本文著眼於此，歸納胡《傳》推衍麟經大義的內容：秉政大臣宜以置君立儲為重，而有國之君應遠色修身、包容狂直、開納諫諍、崇獎臣節、尊賢任才。其次呈現胡《傳》「端本清源」的褒貶標準，以及經解特色：在《春秋》之義的詮釋進程，明顯較三《傳》、何休、杜預、范甯、啖助、孫復、劉敞等人豐富，而且解經徹底結合時政，又將天理人欲援引入經，自據理路。最後備舉歷代的批評意見，以三則經文變例為中心，論述兩方因經解差異而造成的分歧，與後人誤讀胡《傳》的問題，廓清胡安國《春秋傳》闡發仲尼別識的是非與意義。
This paper discusses the Hu’s Commentary’s criteria for praise and censure—to radically reform and expand the great righteousness contained in the Linjing (another name for the Spring and Autumn Annals); that is, the ministers had better look up to setting straight the throne line and the kings should discipline themselves without womanizing, embrace mad but straight forward people, build up an open mind to admonitions, praise ministers’ moral integrity, and respect and hire the able and virtuous. This paper also tries to present the Hu’s Commentary’s explanatory features: to develop the classic meaning of the saints contained in the Spring and Autumn Annals. In the interpretation of the “Righteousness of the Spring and Autumn Annals”, his was conspicuously more in-depth and multi-faceted than what was expounded in the Three Commentaries and by such scholars as Du Yu, He Xiu, Fan Ning, Dan Zhu, Sun Fu, and Liu Chang. His interpretation actually brought to full play the spirit of era on the relationship between “Righteous meanings of the Six Classics” and “Putting into practice the said meanings” prevalent in the dynasties of two Song’s. Finally, the paper lists the critic comments centered in three entries of transformed classic writing in order to depict the divergence caused by different interpretations on the classics and the problems caused by later generations misreading the Hu’s Commentary, so that it may clarify Hu An-guo’s elucidation on Confucius’ distinct sense of right and wrong and true intention by his Commentary on Spring and Autumn Annals.
This paper discusses the Hu’s Commentary’s criteria for praise and censure—to radically reform and expand the great righteousness contained in the Linjing (another name for the Spring and Autumn Annals); that is, the ministers had better look up to setting straight the throne line and the kings should discipline themselves without womanizing, embrace mad but straight forward people, build up an open mind to admonitions, praise ministers’ moral integrity, and respect and hire the able and virtuous. This paper also tries to present the Hu’s Commentary’s explanatory features: to develop the classic meaning of the saints contained in the Spring and Autumn Annals. In the interpretation of the “Righteousness of the Spring and Autumn Annals”, his was conspicuously more in-depth and multi-faceted than what was expounded in the Three Commentaries and by such scholars as Du Yu, He Xiu, Fan Ning, Dan Zhu, Sun Fu, and Liu Chang. His interpretation actually brought to full play the spirit of era on the relationship between “Righteous meanings of the Six Classics” and “Putting into practice the said meanings” prevalent in the dynasties of two Song’s. Finally, the paper lists the critic comments centered in three entries of transformed classic writing in order to depict the divergence caused by different interpretations on the classics and the problems caused by later generations misreading the Hu’s Commentary, so that it may clarify Hu An-guo’s elucidation on Confucius’ distinct sense of right and wrong and true intention by his Commentary on Spring and Autumn Annals.