论晚明学人视域下的《庄子》篇章之真伪

On the Authenticity Discrimination of Zhuangzi by Scholars in the late Ming Dynasty

在个性凸显的晚明时期,《庄子》篇章的真伪性问题成为众多庄学研究者不可回避的一大问题。当他们面对相同篇章的《庄子》时,得出了不同结论:沈一贯、徐晓、陶崇道、陆西星等极力推崇苏轼的伪作论;孙矿、罗勉道、焦竑、王夫之等在苏轼的基础上又扩充了对其他外、杂篇的质疑;张四维对苏轼之论有所"损益";李贽、顾起元等把外、杂篇全然判定为伪作;朱得之对内、外、杂篇皆有质疑;而叶秉敬、谭元春、潘基庆、陈治安等则对晚明的"疑庄之风"提出了批判。无疑,这些界定背后实际上蕴含了学者们不同的观念体系、意图与思考方式等。

In the late Ming Dynasty, the authenticity discrimination of Zhuangzi became a very important undertaking for Zhuangzi researchers. Facing the same articles of Zhuangzi, they drew some different conclusions however： Shen Yiguan,Xu Xiao, Tao Chongdao and Lu Xixing strongly promoted Sushi’s theory of artifacts ; Sun Kuang,Luo Miandao,Jiao Hong and Wang Fuzhi, widened the span of artifacts of Zhuangzi based on Sushi’s theory ; Zhang Siwei critically inherited the viewpoint of Sushi ; Li Zhi and Gu Qiyuan viewed all articles in Wai and Za parts in Zhuangzi as falsework ; Zhu Dezhi questioned all of the articles in the three parts of Zhuangzi ; Ye Bingjing,Tan Chunyuan,Pan Jiqing,Chen Zhian harshly criticized the trend of doubt of Zhuangzi. All the arguments and discrimination of the authenticity of Zhuangzi were reflections of various idea systems, intentions and thinking modes of those scholars.