新春秋学“臆断”《春秋》与中唐经学诠释范型的转换

Dan Zhu’s Controversial Interpretations of the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Paradigm Shift of Confucian Hermeneutics in the Middle Tang Dynasty

作为一种新的经学诠释范例,啖助、赵匡和陆淳的新春秋学在诠释体例、诠释原则及对经学的理解形式等方面均与此前的经学诠释有所不同。在此意义上,新春秋学新释《春秋》的诠释学活动成为中唐经学诠释范型转换的一个转捩点。但新春秋学沿循圣人心意探抉《春秋》大义的诠释学理解也同时面临“臆断”和“穿凿”的批评。在此,透过经学诠释学的视域,所谓新春秋学的“臆断之弊”,是对解释者在自己时代的特殊历史视域中代圣人立言并从而预先假定圣人意图所存在的问题的一种质疑;而新春秋学新解《春秋》的所谓“臆断”和“穿凿”之嫌,仍然受制于他们自身所属的《春秋》文本的传统理解的“效果历史”的影响。对《春秋》文本真理和规范权威的必然性的确定,以及以《春秋》三传的诠释传统脉络为解释基础的限制,使得新春秋学诠释学理解的可能任意性受到限制而不至于“穿凿”《春秋》。

As a new paradigm of Confucian hermeneutics,the eighth-century“New School”of studies of the Spring and Autumn Annals,represented by Dan Zhu,Zhao Kuang,and Lu Chun,differed from previous Confucian hermeneutics in terms of interpretation style,interpretation principles,and understanding of classical form.In this sense,the New School’s interpretations of the Spring and Autumn Annals marked a turning point for Confucian hermeneutics in the Middle Tang Dynasty.However,understandings of the Spring and Autumn Annals that are based on Confucian principles face the criticism of“explaining classics according to one’s own understanding.”Here,throughout the field of Confucian hermeneutics,the New School’s exegesis of the Spring and Autumn Annals raises the question of the extent to which the interpreter expounds Confucius’s ideas in writing from the special historical perspective of his own time and presupposes the problems of Confucius’s intention.However,it is still influenced by the reception history of the traditional understanding of the Spring and Autumn Annals.The determination of the inevitability of the textual truth and normative authority of the Spring and Autumn Annals,as well as the limitation of interpretation based on its traditional context,may limit the arbitrariness of the New School’s interpretation rather than explaining the Spring and Autumn Annals according to one’s own understanding.