高亨与《文史哲》:漫谈训诂学的基本原则

Gao Heng and Wen Shi Zhe:A Discussion on Some Basic Principles of Textual Criticism

高亨先生1953年到山东大学工作后,很快便与《文史哲》建立起密切关系,在上面发表了一系列文史训诂考据之作。其中《给〈文史哲〉编委会的信》《谈〈诗经·月出〉篇答王季星先生》《谈〈周易〉"亢龙有悔"》三篇文字,较突出地反映了高亨的学术态度和训诂手法。高亨在前两文中所主张的具体观点在今天看来大概已经无法成立,但他在文中所表达的"传统说法,还不能看作唯一的正确解释;我的说法,当然也不能看作唯一的正确解释"的学术态度则具有很强的超前性,很像是1970年代巴黎后现代主义的哲学和文学批评家的话。在学术手法上,高亨先生惯用训诂学的"通假"之道,提出全新的诠释。问题在于,"以古字通假的条贯"几乎可以将任何一个字读作任何另一个字,貌似严格的、缜密的学术方法滋生的却是层出不穷的误解。就此而言,能在读古书(特别是读出土文献)的时候提出最新、最多的"假借"设想,并非衡量优秀训诂学家的恰当标准,因为随之而来的"A利用古字通假条贯来把某一个字读作甲,B利用另一组通假条贯把它读作乙(甚至读做丙、丁、戊等等不同的假借字)"局面,甚至会使训诂学本身名誉扫地。放弃训诂学的"严格、缜密"假象,对每一番训诂操作自觉保持"局限性"意识,将高亨先生终身持守的上述学术态度纳入到训诂学的方法论构成中去,发展出一种开放度更大、批评讨论机制更突出的新训诂学生态,这应成为训诂学与时俱进的基本原则。

In 1953,Gao Heng came to work for Shandong University and shortly thereafter began working closely with the journal Wen Shi Zhe.He issued several papers on textual studies which reflected his ideas and methodologies.While some of his conclusions may be outdated,his general attitude was quite progressive.He clearly stated that traditional exegeses should not be considered irrefutable,nor should his own personal findings.In terms of specific methodology,Gao Heng was particularly fond of using“loan words”to aid in commentarial explanation.The problem with this method is that,when used to loosely,practically any given character can be reread and understood as any other character.Such methodology leads to otherwise untenable readings of the classics.