“行权”与“尊君”的牵合--论董仲舒“丑父欺晋”的诠释困境

“Behaving expediently”and“respecting monarch”:On Dong Zhongshu’s controversial comment on Feng Choufu

围绕《公羊传》逢丑父欺晋而存君一事,董仲舒讥丑父“欺而不中权”,何休却认为本于“王法”丑父不得称贤,但自齐观之犹可谓善,徐彦更将董仲舒讥丑父的观点归于“背经”之属。考察董、何对于“丑父欺晋”的不同诠释,可以发现:董仲舒将《公羊传》中于晋而言的“法斮”理解为抽去国家立场的“当斮”,从总体上贬抑丑父。同时,经由“权变”范畴的引入,并通过比较“丑父欺晋”与“祭仲许宋”二事,董仲舒试图将国君之尊荣设定为臣子“行权”的边界,引起了“行权”与“尊君”的冲突。不过,立足于董仲舒“执权存国”的主张以及其与黄老、法家思想的亲缘,则其以“尊君”来限定臣子“行权”的立论虽然未必合于经义,但也并非不可理解。

About Feng Choufu’s cheating Jin to sustain the monarch in Gongyang Commentary,Dong Zhongshu criticized Choufu who cheated yet failed to gain“expediency”(quan),then He Xiu claimed Feng’s behavior was not in accordance with the king’s law and righteousness,but good for the state of Qi,and Xu Yan explains that Dong’s critique at Feng turned out to have violated Spring and Autumn Annals.By exploring different interpretations of Feng’s behavior,we can find that Dong misread Jin’s issue of“beheading”(zhuo)as an act away from the national standpoint,which made him deviate Gongyang Commentary and hence depreciated Choufu.Meanwhile,by introducing the range of“expediency”(quan),and by comparing the two events of Choufu and Jizhong,Dong attempted to set the monarch’s honor as the boundary for a courtier to“behave expediency”,which caused the contradiction between“behaving expediently”and“respecting the monarch”.However,based on Dong’s advocacy of“holding the power to sustain the state”and its connection with the Taoist doctrine of Huang-lao and legalism,its thesis of promoting the power of monarch and limiting the power of courtiers may not be in compliance with the scriptures,but may be understandable.