《毛詩正義》訓詁術語探析－兼論歷代訓詁術語之因革

An Analysis of the Scholia Terminology from the Mao Commentary: A Discussion of the Changes in the History of the Scholia Terminology

10.6281/NTUCL.202209_(78).0002

劉文清(Liu, Wen-Ching)

《毛詩正義》 ； 《毛詩箋》 ； 孔穎達 ； 訓詁術語 ； 義疏 ； Mao commentary of the classic of poetry ； Mao notes of the classic of poetry ； Kong Yingda ； scholium terminology ； Exegesis

臺大中文學報

78期（2022 / 09 / 01）

57 - 106

繁體中文;英文

《毛詩正義》乃《詩經》注解代表作，然自宋代或質疑其「疏不破注」，至清代學者尤為訾議。唯近代又漸有學者開始反思，認為「疏不破注」只是一大體原則，並非義疏體之解經體例。考各家之說主要從經學或文獻的角度立論，然義疏在訓詁內在脈絡層面對舊注如何繼承或突破，尤以訓詁本身具體實踐上對舊注如何因革損益，則向來鮮受關注。本文因此鎖定訓詁方法之表徵－訓詁術語為對象，探討術語涵義及所蘊含的訓詁觀念，並藉以觀察其繼承或突破前人之處，或可做為探討「疏不破注」議題另一參考側面。本文首先針對《正義》「當爲」、「當作」、「讀（當）爲」、「讀曰」、「讀如」、「之言」六大重要術語分別予以論述，結果發現自表面觀之，孔《疏》與鄭《箋》術語用法雖大致相若，然已略有不同。再從鄭《箋》與孔《疏》於同一條例運用術語的具體作法予以考察，發現《疏》各條例雖大致沿用《箋》術語涵義，然每一術語或多或少有溢出鄭《箋》框架而以己意改之者，應係孔《疏》對於訓詁術語展現相當的自主性，適可藉以考察漢、唐術語之因革。蓋訓詁術語在漢代仍屬於草創階段，術語名稱與涵義皆尚未完全確立，混用之處仍在所難免；歷經六朝降至唐代，《疏》體進一步確立傳統術語之涵義作用；下逮清代，進而將漢代術語之涵義、作用明確予以定義。然以今觀之，段玉裁等說並不盡符合漢注用法，反倒更貼近唐疏用法，或可視為對漢、唐術語之概括說法，卻進而認定唐代應對漢代亦步亦趨，不容有異。然也正因如此，其所恢復的「漢學」，實則已融合漢、唐二種風貌，從而形成獨特的清代「漢學」。

The Mao commentary is representative of commentary of Book of songs. However, since the Song dynasty, there were doubts about the principle on "the exegesis does not break the commentary" (shu bupo zhu), and scholars in the Qing dynasty had discussed it. Only in recent times some scholars begun to consider that the principle is only a general one, not an example of the interpretation for the body of the exegesis of characters meaning. Each school's opinions are mainly from the views of the Classics. However, how the explanation of Chinese characters inherited or broke through the old ideas at the inner context level of scholia, especially how the exegesis itself was gained or lost due to changes, has always received little attention. Therefore, this article will focus on deepening the features of the scholia research methodology. This article will discuss six essential terms of the Commentary: "it works as" (dang wei), "it works doing" (dang zuo), "it is read as" (du (dang) wei), "its reading says" (du yue), "it is read like" (du ru), and "the saying of" (zhi yan). The results show that the terminology of Kong's Exegesis (shu) and Zheng's Notes are roughly the same, but slightly different. Then, based on the same cases, it can be observed that the cases in Exegesis generally follow the meaning of the terms of the Notes. However, each term has more or less overflowed from the framework of Zheng's Notes and changed according to its meaning. This fact should be attributed to the fact that Kong's Exegesis shows autonomy in scholia terminology and it can be used to investigate the origin and evolution of terms from the Han and Tang. However, from today's point of view, Duan Yucai's and others' opinions do not fully conform to the usage of Han commentaries but are closer to the usage of Tang exegesis or can be seen as a general statement of Han and Tang terminology. So the next step should be to confirm that the exegesis of characters in the Tang may follow the exegesis tradition in the Han and that should be no difference. For this reason, the Han studies merged the two styles of the Han and Tang dynasties and thus formed a unique "Han studies" in the Qing dynasty. Since the scholia terminology was still in the initial stage in the Han dynasty. Names and meanings were not fully established, and mixed uses of them were inevitable. During the Tang dynasty, the Exegesis style established the meaning of the traditional terminology for the exegesis of characters. In the Qing dynasty, the meaning and function of the terms from the Han dynasty became clearly defined.

1. 姜龍翔(2014)。《五經正義》「疏不破注」之問題再探。成大中文學報，46
   連結：
2. 劉文清, W.-Ch(2011)。《毛詩箋》「之言」術語析論。臺大中文學報，35，1-42。
   連結：
3. 劉文清, W.-Ch.(2005)。訓詁學新體系之建構─從當前訓詁學研究之回顧與反思談起。臺大文史哲學報，62，381-420。
   連結：
4. （清）永瑢,（清）紀昀(1983).四庫全書總目提要.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
5. （清）段玉裁, Y.-C.(2010).經韵樓集（附補編、兩考）.南京=Nanjing:鳳凰出版社=Fenghuang Publishing.
6. （清）段玉裁, Y.-C.(2008).經韵樓集.上海=Shanghai:上海古籍出版社=Shanghai classic publishing.
7. （清）錢大昕(1997).嘉定錢大昕全集.南京:江蘇古籍出版社.
8. （漢）鄭玄（注）,（唐）孔穎達（疏）(1976).十三經注疏.臺北:藝文印書館.
9. 丁福保（編纂）,楊家駱（重編）(1983).說文解字詁林正補合編.臺北:鼎文書局.
10. 吳雁南（編）(2001).中國經學史.福州:福建人民出版社.
11. 呂友仁, Y.-R.(2019).孔穎達《五經正義》義例研究.上海=Shanghai:上海古籍出版社=Shanghai classic publishing.
12. 李雲光(2013).三禮鄭氏學發凡.上海:華東師範大學出版社.
13. 李學勤（編）(1999).十三經注疏標點本.北京:北京大學出版社.
14. 車行健(2015)。《毛詩注疏》與漢唐《毛詩》經解注疏體制的形成。「《毛詩注疏》研究新視野」學術研討會，臺北:
15. 周大璞(2000).訓詁學.臺北:洪葉文化出版公司.
16. 洪誠(1984).訓詁學.南京:江蘇古籍出版社.
17. 夏傳才(1993).詩經研究史概要.臺北:萬卷樓圖書股份有限公司.
18. 党代莉(2010)。党代莉《毛詩正義》訓詁研究綜述。和田師範專科學校學報，2010(6)
19. 党代莉(2011)。蘭州，西北師範大學。
20. 張以仁(2012).張以仁語文學論集.上海:上海古籍出版社.
21. 張永言(1985).訓詁學簡論.武昌:華中工學院出版社.
22. 張立兵(2007)。揚州，揚州大學。
23. 張寶三, B.-S.(2011).五經正義研究.上海=Shanghai:華東師範大學出版社=East China Normal University Press.
24. 許威漢(2003).訓詁學導論（修訂版）.北京:北京大學出版社.
25. 郭偉宏(2008)。濟南，山東大學。
26. 陳廣恩, G.-E.(1999)。論「疏不破注」─以《毛詩正義》為例。寧夏大學學報，1999(4)，64-67。
27. 喬秀岩, X.-Y.(2013).義疏學衰亡史論.臺北=Taipei:萬卷樓圖書股份有限公司=Wanjuanlou.
28. 馮浩菲(1989)。《毛詩正義》通達訓釋諸例概述。山東大學學報，1989(2)
29. 黃建中(1988).訓詁學教程.武漢:湖北人民出版社.
30. 黃焯(1985).詩疏平議.上海:上海古籍出版社.
31. 楊端志(1997).訓詁學.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
32. 董同龢(1975).上古音韻表稿.臺北:台聯國風出版社.
33. 路廣正(1996).訓詁學通論.天津:天津古籍出版社.
34. 劉文清(2010)。從惠棟《九經古義》論其「經之義存乎訓」的解經觀念。臺日學者論經典詮釋中的語文分析，臺北:
35. 劉文清, W.-Ch.(2011)。《毛詩箋》訓詁術語探究。「國科會中文學門小學類 92-97研究成果發表會」論文集，臺北=Taipei:
36. 潘德榮(1999).詮釋學導論.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
37. 鄧聲國(1999)。《毛詩箋》訓詁術語瑣論。中國語文通訊，52，27-34。
38. 韓宏韜(2008)。考論《毛詩正義》對毛《傳》、鄭《箋》的批評──兼駁「疏不破注」說。徐州師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版），2008(6)
39. 韓崢嶸,張利(2000)。《毛詩正義》「疏不破注」考辨。吉林大學社會科學學報，2000(4)

1. (2024)。黃侃《爾雅音訓》「一語」術語及其轉注與同源詞理論探討。漢學研究，42(1)，189-231。