失火的馬廄－《論語》「廄焚子退朝曰傷人乎不問馬」再探

The Fired Horse Stables -Searching again＂ The Analects＂ 'The stable being burned done, when Confucius was at court, on his return he said,＂ Has anyone been hurt?＂ He did not ask about the horses'

謝予騰(Hsieh Yu-Teng)

孔子 ； 論語 ； 廄焚 ； 問馬 ； 儒學 ； Analects ； Confucius ； The Fired Horse Stables ； Confucianism

漢學研究集刊

28期（2019 / 06 / 01）

41 - 43+45-61

繁體中文

「廄焚子退朝曰傷人乎不問馬」一句，自古以來有著主要三種不同的句讀方式，其所探討的中心問題，是對《鹽鐵論》中所提到，孔子是否「賤畜而重人」的問題的回應──這個問題根本牽涉的，是孔子乃至於整個儒家思想中，對「人與動物性命輕重」的生命議題的討論。雖說已有眾多文章，對於本段文字有著討論，但其討論內容根本上無法開展出不同於「貴人賤畜」之外的可能性，造成本段文字雖為儒家思想中談論到動物與人類生命的議題的代表之一，但卻沒有辦法得到更大、更多元的開展可能。本文試圖以還原當時馬廄失火的時空背景，來探討《論語．鄉黨》這一段記載中，孔子有可能是用什麼樣的態度或想法來面對，又或者當下有什麼樣的情況，讓孔子選擇了這樣的問法，並透過這些探討，嘗試對儒學面對未來全球化思維的衝擊，給出一條不同於過往的詮釋方式與可能性。

'The stable being burned done, when Confucius was at court, on his return he said, ＂Has anyone been hurt?＂ He did not ask about the horses' has since the ancient times the main three different sentences and phrases way, its discusses the crucial question, is mentioned to ＂The Theory Of Salt And Iron＂, Confucius whether ＂the honored person inexpensive livestock＂ question response--This issue is fundamentally related to the discussion of the life issues of ＂human and animal life＂ in Confucius and even in the entire Confucianism. Although had the multitudinous articles, has the discussion regarding this section of writing, but its discussion content on basic is unable to develop is different with ＂the honored person inexpensive livestock＂ the beside possibility, although creates this section of writing to discuss the animal and one of human life subject representatives for the Confucianist thought in, but there is no way to get bigger, more multivariate to develop. This article attempts to return to original state the space and time background which at that time the horse stable caught fire, discussed ＂The analects．Xiang dang＂ in this section of records, Confucius had the possibility was faces with any type manner or the idea, also or had any type situation immediately, let Confucius choose such the question is asked, and penetrated these discussions, will attempt to Confucianism facing the future globalization thought impact, gave one to be different with the passing interpretational way and the possibility.

1. 費永昌,楊書瑋(2011)。動物權與動物對待。應用倫理評論，51
   連結：
2. （西漢）司馬遷(2010).史記.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
3. （宋）朱熹(1991).四書集註.臺南:大孚書局.
4. （明）董斯張(1972).廣博物志.臺北:新興書局.
5. （清）皮錫瑞,周予同（注）(1983).經學歷史.臺北:漢京文化.
6. （魏）王肅(1996).孔子家語‧曲禮子貢問.臺北市:黎明文化出版.
7. Hanson, R. Reid(2005).Management of Burn Injuries in the Horse.Equine Practice. Vet Clin Equine,21
8. 王定康(2011)。《論語》「傷人乎不問馬」標點商兌。隴東學院學報，22(5)
9. 王夢鷗(2016).禮記今註今譯.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
10. 吳宏一(2017).論語新譯：積極向上的生活態度.臺北:遠流.
11. 李肖(2011)。孔子「問馬」還是「不問馬」。安徽文學，2011(4)
12. 李宗侗(2009).春秋左傳今註今譯.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
13. 林尹(1987).周禮今註今譯.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
14. 韋恩‧帕賽爾, Wayne,蔡宜真（譯）(2017).人道經濟.臺北:商周出版.
15. 徐連達（編）(2010).中國官制大辭典.上海:上海大學.
16. 徐德培(1975).鹽鐵論集釋.臺北:廣文書局.
17. 馬文．哈里斯, Marvin,葉舒憲（譯）,戶曉輝（譯）(2010).什麼都能吃！令人驚異的飲食文化.臺北:書林.
18. 高柏園(2016)。當代新儒家對全球倫理的回應。宗教哲學，75
19. 張漢林(2016)。孔子「問人不問馬」故事的教學解讀。歷史教學，2016(3)
20. 陳業新(2016).儒家生態意識與中國古代環境保護研究.臺北:萬卷樓.
21. 熊十力(1983).十力語要.臺北:洪氏出版社.
22. 熊公哲(1975).荀子今註今譯.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
23. 趙曉斌(2009)。浙江大學中國古典文獻學。
24. 劉道鋒(2007)。《論語》「廄焚子退朝曰傷人乎不問馬」標點商榷。現代語文，2007(9)
25. 譚風雷(1984)。析孔子的問人不問馬。文史哲，1984(2)