論清初官方對胡安國《春秋胡氏傳》的批評

Early Qing Official Criticism of Hu Anguo’s Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals

從宋代至明代，胡安國《春秋胡氏傳》（以下簡稱胡《傳》）受到朝廷的重視，學術地位越趨鞏固，對《春秋》學風形成一定的影響力。清代初期仍舊以胡《傳》為科舉定本，但與先前獨霸經壇的聲勢有別，學術地位逐漸下降，各方批駁的意見也越來越多。從官方敕纂的著作中，就能見到他們對胡安國的不滿，例如康熙為《欽定春秋傳說彙纂》作序，說明胡《傳》多穿鑿附會，離經義逾遠；乾隆《御纂春秋直解》序也提出胡安國有附會臆斷之失。而《四庫全書》在胡《傳》的收錄上，刪削許多有忌諱的文字，舉凡學者解經能不宗胡《傳》者，《四庫全書總目提要》多表示讚許，朝廷對胡氏的立場明顯有了轉變。歷來對此課題的研究成果有限，未能深入察看官學的接受態度，具體分析箇中的變化。故本文試圖探討清初官方對胡安國《春秋胡氏傳》的批評，從官方的代表著作：《日講春秋解義》、《欽定春秋傳說彙纂》、《御纂春秋直解》與《四庫全書》等進行論述，除了說明朝廷詮解《春秋》的基本立場，還深入剖析其對胡《傳》態度的改變歷程，整理官方辨正胡《傳》的共同面向，呈顯論題的相關內容。

Between the Song and Ming dynasties, Master Hu’s Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋胡氏傳 was held in high regard by the imperial court, which served to gradually consolidate its status among scholars. Up until the early Qing, it was still the definitive edition for the imperial civil service examinations; however it then began to decline in status in the face of increasing criticism. The dissatisfaction of officials towards its author, Hu Anguo 胡安國, can be seen in official writings produced by imperial edict. The Kangxi 康熙 Emperor, for example, wrote in the preface to Qin ding chun qiu zhuan shuo hui zuan 欽定春秋傳說彙纂 that Hu’s interpretation of the original classic was strained, deviating too far from its true meaning, and the Qianlong 乾隆 Emperor similarly criticized Hu in his preface to Yu zuan chun qiu zhi jie 御纂春秋直解. The version of Hu’s Commentary collected in the Si ku quan shu 四庫全書 was printed only after portions of text deemed to be unacceptable had been deleted. Those scholars that were able to avoid showing too much respect for the Commentary were also lauded in the Si ku quan shu, and the imperial court’s position on Hu changed significantly. Historically, the few studies on this subject have been limited, and have not examined in depth official scholarly acceptance, and changes in these attitudes. This paper attempts to explore official criticism of Hu Anguo in the early Qing as expressed in such official writings as Ri jiang chun qiu jie yi 日講春秋解義, Qin ding chun qiu zhuan shuo hui zuan, Yu zuan chun qiu zhi jie and Si ku quan shu. Besides explaining the basic official court position on interpreting the Spring and Autumn Annals, this study closely analyzes the process of changing official attitudes towards Hu’s Commentary, and also summarizes those aspects of his Commentary that officials commonly identified as being in error, and the amendments they made to correct them.