朝鮮正祖時期儒臣對於《左傳》杜《注》的辨正──成海應《杜註考異》之文獻與義理初探

Confucian Scholars’ Critical Studies of Du Yu’s Notes of Zuo Zhuan During the Period of Korean Emperor Joseon Jeongio: A Preliminary Study of Cheng Hai-ying’s Du Zhu Kao Yi

中國五經之學傳入古代韓國的時間甚早，一直是韓儒學習儒學最重要的典籍。然而經典作為政治與人倫的義理根據，無論在中國或韓國，在不同的時代都曾被不同的解讀與詮釋，我們透過這些詮解，一方面得到了經典內涵的新開展，另一方面，也可以看到不同時代的歷史環境與思想特質。《左傳》在中國《春秋》學術發展的過程中，其性質曾由經傳轉變為史籍、文學，不同的解讀視角，也產生對於《左傳》不同的理解需求。若將視野轉向經學研究同樣盛行的朝鮮，可以發現朝鮮後期的學者對於《左傳》的著成時代、與《春秋》的關係也有許多討論，其間儒者對於《左傳》性質及相關問題的反省雖然比起中國稍晚，但是韓儒在其中討論的深度以及思辨的嚴謹度卻毫不遜色。朝鮮正祖晚期所詔修的《春秋左氏傳》，以及此書完成後正祖命成海應將其中與杜預《春秋經傳集解》不同的意見加以羅列說明，作成《杜註考異》一書，其中在編輯體例、經文義理的闡釋與選擇、對於《左傳》及杜《注》的批評與刪改，以及在擇取經學文獻上的眼光各方面，可謂為當時《春秋》經學成果的綜合展現。本文通過整理論析成海應《杜註考異》，檢視其中對於《左傳》及杜《注》的批評，觀察到此一時期朝鮮《春秋》學特重「尊經／尊君」大義，從而對於《左傳》及杜《注》不合其義理標準處提出批評，以強調其主張。這應是正祖詔修《春秋左氏傳》的主要原因，也因而表現了朝鮮《春秋》學術的特點。

The Chinese Five Classics of Confucianism had been introduced to ancientKorea very early. They had been the most important books for the Koreanscholars to learn Confucianism. In both China and Korea, the teaching of theseclassic books used to be the guiding principles of political and humanrelationships. Scholars kept interpreting and commenting on them in differentways from time to time. On the one hand, one can explore the Chinese andKorean scholars’ different connotations of the words used in these classics; onthe other hand, one can investigate how the changing historical contexts affectedthe scholars’ development of their major thoughts based on these classics. Duringthe development of Chinese Chun Chiu studies, scholars changed theirperspectives on Zuo Zhuan, which was originally considered as a classic. Later, itbecame a historical publication or even a Chinese literature book. Zuo Zhuan,therefore, served the various needs of scholars from different disciplines and withtheir own analytical purposes. In Korea, scholars have critically studied anddiscussed on the context of Zuo Zhuan as well as the relationship between ZuoZhuan and Chun Chiu. These scholars started exploring the characteristics of ZuoZhuan later than their Chinese counterparts, but their in-depth discussions andcritical studies of this book were as serious as the latter. In his later reign, theKorean Emperor Joseon Jeongio had ordered his officials to edit Chun Chiu ZuoZhuan. Afterwards, Joseon Jeongio ordered Cheng Hai-ying to write Du Yu’sChun Chiu Jin Zhuan Ji Jie, which summarized and analyzed the differentcomments from both Chun Chiu Zuo Zhuan and Du Yu’s Chun Chiu Jin Zhuan JiJie. This article examined Cheng criticism of Zuo Zhuan and Du Yu’s Chun ChiuJin Zhuan Ji Jie by analyzing his Du Zhu Kao Yi. I argue that although KoreanChun Chiu study had emphasized “Respect for the emperor/Respect for theclassics,” Cheng Hai-ying offered his viewpoints that disagreed with suchstandard of justice by criticizing Zhuo Zhuan and Du Yu’s Chun Chiu Jin ZhuanJi Jie. This was the main reason why Emperor Joseon Jeongio ordered to editChun Chiu Zuo Zhuan. This case shows the Korean academic characteristics ofstudying Chun Chiu.