乾嘉經典詮釋的方法與進路──以戴震、焦循為核心

A Comparative Study on Dai Zhen and Jiao Xun 's Classical Interpretation Methods and Approaches

本文對比戴震、焦循二人，於經典詮釋方法上的異同，指出二人不論在經史考證，或經典詮釋上的發揮，均各有對比於前哲的變貌轉化；故二人之注經進路，雖可涵括於總體的考據範圍內，卻不限於考據，實不宜僅以漢學詮釋概括言之。戴、焦二人皆不斷強調經典詮釋及理解的重要，或言心知、性靈，或倡善述、聞道，通過學人社會、學圈僚友及著作的研精交誼，深化所思所得，透過編修、纂注經籍，或專書著作，建構個人思想。由此觀察，亦可進一步彰明乾嘉經典詮釋的特殊風貌。

This paper attempts to compare the similarities and differences between Dai Zhen’s and Jiao Xun’s way of interpreting classics, pointing out that they respectively differ from their predecessors interpretation and evidential studies of classic texts. Their annotationof classic texts can be included in, yet not confine to, the field ofevidential studies, so it is not proper to merely classify theirannotation under Han-learning interpretation. Both Dai Zhen and Jiao Xunconstantly emphasize theimportance of interpreting and understanding classics. They believethat one’s disposition and soul are the focuses of learning classictexts, and so are good explanation of the texts and realization of “Tao. ” One can also deepen the learning by exchanging ideas withincircle of scholars and colleagues; still, one can construct personal thinking by editing and annotating classic texts or writing books. Their belief reveals the special feature of the classic interpretation during Qian-Jia period.