從古文詞章學論戴震的《屈原賦注》

On Dai Zhen's Commentary of Qu Yuan's Fu Poem from the Aspect of Ancient Prose Writing Techniques Studies

眾所周知，戴震（1724－1777）長於考據，其治學每能追溯文字、聲音的演化軌跡，且務與名物制度、經傳注疏相參覈，從而獲得豐碩的成績。然須留意的是，戴震亮眼的考據表現實未能掩蓋其文章成就：像他出色的時文、古文寫作，還有對諸名文做出的豐富評述，無不反映他紮實、深厚的古文詞章學素養。本文試圖就戴震青年時期的著作《屈原賦注》（含《初稿》），來引介、討論戴氏的詞章學。藉由對他治學學歷的考察，還有對唐宋新儒學運動引發的古文詞章學發展史的勾勒，我們發現戴震承接了古文運動以降的學文養氣理念，以及就章法、開闔關鍵、文脈及辭氣諸面向評析作者為文之心的評注技術。故在注解《屈原賦》時，戴震遂透過形色評析，逆體屈原（西元前340？－278）既未嘗怨懟君王、抑不忍輕言絕君的心緒，從而朗現屈子遵奉古來聖賢治道，時時懸念匡輔君主的忠貞志節。總之，運作得宜的品評搭配精煉的考核學力，終讓他自信完成了尤能凸顯屈子之學、志以及立言指要無不至純的《楚辭》論述。最後，綜覽戴震畢生學問，我們發現考據、詞章是二種學力的分陳與相輔濟，乃他治學的根本策略。從學術史角度觀察，戴氏治學確實繼承了古文運動誦文養心、吐辭垂訓的學風，惟他主張須仰仗考核研經之功來保障知見的正確性，以匡正古文詞章學屢屢陷入的自由心證、自圓其說的弊病。故從《屈原賦注》該書，尚能讓我們洞悉戴震學術的這個時代意義。 Dai Zhen (1724-1777) masters verification and presents fruitful study results via meticulous research on thing-naming systems and annotations of classics and related explanatory works so as to trace the evolution of words and pronunciations. However, it should be noted that Dai's brilliance in verification does not overshadow his achievement on writing. For example, his solid and deep literacy in the studies of ancient prose writing techniques is reflected on his outstanding essays, ancient style proses as well as his commentaries on various famous articles. In this paper, I attempt to introduce and discuss Dai Zhen's Commentary of Qu Yuan's Fu Poems written in his youth, including The First Draft. I investigate Dai's experiences of academic studies and delineate the history of ancient prose writing techniques development triggered by the Neo-Confucianist Movement in the Tang and Song dynasties. Dai is deeply influenced by a concept existent ever since the Neo-Confucianist Movement, which celebrates the idea that studying ancient sages' lessons and articles can help one cultivate one's magnanimity. He also continues the techniques of commenting and analyzing the author's writing intentions from aspects such as organization, the key to introduction and conclusion, context, and momentum of sentences. This is why Dai, when annotating and analyzing Qu Yuan's (340?-278 B.C.) fu poems, is able to understand why Qu never resented his monarch or easily gave up on him. Thus Dai further celebrates Qu's noble loyalty and aspiration to assist the sovereign, which are the ways of the sages. In short, Dai's well written reviews and fine verification skills finally enable him to finish confidently his discourse on the Verses of Chu, which especially highlights the pureness of Qu Yuan's works, as well as showcases Dai's aspiration and essential thoughts. Lastly, through a comprehensive overview of Dai's learning of his whole life, I find that verification and writing techniques, two kinds of scholastic abilities mutually complement to each other, are in effect his fundamental studying strategies. From the academic history viewpoint, it demonstrates that Dai's studies indeed succeed the Neo-Confucianist Movement style of reading which aims to cultivate one's mind and writing. Nevertheless, Dai also advocates verification and research as the heart of the matter so as to avoid the major drawback of ancient prose writing techniques studies - arbitrary justification of one's own argument regardless of the evidence. In this way, Commentary of Qu Yuan's Fu Poems allows us to have an insight into the significance of the academics in Dai's epoch.