南宋《詩經》集解體作者解經立場與方法之比較研究──以李樗、嚴粲為中心的考察

The Comparative Discourse upon the Standpoints and Methods of the Variorum Authors on Explaining the Shijing during the Southern Song Dynasty: Using Li Shu and Yan Can as the Core of the Study

李樗的《毛詩詳解》與嚴粲的《詩緝》分別完成於南宋初年與晚期，兩者皆採集解體的方式解經，此一體式有其基本要求，不只羅列眾說，裁定優劣，往往還需有自己的解釋。面對自兩漢至北宋的《詩經》新舊之說，李樗決定在詩旨方面支持傳統的《詩序》，詩文釋義方面則有自己的一套規則，以其規則評騭、去取諸家之說，也提供自己的解釋，完全沒有漢宋之偏見，至其讀《詩》的要領則受到孟子與北宋理學家的啟迪。嚴粲可以接觸到完整的兩宋疑《序》學者之著作，但他依然支持《詩序》的解題，訓釋詩文的方法主要則是「以經傳解經」，看似傳統，其理念卻可與西方詮釋學不謀而合。透過本文的論述，可知漢學與宋學雖各有所長，但絕非分屬兩種截然不同的研究進路，而傳統與現代的治學方法與成果亦無優劣之分，必須分別看待。

The Mao Shi Xiang Jie by Li Shu and the Shi Qi by Yan Can were finished respectively during the early and later years of the Southern Song Dynasty. Both used the style of Variorum to explain the Shi Jing. The style of Variorum requires basic elements of not only to spread out various ideas of others or to judge the good and bad but also to present the explanations of oneself. Confronting the old and new explanations of the Shi Jing from the Han Dynasty to the Northern Song Dynasty, Li Shu decided to support the traditional Shi Xu in the respect of the Motifs of poems and have his own rules in interpreting the words of poetry. Using his rules, Li Shu criticized and selected concepts from scholars. His way of interpreting the Shi Jing did not contain any prejudices to the Han Studies and the Song studies. As for Li Shu's gist of reading the Shi Jing, he was inspired by Meng Zi and Northern Song Dynasty philosophers. Yan Can could read literary works by scholars who doubted the Shi Xu from the whole Song Dynasty, but still, he supported the interpretations of the Shi Xu. The main way he used to explain the words of poetry is the way he used the Confucian classics and commentaries to explain the Shi Jing. Although it seems traditional, his concepts in it had the same idea with the Western Hermeneutics by coincidence. Through the discussions in this paper, it is known that although the Han studies and the Song studies have their own merits, they are not totally two different research approaches. However, in the ways and results of the scholarly researches, there are no pros and cons between modern and traditional, hence, they should be treated individually.