王氏父子《周易》論說比較研究

A Comparative Study of the Gaoyou Wangs' Arguments on the Zhouyi

高郵王氏父子的《周易》研究，標誌著清代以文字訓詁探研《周易》的頂峰。二王堅定地立足於經傳文本及「語境」，對漢代象數易學解經方法往往予以明確否定。王氏父子批判脫離文本的「義理」，強調經文解釋必須有訓詁、版本校勘等根據，而以全經義例來探求經文確解，藉此限制、排除解釋的多樣性。王引之的學問固與乃父一脈相承，惟細繹《經義述聞．周易》兩卷，父子解《易》的側重略有不同。相較王念孫多本文字訓詁釋經，王引之展現出兼顧文字訓詁與卦爻義理的傾向，並有意識地檢討漢魏《易》說。高郵王氏的《周易》研究實主要由王引之完成，其確能青出於藍，並調整了研究方向。今三十二卷本《經義述聞．周易》內題為王念孫獨撰之條目，在諸經中數量最少（106條中只佔17條）誠非偶然。本文即考察、比較不同階段《經義述聞》中二王的側重及方法，冀能彰顯父子二人於《周易》研究的同中之異。
The Gaoyou Wangs' 高郵王氏 studies of the Zhouyi 周易 mark the zenith of the semantic approach to exegesis in Qing dynasty Yi learning. The Wangs' interpretation of the Zhouyi was firmly based in the text and its context. They not only rejected the exegetical approach employed by the Han dynasty image and number school, but they also criticized the meaning and pattern (yili 義理) position for being detached from the text. In addition, they emphasized the essentiality of semantics and collation as the ground for exegesis, as well as the importance of referring to examples from the whole text in order to ensure the accuracy of the interpretation. In such ways, they argued that variances in Zhouyi exegesis could be lessened. There was undoubtedly transmission and consistency between Wang Yinzhi's 王引之 interpretation and that of his father, Wang Niansun 王念孫; however, it is also possible to discern some slight differences in their emphases in juan two of the Jingyi shuwen, Zhouyi 經義述聞．周易. Whereas Wang Niansun primarily emphasised semantics in his exegesis, Wang Yinzhi tended to consult both semantics and the image and numerology approach, and he also critically reviewed the Yi learning of the Han and Wei dynasties. Furthermore, Wang Yinzhi surpassed his father in the study of the Zhouyi in several respects. In the thirty-two juan Jingyi shuwen．Zhouyi, only seventeen of the 106 entries were written solely by Wang Niansun, which was the fewest number of entries he composed in the books they compiled together. The low number was not a coincidence; the Wangs' critical commentary on the Zhouyi was predominantly written by Yinzhi, who was responsible for adjusting the direction of their studies. By exploring and comparing the Wangs' different emphases and methods in the exegesis of the Zhouyi at different stages, this article seeks to elucidate the divergences in their approaches to the Zhouyi.

The Gaoyou Wangs' 高郵王氏 studies of the Zhouyi 周易 mark the zenith of the semantic approach to exegesis in Qing dynasty Yi learning. The Wangs' interpretation of the Zhouyi was firmly based in the text and its context. They not only rejected the exegetical approach employed by the Han dynasty image and number school, but they also criticized the meaning and pattern (yili 義理) position for being detached from the text. In addition, they emphasized the essentiality of semantics and collation as the ground for exegesis, as well as the importance of referring to examples from the whole text in order to ensure the accuracy of the interpretation. In such ways, they argued that variances in Zhouyi exegesis could be lessened. There was undoubtedly transmission and consistency between Wang Yinzhi's 王引之 interpretation and that of his father, Wang Niansun 王念孫; however, it is also possible to discern some slight differences in their emphases in juan two of the Jingyi shuwen, Zhouyi 經義述聞．周易. Whereas Wang Niansun primarily emphasised semantics in his exegesis, Wang Yinzhi tended to consult both semantics and the image and numerology approach, and he also critically reviewed the Yi learning of the Han and Wei dynasties. Furthermore, Wang Yinzhi surpassed his father in the study of the Zhouyi in several respects. In the thirty-two juan Jingyi shuwen．Zhouyi, only seventeen of the 106 entries were written solely by Wang Niansun, which was the fewest number of entries he composed in the books they compiled together. The low number was not a coincidence; the Wangs' critical commentary on the Zhouyi was predominantly written by Yinzhi, who was responsible for adjusting the direction of their studies. By exploring and comparing the Wangs' different emphases and methods in the exegesis of the Zhouyi at different stages, this article seeks to elucidate the divergences in their approaches to the Zhouyi.