論中井履軒孔子《春秋》亡佚說與《左傳逢原》經解

On Nakai Riken’s Argument Concerning the Loss of Confucius’Chunqiu and the Exegetical Method Used in His Zuozhuan fengyuan

江戶學者中井履軒 (1732-1817) 具有獨特的經學觀，早在康有為 (1858-1927) 偽經說前百年即主張中國傳世五經皆係偽作。其中，他認為《春秋》有兩本，一是魯之舊史，為今傳世《春秋》，一是孔子《春秋》，當毀於楚滅魯時。孔子《春秋》亡佚說未曾聞於中國，卻在日本興起並有著深遠影響。其理論與淵源為何？據此經學觀所詮釋《春秋》學的具體展現又如何？本文據中井氏《春秋》學論述察考：一、從經學研究角度，探察其亡佚說的可能淵源；二、在其《春秋》觀基礎上所著作《左傳逢原》的實際經解，是否能合理說明其獨特觀點；三、中井履軒詮釋《春秋》具有其個人獨特歷史脈絡的解讀，亦有其置身日本國情下的君臣思維，所形成的域外視野與詮釋。本文就上述以明其《春秋》學特點與影響。

The Edo scholar Nakai Riken (1732-1817) had a unique view of the Chinese classics. His argument that the Five Classics were forged by later scholars appeared about one century before Kang Youwei’s 康有為 (1858-1927) fake Classics theory. Nakai argued that there were in fact two versions of the Chunqiu春秋 (Spring and Autumn Annals). One was the history of Lu, which was the version that was passed on to our times. The other was the Chunqiu compiled by Confucius, which had been lost with the defeat of the state of Lu by Chu. Though this argument did not prevail in China, it had a far-reaching influence on studies of the Chinese Classics in Japan. Given this influence, it is worth asking: What was the origin of Nakai’s argument? Moreover, what concrete points did interpreting the Chunqiu and Zuozhuan 左傳 from this perspective reveal? This article is divided into three parts. First, it discusses the details, and origins, of Nakai’s argument that Confucius’ Chunqiu had been long lost. It then examines Nakai’s method of interpretation as well as his rationalization of his exegetical point of view in the Zuozhuan fengyuan 左傳逢原. Finally, it argues that Nakai’s interpretation of the Chunqiu originated in the relationship between the monarch and his subjects in the Japan of Nakai’s time. On the basis of the above analysis, I hope to elucidate Nakai’s interpretation of the Chunqiu as well as its influence.