九州龜門《春秋左傳》學之解經立場、方法與定位──以其考辨《左傳‧隱公》杜註為例

The Position, Methods, and Status of the Kyushu Kamei Family’s Research on the“Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan”-- Through a Critique of Du Yu’s Interpretation of“Zuo Zhuan‧Yin Gong”

本文主要就江戶九州古文辭學派儒者龜井南冥《春秋左傳考義》〈隱公〉中，其攻駁杜註之 107 條理據「說詞」以為主要研究對象，研究議題聚焦於龜門《春秋左傳》學之解經立場與方法，試圖考察其究竟採取何種具體解經法？而其所採此等解經法乃因其立足於何種經典認識與儒家認知，又此種認知背後存在著何種江戶古學派發展的內在理路？最後則為龜門《春秋左傳》學作出定位。據本文之考察研究，龜門《春秋左傳》學主張解《春秋》宜稽之「孔門」，而《左傳》不背孔門，不可他求。又龜門《春秋左傳》學解經法主要有五大特點，但以「闕疑」解經法最富意義，此法雖承自徂徠古文辭學但也修正其弊病。然已從古文辭學轉向過渡的龜門學，卻不可視之為江戶「考證學」，且其考據多藉「明學」而非「清學」。龜門《春秋左傳學》乃是折衷仁齋「古義學」與徂徠「古文辭」，而向江戶「考證學」過渡，且始終堅持「家學」立場的九州「龜門學」，古文辭學不過是龜門學表面的一個「倒影」。

This article focuses on the 107 justifications of Kamei Nanmei’s “Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan” (Yin Gong) of the Kobunji school of Confucianism in Edo-Kyushu, which refute the commentary of Du Yu. The study focuses on Kamei’s position and method of interpreting the Classics in “Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan”, and tries to examine the specific methods of interpreting the Classics are adopted by him. What is the underlying rationale for the development of the ancient Edo school of sutra interpretation, and what kind of classical knowledge and Confucian cognition underlies this cognition? Finally, this paper will point out the position of Kimon’s “Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan”. According to the study of this paper, Kimon’s “Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan” advocates that “Chun Qiu” should be interpreted as “Confucianism”, while “Zuo Zhuan” is not contrary to Confucianism. “Zuo Zhuan” is not back to Kongmen (Confucius), and cannot be sought. On the other hand, the method of interpreting “Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan” by Kimon has five main features, but the most meaningful is the method of interpreting the sutras with “missing doubts”, which is inherited from Sorai Kobunji, but also corrects its shortcomings. Kimon’s “Chun Qiu Zuo Zhuan” is a compromise between the Kogi school of Ren Zai and the Kobunji school of 111 Feedback. Kobunji studies is just a “reflection” of the surface of Kimon studies.