宋代程頤學脈《春秋》學中對晉文公的評價問題──以尊王與攘夷為核心

The Evaluation of Duke Wen of Jin in the Chun Qiu Studies of Cheng Yi s School of Thought in the Song Dynasty──Focusing on Two Core Issues:“Honoring the King and“Resisting the Barbarians

宋代常被視為自先秦之後另一個儒學高峰時代，其中最重要的是理學的興起。但從經學的角度視之，宋代的《春秋》學不論在著作的豐富度及對後代的影響上，也都不容忽視。在《春秋》中，齊桓公與晉文公兩人是最受到重視的霸主，對其評價的討論，又與理學中「王霸之辨」息息相關。故本文以《春秋》中所記與晉文公攘夷、尊王兩方向事跡有關的經文為主，並收集北宋的程頤、謝湜與南宋的胡安國、高閌、張洽、趙鵬飛、黃仲炎、黃震、呂大圭等人的《春秋》相關注解，觀察分析他們對於晉文公在攘夷、尊王兩方面的評價。由此討論：一、程頤學脈《春秋》學與三傳的異同。二、程頤學脈諸儒在其《春秋》學著作中如何解釋晉文公的相關經文，又如何評價晉文公的地位與價值。三、程頤學脈《春秋》學的發展脈絡及其特色。

The Song Dynasty is often regarded as another peak of Confucianism after the pre-Qin period. One of the most important developments during this time was the rise of Neo-Confucianism, with a specific focus on the School of Principle (Li Xue). In the“Chun Qiu”, Duke Huan of Qi and Duke Wen of Jin are two rulers who received significant attention, and discussions about their evaluations are closely related to the distinction between“kings”and“hegemons”in Neo-Confucianism. This article examines relevant commentaries on the“Chun-Qiu”by Cheng Yi and Xie Shi from the Northern Song Dynasty, as well as Hu An Guo, Gao Kang etc from the Southern Song Dynasty. Specifically, this article explores the similarities and differences between the“Chun Qiu”studies and the interpretations of the Three Commentaries in Cheng Yi’s scholarly lineage and interpret the relevant scriptures about Jin and how they evaluate Duke Wen’s status and value. Additionally, it considers the developmental context and characteristics of the“Chun Qiu”studies in Cheng Yi’s scholarly lineage.