論「假借」與「聲誤」之關係──以《三禮注》、《毛詩箋》為主要考察對象

The Relationship between“Loan Character”and“Sound Error”: Annotations on the Three Books of Rites and Annotations on the Mao Commentary

「假借」與「聲誤」同為重要訓詁觀念，傳統看法以為二者係運用聲音同近關係分別從事訓詁或校勘。清儒段玉裁曾區分漢注「讀為」、「讀曰」為假借之訓詁術語；「當為」為字誤、聲誤的校勘術語，訓詁學界多奉為圭臬，然近世已漸有學者存疑，以為二者混淆之處所在多有。本文因擬釐清「假借」與「聲誤」之用法及涵義，並藉以綜觀此二觀念及術語在歷代的流變與發展。
「假借」與「聲誤」相關術語始自東漢注家，本文藉由四個面向考察其術語之關係與涵義：《三禮注》、《毛詩箋》之「當為」、「當作」與「讀為」、「讀曰」術語或可通用；《三禮注》、《毛詩箋》「讀當為」術語習與「讀為」、「當為」通用；《周禮注》、《禮記注》「當為」、「當作」與「讀為」、「讀曰」皆或與「字之誤」、「聲之誤」術語連用；鄭玄《三禮注》、《毛詩箋》之「當為」、「當作」與「讀為」、「讀曰」術語一律不用於校改經文，校改另有其他術語。故透過以上四面向證成「假借」與「聲誤」並非混用，而本當為一事，乃倉卒之間，以音近錯別字假借為之，與形誤並為勘誤之二法。
其次探討的是，將「假借」／「聲誤」由一誤分為二究竟始於何時？本文以為唐代義疏已因誤解漢注而將其區分為二觀念、二組術語。下逮清代，將漢代訓詁術語的涵義明確予以定義化，卻已深受唐疏影響，故「讀為」／「當為」、「假借」／「聲誤」之由合而分，至清代正式定義、定型，遂一直沿用至近世。

“Loan character”and“shengwu”聲誤(lit.“sound error”) are both important concepts related to Chinese scholia, with the traditional view being that both are collations or forms of scholia which concern the relationship of very close or similar used sounds. Qing dynasty Confucian scholar Duan Yucai段玉裁(1735-1815) distinguished the Chinese annotations“the reading is”讀為and“the reading says”讀曰as terms for use in discoursing loan characters; moreover, the collating term of“the appropriate [meaning] is”當為used in erroneous characters and sounds was taken as a guiding principle by scholars of scholia. In modern times, however, different opinions and points of contention have gradually arisen in related scholarship, as there are many instances where the lines differentiating the terms are blurred. The present article clarifies the usage and meaning of loan character and sound error, as well as reviews the evolution and development of these two concepts in the past dynasties.
To this end, this article examines the terms loan character and sound error, which originated in annotations from the Eastern Han dynasty, through four aspects: (1) the interchangeability of“the appropriate [meaning] is”and“the appropriate [meaning] works as”當作with“the reading is”and“the reading says”in Annotations on the Three Books of Rites三禮注and Annotations on the Mao Commentary毛詩箋; (2) the interchangeability of“the appropriate reading is”讀當為with“the reading is”and“the appropriate [meaning] is”in the above two texts; (3) the interchangeability of“the appropriate [meaning] is”and“the appropriate [meaning] works as”with“the reading is”and“the reading says”in connection with the terms“zi zhi wu”字之誤(“character error”) and“sheng zhi wu”聲之誤(“sound error”) in Annotations on the Rites of Zhou周禮注and Annotations on the Book of Rites禮記注; and (4) if and how“the appropriate [meaning] is”and“the appropriate [meaning] works as”as well as“the reading is”and“the reading says”in Annotations on the Three Books of Rites and Annotations on the Mao Commentary are used in the revised classics. Through the above four aspects, it is concluded that loan character and sound error should be the same concept. There were thus two kinds of errors likely made in hasty situations: using the erroneous character due to its proximity in pronunciation with the correct one and using a character with the incorrect ideogram.
Secondly, when considering the time when the mistaken division of loan character and sound error into two concepts first began, this article argues that a fundamental misunderstanding of annotations from the Han dynasty occurred during the Tang dynasty. Moving into the Qing, the meanings of scholia terms from the Han were clearly defined. However, they were deeply influenced by the Tang exegesis, and“the reading is”/“the appropriate [meaning] is”as well as“borrowed character”/“sound error”were first combined and then divided, a formal defining and finalization which has been used into modern times.