漢代今、古學之爭的再認識－－以賈逵與「公羊」之爭為例

Rethinking the Debate between New Text and Old Text Proponents: The Case of Jia Kui versus the Gongyang Commentary

今、古學之爭是漢代經學史的重大事件，但賈逵治〈左傳〉時，有時卻放棄〈左傳〉的立場而採納〈公羊傳〉，其中的緣由，與經學論爭的邏輯性有一定闕係，因現存賈逵採納〈公羊〉學的例子都可以從這一層面解釋。如果聯繫〈左傳〉學術地位在漢代的變遷過程，則不難發現，論爭過程講究邏輯性，是與經、傳文相發明的特點聯在一起的。經、傳文的相互發明不僅要求經學論爭須講究邏輯性，而且還將產生解釋超越立場的現象。在此意義上，〈左傳〉與〈公羊〉的分歧，有時不是事實的分歧，而是人為的結果。換言之，在經學論爭中，立場的分歧有時是次要的，而解釋的策略則是主要的。賈逵批評〈公羊〉學的幾個例證，其實與〈公羊傳〉的實際觀念並不吻合，他虛設了〈公羊〉的觀點，然後批駁這種虛設的觀念，這種情形可稱之為經學之爭的佯謬性。經學的徉謬性以及經、傳文相互發明的特點，為重新理解漢代經學史提供了另一種反思的視角。The debate between New Text and Old Text (Jinwen and Guwen) proponents was a great event in Han dynasty's classical studies. Jia Kui edited the Zuozhuan, but sometimes he abandoned Zuozhuan positions and preferred those of the Gongyangzhuan. The reasons for this have definite relations with the logic of the debate within classical studies. By approaching the body of cases where Jia Kui supported Gongyang-based interpretations from this point of view, many aspects of his decisions can be explained. By tracing out the variations in the academic status of the Zuozhuan over the Han dynasty, it is not difficult to find that the logic of the discourse process reflected the changing relations of mutual explication which were posited between the classics and their commentaries. The ways of making the classics intelligible by appealing to the commentaries, and vice versa, did not always follow the logic of the issues; instead, one often finds cases where the explanation went far beyond the purview of the positions investigated. In this sense, the differences between Zuozhuan and Gongyang are not over the facts they record but are the results of different, artificially taken, viewpoints about these interpretive relations. In other words, the difference of standpoint is secondary but the policies of annotation are the main issues in the controversy. In some instances, when Jia Kui criticized Gongyang, the position he criticized was at odds with the real ideas of the Gongyang commentary; and this straw man is what he attacked. We call this a use of 'pretended falsehoods' in debates on the classical works. This usage, and the mutual dependency of commentaries and classics, provide other perspectives to think about the problems of the history of the classics in Han dynasty.