劉師培〈毛詩荀子相通考〉析探

The Study of Liu Shi-Pei 's Comparison between the Mao Poetry and Xun Zi

本文首就劉氏《羣經大義相通論》乙書，辨其「刊本」、「稿本」兩者「一名二書」之別，併揣解「相通」定義及其「考」、「論」、「義」三異「題」之名實。進而推探「刊本」所錄八文，實應與「稿本」中之「會通」相類，蠡測「稿本」當作成於「刊本」之前。另者，「相通」三異「題」之所論：一析「相通」即「旁推交通」之義；二辨「論」、「考」、「義」名實，據以議「刊本」之名，或應依實命名，書之曰《羣經大義相通考》，則彼「一名二書」之惑自解矣。
次析論劉氏〈毛詩荀子相通考〉之撰作背景、動機、目的。首探劉氏撰作背景，究得清代「揚荀學風」、「荀子從祀」、「《荀子》升經」三端；再就荀子承師之正、傳經之功、毛《傳》出於荀子等，闡明其撰作動機。
末則舉證有三，以辨其撰作目的，或存「附驥勒功」之心焉。末則評議劉氏「說歧、義駁」二目：其一，「劉氏說歧」者，乃列論其說自相牴觸矛盾者，分申「稱《經》書別」、「『相通』義異」、「『傳』、『箋』混同」三端。其二，「劉氏義駁」者，則議其所論異趣者，分評「詮釋想像」、「取偽過半」、「後出未精」三端，以新發解疑，並證劉氏所言「《荀》義合于《毛詩》者十之八九」，誠非的論。

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the statement from Liu Shih-Pei's “qún jīng dà yì xiāng tōng lùn.” Mr. Liu has written the publication and manuscript of the book. It means the same title with two different books, which easily causes misunderstanding. Meanwhile, the author examines two dimensions, including the meaning of “similarity” and the “kǎo” “lùn” “yì” of the book's content. Next, the author makes further conjectures that the eight articles in publication ought to be similar to “huì tong” in manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript should be released earlier than the publication. Moreover, while studying the “kǎo” “lùn” “yì”, the author also makes two observations: the meaning of “interlinked” ought to be defined as “inter and communicate”, publication should be titled as “qún jīng dà yì xiāng tōng kǎo”. In this way, it perfectly solves the confusion caused by the same title with two different books. In addition to the above, the author examines Liu Shih-Pei's background and motive to write “The Study of Comparison between the Mao Poetry and Xun Zi” and finds out that Liu intends to distinguish himself and his composition with the fame of his uncle, Liu Shou Ceng (Gong Fu). Finally, the author reviews Mr. Liu's remarks and analyzes the contradiction as well as comment of his view. It is concluded as follows: first, three of his statements conflict one another; second, it disobeys the truth that Mr. Liu asserts the meaning of “XunZi” and “Mao Shi” are similar. The author proves this viewpoint from three aspects.