公羊家對《春秋》的創造詮釋──以董仲舒對「元年春王正月」之詮釋為例

Gongyang Scholars’ Creative Hermeneutics on the Spring and Autumn: According to Tung Chung-shu’s Interpretation on “Yuannian Chun Wang Zhengyue(元年春王正月)”

公羊學向重口說，故其對《春秋》的詮釋，歷來備受質疑，批評者多以之為牽強附會。本文即以董仲舒對「元年春王正月」之詮釋為例，重新檢驗董氏之詮釋是否確實超脫《春秋》經傳之文本基礎，而牽強附會地藉經傳發揮自己的哲學思想。因此，本文前言即追述口說在傳統公羊詮釋學中的地位，及其所遭遇的實證主義挑戰。第二節即試圖以實證主義方法，對比金文等史料與《春秋經》的書法差異，尋繹董氏創造詮釋的文獻基礎。第三節即具體分析董氏對「元年春王正月」的詮釋，指出其從思想內容到詮釋方法，均深深紮根於《公羊春秋》的歷史傳統。可見，公羊家對《春秋經》的創造詮釋，是建基於歷史傳統的創造性詮釋。

Because of believing in “oral impartment (口說) ”, Gongyang scholars’ interpretation on the Spring and Autumn was gravely criticized and regarded as rootless. This article aims to re-examine Tung Chung-shu’s creative hermeneutics, according to his interpretation on “Yuannian Chun Wang Zhengyue (元年春王正月) ”, in order to figure out whether his interpretation was separated itself from the text foundation of the Spring and Autumn and Gongyang Zhuan (《公羊傳》), and just racked his brain to construct his own philosophy by quoting scriptures without evidence. Therefore, the preface of the article describes the role of the oral impartment in traditional Gongyangstudies, and the challenge it encountered with from positivism. The second section attempts to explore the literature foundation of Tung’s hermeneutics with positivism method, by comparing the Spring and Autumn with historical materials during the Shang and Zhou dynasty, such as inscriptions on ancient bronze objects. The third section analyzes how Tung interpreted the sentence, indicating that his hermeneutics, from ideological contents to interpreting methods, was deeply rooted in the historical tradition of the Spring and Autumn. By this t ken, even though emphasizing historic creative interpretation, Gongyang scholars’ creative interpretation on the Spring and Autumn was assuredly based on historical tradition.