北朝經學的二三問題

A Few Questions Regarding the Study of the Classics of the Northern Dynasty

南北朝時，南北學風異尚。顧北朝經學著作，今多不傳，故歷來論述北學，大抵根據《北史‧儒林傳序》，相沿成說。本文特就北學之併於南學、北朝之《公羊》學，以及《尚書正義》與二劉《述議》之關係等三事，加以檢討：（一）皮錫瑞《經學歷史》，認為北朝經學固守鄭、服舊義，最為純正。其後竟為南學所併，係因「人情既厭故喜新，學術又以華勝樸」所致。本文則據北朝諸史〈儒林傳〉，認為北學本身之荒疏實其併於南學之主因。（二）皮氏疑《北史‧儒林傳》「何休《公羊注》大行河北」之語，為非實錄。實則《北史》此語當本之魏收《魏書》。本文據《魏書》志傳參證之，考知北魏時何注頗行於河北，其說宜自可信。特北朝學風多三傳兼習，故鮮以《公羊》專門名家耳。（三）《尚書正義》一書，論者或謂其書除唐人駁正之語外，餘皆本諸劉炫舊疏。因炫書久亡，此一假說迄難斷其然否。今證以日本所存劉炫《孝經述議》殘本，更由本疏推勘之，可決此疏實參酌二劉《述議》而依用之，非專據劉炫一家之學也。

During the Northern and Southern Dynasties period (420-589 A.D.), scholarly trends differed from North to South. Because of a dearth of materials about the past there was neither profound scholarship nor much progress in the study of the classics of the Northern Dynasties. This paper examines the following three questions: 1. In the political sphere the North was unified by Northern political authority; in scholarship, however, the opposite was the case, because Northern scholarship was assimilated by the South. While in the past scholars adopted the Ch'ing scholar P'i Hsi-jui's explanation of this phenomenon, this paper offers a new interpretation: it argues that it was the very shallowness of Northern scholarship that led to its unification with Southern scholarship. 2. The Pei-shih: Ju-lin chuan (''Forest of Confucian Scholars'' chapter of the Official History of the Northern Dynasty) states that the Kung-yang chu (''Kung-yang Commentary'') by the Han scholar He Hsiu was widely read in the North. P'i Hsi-jui cast doubt on this statement. Based on an investigation of the Wei-shu, I argue in this paper that the statement contained in the Pei-shih is correct. In fact, He Hsiu's ''Kung-yang Commentary'' was widely read in the North; it was only by the time of the Northern Ch'i (550-557), when scholar ship declined because of the ravages of war, that the ''Kung-yang Commentary'' was neglected. Moreover, the new trend in Northern scholarship was for scholars to study all three of the Ch'un-ch'iu san-chuan (Spring and Autumn Annals) commentaries, the Tso-chuan, the Kung-yang, and the Ku-liang. Very few scholars specialized exclusively in the ''Kung-yang Commentary.'' 3. There was in the past a scholarly debate regarding the completion of the Shang-shu Cheng-i (Correct Meaning of the Book of History), which was used in the T'ang Dynasty civil service examination. Based on the fragments of a Sui Dynasty work by Liu Hsün, Hsiao Ching Shu-i (Explication of the Classic of Filial Piety), which is stored in Japan, as well as a close analysis of the Shang-shu cheng-i itself, I argue in this paper that the Shang-shu Cheng-i in fact followed closely the precedents of works written by the Sui Dynasty scholars Liu Cho and Liu Hsün , and that very little of it is the work of the T'ang scholar K'ung Ying-ta.