論何休與鄭玄的《左氏膏肓》之辯

On the Debate over the Incorrigible Commentary of Zuo Chuan between He Xiu and Zheng Xuan

東漢末年何休與鄭玄關於《春秋》三傳優劣的論爭，包含了何、鄭二人的《春秋》學主張、何休「入室操矛」的涵義以及「由是古學遂明」的經學史論斷等學術課題，是一起相當重要的經學史事件。但由這場論爭所產生的《左氏膏肓》與《箴膏肓》、《公羊墨守》與《發墨守》、《穀梁廢疾》與《起廢疾》等文獻，自宋以後便漸次散佚，僅賴清人七種輯本留存至今，是以學界甚少專題討論之。以此，本文先從作書動機與取名、六辯書撰作時間、文獻流傳與輯佚等三個面向梳理相關文獻問題，再以袁鈞所輯《箴膏肓》內容為據，分從輯文所涵蓋的釋史事、評人物、論禮制、議書法等四個面向，分析何、鄭二人在《左氏膏肓》之辯中所呈現的論點及其可能的優劣判斷。本文認為何、鄭二人採取了史、禮並用的解經方法，同時判斷何休所謂「入室操矛」之說，不必也不宜僅從字面意義直解為何休自認辯輸了鄭玄，而是可能含有反詰或驚嘆之意，反詰意謂鄭玄所論未必勝過自己，驚嘆則意謂鄭玄能以其他論辯方法或視角來直擊自己論辯的核心弱點。最後，本文認為可從東漢《左氏》與《公羊》之學的勢力消長軌跡、此場論爭後今文學的衰退情形、雙方在輯文內容的論爭優劣、范曄「後見之明」的可能性等四個側面，理解史書所稱「由是古學遂明」的真正涵義。

The late Eastern Han dynasty witnessed a significant scholarly event in the historiography of Confucian classics: the debate between He Xiu and Zheng Xuan concerning the relative merits of the three commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals. This debate encompassed their respective views on the commentarial traditions, the implications of He Xiu’s statement“using one’s thought to attack one’s own principle”(ru shi cao mao), and the historical appraisal summarized in the verdict“thus the ancient studies became clear”(you shi gu xue sui ming). However, the documents produced from this debate—such as the Incorrigible Commentary of Zuo(Zuoshi Gaohuang) and the Objection to the Incorrigible Commentary of Zuo(Zhen Gaohuang); Mohist Defenses in the Commentary of Gongyang (Gongyang Moshou) and Exposing Mohist Defenses in the Commentary of Gongyang (Fa Moshou); and Disusing the Commentary of Guliang(Guliang Feiji) and Reviving the Commentary of Guliang(Qi Feiji)—have largely been lost since the Song dynasty, with only seven Qing-dynasty compilations remaining. Consequently, specialized discussion in academic circles has been limited. This article begins by addressing three aspects: the motivations and titles of the works, the timing of their composition, and the transmission and compilation of these documents. Drawing on the content of Objection to the Incorrigible Commentary of Zuo compiled by Yuan Jun, the article analyzes He’s and Zheng’s arguments in the debate over the Incorrigible Commentary of Zuo from four perspectives—interpretation of historical events, assessment of characters, discussion of ritual systems, and debates over methodologies—and evaluates the respective strengths and weaknesses of their viewpoints. The article also presents the historical and ritualistic approaches adopted by both He and Zheng. Furthermore, it proposes that He Xiu’s claim of“using one’s thought to attack one’s own principle”does not imply complete inferiority to Zheng Xuan in the debate. Rather, it suggests that both scholars employed similar argumentative strategies, with He Xiu’s metaphorical expression reflecting his frustration at the limits of further rebuttal. Finally, the article contends that the true significance of the phrase“thus the ancient studies became clear”can be understood from three perspectives: the shifting influence of the Zuoand Gongyang schools in the Eastern Han dynasty, the decline of the contemporary-script school following this debate, and the strengths and weaknesses of both sides in the surviving compilations.