祖述老莊？以玄解經？經學玄化？——何晏《論語集解》的重新定位

The Relocation of He Yan’s“The Collected Annotations of the Analects of Confucius”

本文鑒於前人對於何晏《論語集解》一書，大多以「祖述老莊」、「雜玄虛解經」、「以玄解經」批評，然其所憑據者，往往只有書中少數的幾條資料，就分量而言，是否足以構成其書祖尚玄虛之論斷？何況某些引述資料，還存有解讀的差異。本文因此重新檢討前人之說法，分就「祖述老莊？──作為『歷史論述之存在』的人與作為『經注文本結構之存在』的注經者」、「以玄解經？──經書之預設性質、注經規範、注經目的」、「經學玄化？──新舊兩體俱有抑或變盡舊體而有新體」三個面向，對舊說進行反省。首先論辯：因為注經者具有「歷史論述」與「經注文本結構」的兩個向度。因此，當經注風格與注經者的行為模式、行事風格、生命實踐有所齟齬，或是經注中的注經者居然呈現出複性結構或特別質性時，我們應該進一步釐清那個被建構在經注之中與經注之外的注經者，使我們的理解與評價儘可能獲得一個全知觀點，不宜全然以「史評」決斷「經學」，便稱何晏所有著作皆在祖述老莊。繼而分析何晏注經所採「集解」這一注經法，雖然堪稱新法，但仍多遵漢、魏舊注，其注《論語》主要並非採「以玄解經」這一注經法，而且就注經目的乃在對聖人之意不無小補、注經規範乃在離經言道即為歧出等方面而言，何晏解經之目的與前提當然不在以玄解經。另外，從何晏所詮解之經義看來，基本上皆不違背儒學之「義理」，亦即《論語》經義並未起了「質」的變化，未能稱上是「玄學經學」、「經義的玄理化」，何況其對三玄「語彙」的援用，未必指向三玄的「概念」、「觀念」、「思想內容」，故能否稱其《論語集解》造成經學玄化，實有待商榷。本文藉由一連串提問，在對經書、注經、注經者乃至經學研究提出本質性、強制性提問或定義的同時，亦試圖藉此重新定位何晏與《論語集解》在魏晉經學發展史中的座標。

He Yan’s The Collected Annotations of the Analects of Confucius was often thought as inherited Laozi and Zhuangzi and explaining the canon by the method of Xuanxue, only by few sentences. Some of these sentences are even controversial. This paper reviews the old arguments by the following three dimensions. Firstly, the “writer” is both a man of historical existence and the interpreter behind the huge structure of the classics. Secondly, the predetermined property, the standard, and the purpose of annotating Canon have to be all considered. Thirdly, it needs to be clarified that both the old tradition and the new method exist or only the new one does. There are two dimensions of the interpreter: “the tradition of history” and “the structure of canonical text”. When there is confrontation between the interpreting style and the life of the interpreter, we should understand the interpreter who was structured “in” the annotation and also “out” of it. We should not judge “Classics of Confucianism” by historical criticism and then think He Yan inherited Laozi and Zhuangzi. Besides, He Yan’s Collecting Annotations was indeed a new method of interpretation, though he still followed the old annotations of Han-Wei tradition, so the method of Xuanxue was not his purpose and premise. Otherwise, He Yan’s interpretation was not against the core of Confucianism, and the meaning of the Analects of Confucius was not substantially changed. This book is inappropriate to view as the metaphysical Classics. On the other hand, using the language of Yijing, Laozi and Zuangzi does not represent using the concepts of them. This paper tries to redefine by asking the substantial and mandatory questions about the classics, the annotations, the interpreter and this research field, and provides the possibility of relocating He Yan and The Collected Annotations of the Analects of Confucius in the history of Classics in Wei-Jin Dynasty.