1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. NSC Projects
  5. Item

Publications-NSC Projects

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 朱熹《詩經》前後論說研究
An Inquiry into the Different of Zhuxi’s Interpretation on Shih Chin in Early and Later Stage
作者 車行健
貢獻者 中文系
關鍵詞 朱熹; 《詩經》; 《詩序》; 漢宋學術; 早晚論
Zhuxi; Shih Chin; Preface of Shih Chin; scholarship of Han and Song; discussion on early and later stage
日期 2016-07
上傳時間 3-Jul-2024 13:21:59 (UTC+8)
摘要 朱熹對《詩經》的詮說在《詩經》學史上造成鉅大又深遠的影響，形成了一個足以和漢代毛鄭《詩》學相抗衡的學術典範。雖然從北宋的歐陽修和蘇轍已開始鬆動毛鄭《詩》學的權威，但直至朱熹《詩經》學的完成，才正式標示著在《詩經》學中漢宋分立並峙的格局。而此漢宋學術對峙的核心厥在於對《詩》義取捨的問題上。用傳統的話來說，即或者尊崇漢人《毛詩序》之說，或者質疑甚至廢棄《序》說。朱熹《詩經》新詮說之所以能成為一個有影響力的《詩》說典範，就在於他明確及提出了自己的新《詩》義觀，且與此同時，也系統地批判了漢代《毛詩序》的所謂「舊說」。 朱熹廢斥《詩序》舊說，另標《詩》義新說，從元代以後，因為科舉考試關係，成為官方正統的觀點，也形塑了元明清時人對《詩經》的基本認識。但他與漢人《詩序》舊說的千絲萬縷關係，卻也引發了很多的爭論，甚至提供了反朱學者駁難的口實。這其中最大的關鍵就是朱熹並非全然否定《詩序》，再加上朱熹一生著述時間極長，著述既多，觀點又屢有改易，其中自然也有不少看似前後矛盾不一之處，甚至也有重新肯定《詩序》之處。這不但給研究者造成困擾，而且也在相當程度上坐實了朱子回歸《詩序》的指控。明清反朱學者就由此發展出了「早同晚異」及「早異晚同」等類似「朱子晚年定論」之「早晚論」的論辯模式。 究竟朱子新《詩》義觀與《詩序》舊說的關係為何？是否晚年重新回歸《詩序》舊說？如果朱子曾重新回歸或肯定《詩序》舊說，則朱子新《詩》義觀又有何價值和意義？《詩經》學中所謂的漢宋學術的對峙分立格局豈非惘然？堅持此論者又豈非妄談？要解決這些問題，釜底抽薪的做法就是回到朱熹的《詩經》論說中，一方面梳理其《詩經》觀點的發展與變化；另一方面將其《詩經》之外的經注（《四書章句集注》、《周易本義》及《楚辭集注》等）、文集中之詩文創作與書信，以及學生記載之語錄等涉及《詩經》之論說詮解處與其《詩經》詮解做比較，以考察其《詩》義觀點之異同及意義。如此方能判別其與《詩序》舊說之依違關係。 計畫第一年度的研究重點主要擬針對《詩集傳》及《詩序辨說》前之早年著述及觀點來做考察，以《詩集傳》和《詩序辨說》做為其新《詩》義觀的成熟觀點，將之前的早年觀點與之比較，以明其發展及變化的痕跡，尤著力於其對漢人《詩序》舊說的依違態度。 計畫第二年度的研究重點則擬針對《詩集傳》及《詩序辨說》後之晚年著述及觀點來做考察，將其與《詩集傳》和《詩序辨說》的觀點加以比較，以確定朱熹是否在《詩集傳》完成之後，《詩》義觀點仍有所改變，亦著力於其與漢人《詩序》舊說之關係。 透過這樣的精密考察，方能判斷朱熹的《詩》義觀是否有所改變調整，亦方能判定所謂「早同晚異」及「早異同晚」說之確然與否。而朱熹新《詩》義觀之學術史意義亦方得以較明確地論定。
In the history of scholarship on the Shih Chin, Zhuxi's commentary has exerted a major influence, approaching that of the Han dynasty Mao and Zheng commentary. Although already in the Song dynasty scholars such as Ouyang Xiu and Su Zhe began to challenge the Han interpretive tradition, it was only with Zhuxi that the new Song paradigm of Shih Chin hermeneutics took hold. The main difference between Han and Song readings hinges on the evaluation of the Preface of Shih Chin . Zhuxi’s commentary stands out in offering a novel reading of the Shih Chin, one independent of the Preface of Shih Chin that had grounded traditional - “old principle” - interpretations since the Han. Zhuxi urged his fellow scholars to abandon the Preface of Shih Chin in favor of a new reading of the Shih Chin. Indeed, his straregy become the mainstream after the Song, in the context of the imperial examination system. However, some scholars argued that his approach was inconsistent: despite his rhetoric, he adopted specific Han-era arguments, and at times seemed to waver on the central matter of the Great Preface. We can argue that his work, having developed over a long period time, could hardly have remained static, and indeed shows a number of idenfiable incongruities. What is the relationship between Zhuxi's view of the Shih Chin and that inherited from the Han? Some traditional interpreters suggest that in his late phase, Zhuxi seems, at places, to return to the Great Preface. If this is true, how should we evaluate his earlier stages? The related ambiguities give rise to numerous difficulties in research both on Zhuxi’s thought and on the Shih Chin. In my project I suggest one way to address these difficulties. My approach is, in short, to collect, organize, and compare Zhuxi's direct and indirect references to the Shih Chin. The direct evidence consists in Zhuxi's writings that center on the Shih Chin, mainly his Shih Chin Research and Discussion on Shih Chin Preface . The indirect evidence includes Zhuxi's extended discussion of the Shih Chin in his other texts such as the Commentary on the Four Books, Fundamental Meaning of the I Ching, andt Commentary of Chuci and other literatures. Through an investigation of all these sources, I hope to develop a clearer picture of Zhuxi’s understanding of the Shih Chin and of the relation between it and the Han tradition. In the first year of my project I will focus on Zhuxi's earliest works – those before before his Research of Shih Chin and Discussion on Shih Chin Prefac – and compare them with these two later works, expressive of his mature position. In my second year, I will investigate Zhuxi’s works composed after the Research of Shih Chin and the Discussion on Shih Chin Preface, with an aim to identifying, and accounting for, the shifts in his position. In sum, through my research I intend to reveal and interpret hitherto unknown aspects of Zhuxi's position on the Shih Chin, in a historically sensitive manner that accounts for its shifts, incongruities, and internal tensions.
關聯 科技部, MOST103-2410-H004-194, 103.08-104.07
資料類型 report
dc.contributor 中文系
dc.creator (作者) 車行健
dc.date (日期) 2016-07
dc.date.accessioned 3-Jul-2024 13:21:59 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Jul-2024 13:21:59 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Jul-2024 13:21:59 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152215-
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 朱熹對《詩經》的詮說在《詩經》學史上造成鉅大又深遠的影響，形成了一個足以和漢代毛鄭《詩》學相抗衡的學術典範。雖然從北宋的歐陽修和蘇轍已開始鬆動毛鄭《詩》學的權威，但直至朱熹《詩經》學的完成，才正式標示著在《詩經》學中漢宋分立並峙的格局。而此漢宋學術對峙的核心厥在於對《詩》義取捨的問題上。用傳統的話來說，即或者尊崇漢人《毛詩序》之說，或者質疑甚至廢棄《序》說。朱熹《詩經》新詮說之所以能成為一個有影響力的《詩》說典範，就在於他明確及提出了自己的新《詩》義觀，且與此同時，也系統地批判了漢代《毛詩序》的所謂「舊說」。 朱熹廢斥《詩序》舊說，另標《詩》義新說，從元代以後，因為科舉考試關係，成為官方正統的觀點，也形塑了元明清時人對《詩經》的基本認識。但他與漢人《詩序》舊說的千絲萬縷關係，卻也引發了很多的爭論，甚至提供了反朱學者駁難的口實。這其中最大的關鍵就是朱熹並非全然否定《詩序》，再加上朱熹一生著述時間極長，著述既多，觀點又屢有改易，其中自然也有不少看似前後矛盾不一之處，甚至也有重新肯定《詩序》之處。這不但給研究者造成困擾，而且也在相當程度上坐實了朱子回歸《詩序》的指控。明清反朱學者就由此發展出了「早同晚異」及「早異晚同」等類似「朱子晚年定論」之「早晚論」的論辯模式。 究竟朱子新《詩》義觀與《詩序》舊說的關係為何？是否晚年重新回歸《詩序》舊說？如果朱子曾重新回歸或肯定《詩序》舊說，則朱子新《詩》義觀又有何價值和意義？《詩經》學中所謂的漢宋學術的對峙分立格局豈非惘然？堅持此論者又豈非妄談？要解決這些問題，釜底抽薪的做法就是回到朱熹的《詩經》論說中，一方面梳理其《詩經》觀點的發展與變化；另一方面將其《詩經》之外的經注（《四書章句集注》、《周易本義》及《楚辭集注》等）、文集中之詩文創作與書信，以及學生記載之語錄等涉及《詩經》之論說詮解處與其《詩經》詮解做比較，以考察其《詩》義觀點之異同及意義。如此方能判別其與《詩序》舊說之依違關係。 計畫第一年度的研究重點主要擬針對《詩集傳》及《詩序辨說》前之早年著述及觀點來做考察，以《詩集傳》和《詩序辨說》做為其新《詩》義觀的成熟觀點，將之前的早年觀點與之比較，以明其發展及變化的痕跡，尤著力於其對漢人《詩序》舊說的依違態度。 計畫第二年度的研究重點則擬針對《詩集傳》及《詩序辨說》後之晚年著述及觀點來做考察，將其與《詩集傳》和《詩序辨說》的觀點加以比較，以確定朱熹是否在《詩集傳》完成之後，《詩》義觀點仍有所改變，亦著力於其與漢人《詩序》舊說之關係。 透過這樣的精密考察，方能判斷朱熹的《詩》義觀是否有所改變調整，亦方能判定所謂「早同晚異」及「早異同晚」說之確然與否。而朱熹新《詩》義觀之學術史意義亦方得以較明確地論定。
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the history of scholarship on the Shih Chin, Zhuxi's commentary has exerted a major influence, approaching that of the Han dynasty Mao and Zheng commentary. Although already in the Song dynasty scholars such as Ouyang Xiu and Su Zhe began to challenge the Han interpretive tradition, it was only with Zhuxi that the new Song paradigm of Shih Chin hermeneutics took hold. The main difference between Han and Song readings hinges on the evaluation of the Preface of Shih Chin . Zhuxi’s commentary stands out in offering a novel reading of the Shih Chin, one independent of the Preface of Shih Chin that had grounded traditional - “old principle” - interpretations since the Han. Zhuxi urged his fellow scholars to abandon the Preface of Shih Chin in favor of a new reading of the Shih Chin. Indeed, his straregy become the mainstream after the Song, in the context of the imperial examination system. However, some scholars argued that his approach was inconsistent: despite his rhetoric, he adopted specific Han-era arguments, and at times seemed to waver on the central matter of the Great Preface. We can argue that his work, having developed over a long period time, could hardly have remained static, and indeed shows a number of idenfiable incongruities. What is the relationship between Zhuxi's view of the Shih Chin and that inherited from the Han? Some traditional interpreters suggest that in his late phase, Zhuxi seems, at places, to return to the Great Preface. If this is true, how should we evaluate his earlier stages? The related ambiguities give rise to numerous difficulties in research both on Zhuxi’s thought and on the Shih Chin. In my project I suggest one way to address these difficulties. My approach is, in short, to collect, organize, and compare Zhuxi's direct and indirect references to the Shih Chin. The direct evidence consists in Zhuxi's writings that center on the Shih Chin, mainly his Shih Chin Research and Discussion on Shih Chin Preface . The indirect evidence includes Zhuxi's extended discussion of the Shih Chin in his other texts such as the Commentary on the Four Books, Fundamental Meaning of the I Ching, andt Commentary of Chuci and other literatures. Through an investigation of all these sources, I hope to develop a clearer picture of Zhuxi’s understanding of the Shih Chin and of the relation between it and the Han tradition. In the first year of my project I will focus on Zhuxi's earliest works – those before before his Research of Shih Chin and Discussion on Shih Chin Prefac – and compare them with these two later works, expressive of his mature position. In my second year, I will investigate Zhuxi’s works composed after the Research of Shih Chin and the Discussion on Shih Chin Preface, with an aim to identifying, and accounting for, the shifts in his position. In sum, through my research I intend to reveal and interpret hitherto unknown aspects of Zhuxi's position on the Shih Chin, in a historically sensitive manner that accounts for its shifts, incongruities, and internal tensions.
dc.format.extent 115 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype text/html-
dc.relation (關聯) 科技部, MOST103-2410-H004-194, 103.08-104.07
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 朱熹; 《詩經》; 《詩序》; 漢宋學術; 早晚論
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Zhuxi; Shih Chin; Preface of Shih Chin; scholarship of Han and Song; discussion on early and later stage
dc.title (題名) 朱熹《詩經》前後論說研究
dc.title (題名) An Inquiry into the Different of Zhuxi’s Interpretation on Shih Chin in Early and Later Stage
dc.type (資料類型) report