:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:反省與重建--《春秋公羊疏》的解經態度與立場
書刊名:逢甲人文社會學報
作者:江右瑜 引用關係
作者(外文):Chiang, You-yu
出版日期:2005
卷期:11
頁次:頁109-139
主題關鍵詞:公羊傳春秋義疏隋唐經學GongyangChunqiuYishuStudy of confucian classics suitang
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:208
  • 點閱點閱:30
《春秋公羊疏》以何注為宗,其認為何〈序〉中的「二創」,指的是「背經、任意、反傳違戾」及「援引他經失其句讀」二者,此兩者是《公羊》經師在詮解經書時,所犯的兩大弊病,也是《公羊》學說衰微的主要因素。 其中「背經、任意、反傳違戾」是指解經立場上的混淆,而「援引他經失其句讀」則是解經方式上的錯誤。《春秋公羊疏》宗本何休之學,尤尊《春秋》緯書,其認為《春秋》緯書才能真實反映孔子「改制立法」的原意,也才是《春秋》之「正解」。所以《春秋公羊疏》反對取《左》、《穀》二傳以解《公羊》,也反對強取他經以會通《公羊》。 《春秋公羊疏》的立論有其濃厚的學派色彩,其嚴守《公羊》立場以區別是非取捨,極力闡揚何休及《春秋說》,卻未能擺脫讖緯附會的疑弊,且以漢儒立場為立場,亦喪失《公羊》學「經世致用」的基本精神,終使其缺乏積極的現實意義。
“Chunqiu gongyangzhuan zhushu“ is based on He Xiu ”Gongyang Jiegu”. It thinks ‘violating Confucian classics, explaining wantonly, violating and spreading’ and ‘the mistake of misguiding the reading of the books’ are the two biggest shortcomings which "Gongyang" scholars make while annotating and interpreting Confucian classics. These two disadvantages are also the main factors which cause “Gongyang” theory on the decline. Among them, ‘violating Confucian classics, explaining wantonly, violating and spreading’ refers to the obscurity in the position when interpreting Confucian classics, and ‘the mistake of misguiding the reading of the books’ refers to the mistakes in the way of interpreting the classics. “Chunqiu gongyangzhuan zhushu“ is based on He Xiu ”Gongyang Jiegu”, especially in compliance with the latitude book of "Chunqiu". It thinks that the latitude book can truly reflect the original meaning of Confucius' reforms of system and legislation, and that the book offers true interpretation of "Chunqiu". Therefore, “Chunqiu gongyangzhuan zhushu“ objects to the use of "Zuozhuan" and "Guliang" to annotate "Gongyang" as well as the use of other Confucian classics to interpret "Gongyang". “Chunqiu gongyangzhuan zhushu” shows its strong observance of its school. It guards rigidly the position in "Gongyang" in order to distinguish right from wrong, and expounds and propagates He Xiu and "Chunqiu shuo" to its utmost. However, it fails to get rid of the augury latitude and draws wrong conclusions by false analogy. Moreover, it regards Han dynasty’s Confucian scholars’ position as its own position. It loses the basic spirit of "Gongyang" and makes itself lack positive, realistic meaning after all.
期刊論文
1.潘重規(19550900)。春秋公羊疏作者考。學術季刊,4(1)。  延伸查詢new window
2.龔鵬程(19990600)。唐代的公羊學:徐彥義疏研究。興大中文學報,12,7-12。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.(2002)。日本學者論公羊注疏專輯。中國文哲研究通訊,12(2)。  延伸查詢new window
4.(2002)。日本學者論公羊注疏專輯。中國文哲研究通訊,12(4)。  延伸查詢new window
5.張高評(20040800)。臺灣近五十年來「春秋」經傳研究綜述。漢學研究通訊,23(3)=91,1-18。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.張高評(20041100)。臺灣近五十年來「春秋」經傳研究綜述。漢學研究通訊,23(4)=92,1-10。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.簡博賢(19900100)。徐疏公羊述稿。興大中文學報,3,109-122。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.張寶三(2001)。儒家經典詮釋傳統中注與疏之關係。「孔學與二十一世紀」國際學術研討會。臺北:國立政治大學文學院。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.張寶三(1992)。五經正義研究(博士論文)。國立臺灣大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.孔穎達(2001)。春秋左傳正義。臺北:臺灣古籍出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.王堯臣(1984)。崇文總目。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
3.晁公武(1984)。郡齋讀書志。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
4.戴君仁(1981)。春秋三傳硏究論集。臺北:黎明出版社。  延伸查詢new window
5.馬國翰(1979)。玉函山房輯佚書。京都:中文出版社。  延伸查詢new window
6.徐彥(2001)。春秋公羊傳注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。  延伸查詢new window
7.蔣慶(1995)。公羊學引論。遼寧教育出版社。  延伸查詢new window
8.馬勇(1992)。漢代春秋學研究。成都:四川人民出版社。  延伸查詢new window
9.楊士勛(2001)。春秋穀梁傳注疏。臺北:臺灣古籍出版社。  延伸查詢new window
10.紀昀(1984)。景印文淵閣四庫全書。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
11.阮元(1981)。十三經注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。  延伸查詢new window
12.皮錫瑞(1974)。經學歴史。臺北:河洛出版社。  延伸查詢new window
13.馬宗霍(1972)。中國經學史。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
14.楊家駱(1987)。新校本二十五史。臺北:鼎文書局。  延伸查詢new window
15.張以仁(1980)。春秋史論集。臺北:聯經出版事業公司。  延伸查詢new window
16.李威熊(19880000)。中國經學發展史論。臺北:文史哲。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.程發軔(1989)。春秋要領。東大。  延伸查詢new window
18.戴維(2004)。春秋學史。湖南教育出版社。  延伸查詢new window
19.趙伯雄(2004)。春秋學史。山東教育出版社。  延伸查詢new window
20.吳智雄(20000000)。穀梁傳思想析論。臺北:文津。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE