陳鴻森
唐玄宗〈孝經序〉稱《御注》所本前儒舊義凡六家，《正義》謂指韋昭、王肅、虞翻、劉邵、劉炫、陸澄諸人。然夷考其實，《御注》所采者乃鄭《注》、孔《傳》、王肅、韋昭、魏克己五家；絕不見有參用虞翻、劉邵、劉炫、陸澄四家之義者。而《御注》依用魏克己之說多達十六事，僅次於鄭《注》，乃魏氏反不在所稱「六家」之列，是〈序〉與《注》實不相應。此一〈序〉、《注》枘鑿現象，宋以來學者已留意及之，諸家各以意說，然其惑終莫之能解。本文擬對此問題重加檢討，發掘〈序〉、《注》名實悖離致誤之由；並藉由此一事例，對唐宋官修注疏之實態作一剖析。主要結論凡數事：一、玄宗〈孝經序〉所稱「六家」名目，實由近臣抄綴他文而成，本非核實之言，故與《注》多不相應也。二、開元末年，玄宗轉而尊尚玄老之學，儒雅日替，天寶時重修《御注》及刊改元行沖《孝經疏》，預修諸臣亦多草草將事；〈序〉、《注》不相合，正其一端耳。凡此，並可見天寶儒官之荒惰廢弛矣。三、今本《孝經正義》，向來以為宋代邢昺所撰。本文詳為推考，知其書多仍天寶舊疏；邢氏等所增益者，蓋僅卷首玄宗〈序〉之疏文耳。而歷來以為元行沖《孝經疏》久已亡佚，實則其書固未亡也。
關鍵詞：唐玄宗
孝經注 孝經正義
元行沖 邢昺
“Pointing
Out the Consents and Dissents Among Six Schools”: T’ang Emperor Hsüan-Tsung’s
“Preface to Hsiao-Ching” – An Indicative Aspect of the T’ang and
Sung Official Glosses and Commentaries on Confucian Classics
Hung-sen
Chen
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica
There are three major findings in this paper. The first concerns the Six Schools which T’ang Emperor Hsüan-Tsung’s Preface of 745 AD to Hsiao-Ching claims that the Imperial Glosses of Hsiao-Ching was based on. The Six Schools, according to the Sung scholar Hsing Ping in his Hsiao-Ching Cheng-Yi (The Correct Understanding of Hsiao-Ching), were those of Wei Chao, Wang Su, Yü Fan, Liu Shao, Liu Hsüan, Lu Ch’eng. A close examination of the Glosses shows that the text only cites Wei and Wang, leaving out the other four schools. Scholars of the Sung Dynasty and later suggested various hypotheses on the nature of the disparity between the Preface’s claim and what is actually cited in the Glosses, but they never provided a satisfactory solution. This paper points out that the term of the Six Schools was borrowed from Liu Hsüan’s “Preface” to his Discourse on Hsiao Ching and that the Imperial Glosses did not actually consult the work of all of the six schools. This finding reveals the perfunctory scholarship of the Confucian officials at Emperor Hsüan-Tsung’s court in preparing the “Preface” and the Glosses.
Secondly, T’ang Emperor Hsüan-Tsung ordered Yüan Hsing-Ch’ung to compose a Commentary on the Imperial Glosses when the latter was completed. Yüan’s Commentary, however, was no longer available after Hsing Ping’s Hsiao-Ching Cheng-Yi became popular. Yüan’s Commentary, which is thought to be extinct, is in fact preserved in Hsiao-Ching Cheng-Yi, which differs from the former only in the addition of a commentary on Emperor Hsüan-Tsung’s “Preface.” This finding is a significant contribution to the history of the T’ang and Sung scholarship on the Classics.
Thirdly, Emperor Hsüan-Tsung decreed in 746 AD that the Commentary on Hsiao-Ching to be redone, and later in the Sung Dynasty Hsing Ping followed an imperial edict to publish a critical edition of the Commentary which appeared as Hsiao-Ching Cheng-Yi. Because Yüan Hsing-Ch’ung’s Commentary has not been available for a long time, historians have very little knowledge of the contents of the Commentary, its relationship to the new edition of 746 AD, and what Hsing did in his critical edition of the Commentary. This paper sheds light on the editorial work of the T’ang and Sung official glosses and commentaries of the Classics.
Keywords: T’ang Emperor Hsüan-Tsung, Glosses of Hsiao-Ching, Hsiao-Ching Cheng-Yi (The Correct Understanding of Hsiao-Ching), Yüan Hsing-Ch’ung, Hsing Ping