五经正义‘疏不破注’之问题再探-成功大学.PDF

成大中文學報 第四十六期 2014 年9 月 頁137-184 國立成功大學中文系 《五經正義》「疏不破注」之問題再探 姜龍翔＊ 摘 要 古人探討 《五經正義》之纂修義例，普遍認定存有「疏不破注」之局限。今人 開始對此議題提出省思 ，惟歧見仍在 。此文據此深入探討 ，分別考察唐代官方相關 說法及 《五經正義》編修過程，並就《五經正義》駁注事例分析，再綜合探討疏不 破注說形成的過程，最後得出結論：就現存資料來看，唐人修纂《五經正義》並無 證據證明曾嚴格實行疏不破注之規範。目前《五經正義》中存有大量未駁注的事實， 代表唐人作疏對傳注的基本尊重，也是對於六朝舊疏在理由不夠充分下妄駁傳注的 批判。然而若傳注確有疑問時，《五經正義》則往往採兩存異說、委婉批評的方式處 理 。至於後世言之鑿鑿「疏不破注」規範，只是後人針對《五經正義》大量未駁注 的現象所歸納之義例，並無證據顯示此乃唐人嚴格遵守之規範。 關鍵詞：唐代經學、五經正義、孔穎達、疏不破注、義疏體例 ＊ 國立高雄師範大學國文學系助理教授。 137 成 大 中 文 學 報 第 四 十 六 期 The Analysis and Discussion on “Note and Commentary not Annotation”in The Five Classic Explanatory Note Jiang Long-Xiang Assistant Professor, Department of Chinese, National Kaohsiung Normal University Abstract When the ancients evaluated the editorial principle of The Five Classic Explanatory Note, they believed in the existence of the rule of “Note and Commentary not Annotation”. People nowadays had started to review such issue, but still there are various perspectives existing. This study discussed this issue by investigating the official explanation in the Tang dynasty and the editing process of The Five Classic Explanatory Note respectively. Besides, we analyzed the instances that oppose the commentary in The Five Classic Explanatory Note and cross-discussed the formation process of the saying of “Note and Commentary not Annotation”. The following conclusion had been derived: When the people in the Tang dynasty edited The Five Classic Explanatory Note, there was no evidence showing that the rule of “Note and Commentary not Annotation” was carried out strictly. Currently, there are many instances in The Five Classic Exp