摘要
皇侃和朱子对《论语》中的管仲有着不同的评价。皇侃在“皇帝王霸”的经学脉络中定位管仲,遂以之为白璧微瑕的仁者;朱子则在“王霸之辨”的叙事中,因管仲的内圣之阙而贬斥其人。对管仲的两极化评价,映射出两种理解《论语》的方式系联于五经的《论语义疏》与四书系统中的《论语集注》。奠基于五经抑或四书,将生成截然不同的《论语》学风貌。譬如,皇侃谓“学”为修习经业,朱子则尤重“学”的修身之维。皇侃以出仕为儒生之志业,朱子则谓之“事为之末”而已。皇侃塑造出介于政、教之间的两可圣人观,朱子则以夫子为粹然人师。《论语》学的“多样性”,恰能彰显出经典诠释的开放性及其绵延的生命力。
As the symbol of‘Ba’,Guan Zhong in the Analects has different meanings for Huang Kan and Zhu Xi.Huang Kan positioned Guan Zhong in the context of Confucian classics of“Huang Di Wang Ba”,so he regarded him as a benevolent person with slight flaws;Zhu Xi denounced Guan Zhong for his lack of inner holiness in the narrative of“the difference between Wang and Ba”.The polarized evaluation of Guan Zhong reflects two ways of understanding the Analects of Confucius:The interpretation of the collected Notes on The Analects linked to the five classics and Zhu Xi's Collected Annotations on the Analects in the four book system.Based on the five classics or the four books,it will produce a completely different style of the Analects.For example,Huang Kan said that“learning”was the practice of Sutra,while Zhu Xi paid particular attention to the self-cultivation dimension of“learning”.Huang Kan regarded becoming an official as the ambition of Confucian scholars,while Zhu Xi called it“the end of things”.Huang Kan created the dual view of saints between politics and religion,while Zhu Xi took the master as the quintessence of human teachers.The“diversity”of the study of the Analects of Confucius can just show the openness of classical interpretation and its continuous vitality.
作者
邝其立
陈壁生
KUANG Qi-li;CHEN Bi-sheng
出处
《北京社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第4期39-47,共9页
Social Sciences of Beijing
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目(15ZDB005)——四书学与中国思想传统研究。
关键词
管仲
皇侃
朱子
《论语义疏》
《论语集注》
Guan Zhong
Huang Kan
Zhu Xi
The interpretation of the collected Notes on The Analects
Zhu Xi's Collected Annotations on the Analects
