I don't remember the exact time of Hidemi Hashimoto, but around 1990, I visited Lin Qingzhang for the first time in Taiwan. Teacher Lin introduced me to the scholars around me and said that I was "also a 'scripture student'", which made me feel a little strange. Because I have been influenced by revolutionary ideas, I believe that the study of the history of classics is to better understand the "feudal thought" that should be rejected. In modern times, Japanese academia have been promoting objective research, and it has been more clearly emphasized that we should study the history of scholastics, not scholastics. So I've studied the history of scripture for a few years, and I never thought I was studying it. Later, I gradually learned that the study of the history of scripture in Taiwan has a tradition since the Republic of China, like Mr. Lin, who is a disciple of Mr. Qu Wanli, and other scholars have also studied under the scholars of the Republic of China, and the division between scripture and history is not very clear. At that time, research papers in Taiwan were fixed patterns of analyzing a scholar or work and pointing out its advantages and disadvantages. Because the contemporary academic community has formed a common understanding of the scriptures and believes that one set of understandings is correct, it is able to point out the advantages and disadvantages of the interpretations of ancient scholars. This is the method of studying scriptures that is not separated from the history of scriptures. Personally, I was bored with this kind of research early on and thought it was almost pointless. "You know the correct answer, you are already the best, and you still rate the ancients, is it interesting?" That's how I really feel. The history of scripture should be understood in the context of the historical background of the time, and in order to discuss the views of those ancient scholars, it is necessary to know people and discuss the world. This idea is natural, and I dare not oppose it. However, when it comes to "historical background", many people often think of political history, and many discourses combine ancient scholars with a certain political force, and understand the issue of scripture as a political issue. I also don't like this discourse because I don't have that much interest in political history. For example, Mr. Shinichiro Watanabe is a down-to-earth historian, and about 40 years ago, he wrote a paper arguing that the editor of the Book of Filial Piety was a person of the "Han Poetry School", based on the "Induction Chapter" quoting "poems from the east from the west" instead of "from the west from the east". In the past 40 years, our understanding of the history of scholastic studies has deepened somewhat, and we believe that the slight difference between the texts of "from the east from the west" or "from the west from the east" is not enough to explain anything, and I believe that no one agrees with Mr. Watanabe's inference now. But the reason why he assumes the existence of a "school" behind a book is probably because he is too accustomed to the way of thinking of political history. And I suspect that there are still many people who are used to this way of thinking. In the study of the history of scriptures, we must first understand those ancient scriptures. This is nonsense, of course, but it is quite difficult for us to read the ancient scriptures, and in fact there are many of them that no one has ever really read. I myself read Zheng Xuan's Analects, The Book of Rites, and The Book of Filial Piety, and I was surprised to find that many of the contents had been misinterpreted or ignored in the past, and had not been truly understood. I don't think my understanding is all accurate, and how to understand it will need to be explored and discussed by future scholars, but it is an undoubted fact that the classic works of the most famous and important scholars such as Zheng Xuan, and the commentaries that countless scholars have studied for thousands of years, have not really been understood. I may feel ridiculous about this, but I can also provide a plausible explanation for the fact that this strange situation is happening. To put it simply, from the Northern and Southern Dynasties to modern times, scholars who read Zheng Xuan's works were themselves scholars and had their own set of academic methods, and they did not aim to understand Zheng Xuan's thinking, so they did not find it a problem to distort or ignore Zheng Xuan's meaning.
Zheng Xuan
The thinking of people in the "Commentary on the Book of Rites" usually has a certain logic, so the logic of the author should be discussed in the reading. However, the knowledge structure and cognitive basis of ancient scholars are different from ours, so in order to explore the logic of the author, we must first understand these academic premises. The abundant research accumulation of Zheng Xuan's doctrine makes it easier for us to explore Zheng Xuan's thoughts when commenting on specific scriptures. In contrast, there is a bit of a distance between the previous study of "Spring and Autumn" and the ancient "Spring and Autumn" studies, which makes it more difficult for us to discuss the ideas of Du Pre, He Xiu and others. I need only point to one fact that speaks volumes. That is Du Pre's "Spring and Autumn Interpretation", which has not been photocopied and published in recent decades, and you can't buy a book to read it. I used to make copies of the "Series of Books" to read, and later bought the "Chinese Publishing House" in Japan in the early years of the photocopy hall edition of the book series. We need to understand Du Pre's "Spring and Autumn" study, isn't the "Spring and Autumn Interpretation" the most fundamental and important information? Why hasn't a single publisher published it for so many years? This is because in modern times, the Spring and Autumn Period has been regarded as a historical material. Whether it is political history, social history, or linguistic history, it is the interest of history. Therefore, Zhonghua Book Company has published Yang Bojun's "Spring and Autumn Left Biography Notes", but not Du Pre's "Spring and Autumn Interpretation". No one will think that Yang Bojun is more important than Du Pre, but many people want to read "Spring and Autumn Left Biography Notes" and are not interested in "Spring and Autumn Interpretation".
Du pre
Now Zhonghua Book Company has published Mr. Gao Jiyi's "Righteous Examples and Words-He's Ram Comprehensive Examination", which makes me feel that the academic atmosphere has changed, and after a hundred years of "science" fever, it has finally begun to turn to "humanities". Scholars of the Han Dynasty studied the righteous examples of the "Spring and Autumn Period", and now Mr. Gao is studying the righteous examples of He Xiu, which is very interesting. Since the Spring and Autumn Period is a scripture, there should be righteous examples, but Confucius did not clearly explain the righteous examples, so each "Biography" invented righteous examples. However, the explicit description of the righteous examples in the "Biography" is still limited, so the scholars of the Han Dynasty invented their own righteous examples. The righteous example of the Spring and Autumn Period invented by He Xiu has some clear expressions in the "Commentary", but it is not comprehensive enough, which needs to be discussed by later generations. Righteous examples rely on induction, but the phenomena are very complex, so to establish a righteous example, it is often necessary to encounter many phenomena that do not conform to the righteous example. Scholars throughout the ages have had to come up with different interpretations of this, so each of them is different, and no one can prove that his own righteousness is the only correct one.
He Xiu
Mr. Gao's efforts to invent the righteous example of He Xiu's note naturally had great difficulties. For example, according to Mr. Gao, the "Han Shijing", whether it is the "Spring and Autumn" scripture or the "Ram" biography, all use "kill", not the word "kill". Because the word "kill" came later, the use of "killing" and "killing" in the handed down literature is not strict, and it is common to mix the two words. However, in the fourth year of the Yin Gong's "Interpretation", there is "the word "the murderer kills the king", so He Xiu's rumored text should use the word "kill", and He Xiu has a clear understanding of the use of the two words. However, the texts of He Xiu at that time have long been gone, and now we can only read the editions published after the Southern Song Dynasty. Considering the situation of the "Han Stone Classic", it may also be imagined that even the text on which He Xiu is based may not all conform to the principle of division in He Xiu's heart. In the ninth year of the Duke of Xu, "in the winter, Jin Like killed Xi Qi, the son of his king", "The Legend of the Ram" "This prince who has not passed the year, what is his words 'Xi Qi, the son of his king'?" The number of the king who has not been killed for more than the year is also". He Zhuyun: "Those who don't understand the name, explain the words and kill them, and the name can be known." According to what note we know, the scripture is based on "killing", and the text is "killing". Teacher Gao thinks that Xu Shu's understanding is really meaningless. He Note should read "Explanation of Killing, (sentence) can be known from the name of the killing", and "from the name of the killing" means "Xi Qi is the name can be inferred from the example of the name of the king". If Xu Shu understands, what note should be regarded as "explaining the words and killing, and the name can be known", and it should not be said "from". Personally, I think that since the words "kill" and "kill" were not clear at that time, the word "kill" would also be written to express the meaning of "kill", which was just a matter of using different words, so he used the word "from". I suspect that Xu Shu's understanding may be in line with He Xiu's meaning. Teacher Gao denied Xu Shu's understanding and determined that He Xiu's scripture was based on "killing" and the text was "killed", based on his understanding of He Xiu's use of words and meanings. However, because there are very few cases in He Xiu's note that can be determined from the meaning of "殺" is "killed", it is also necessary to refer to the text of the Southern Song version. This has to reduce the certainty of Mr. Gao's inference. Imagine that even the division of "killing" and "killing" that can be determined according to Xu Shu's text is considered to be inconsistent with He Xiuyi's example, how certain can the Southern Song Dynasty version of the text be? Furthermore, assuming that He Xiu's righteousness is inferred by Mr. Gao, it can only be said that He Xiu's understanding of these words does not mean that the texts He Xiu saw or wrote conform to this kind of righteousness. Because righteousness is a kind of ideology, it can implement principles, and the text of the actual manuscript is extremely unstable, not to mention that "killing" and "killing" were the norm at that time. For example, in the fourth year of the Yin Gong note quoted above, "The Murderer Kills the Monarch, the Ministers Kill the Monarch", I suspect that it should have been "The Killer Kills the Monarch, the Ministers Kill the Monarch", although the version is "Kill the King". It is difficult to discuss righteous examples, but this is the essence of righteous examples. Whether it is a scripture or a commentary, not all places are in line with the righteous precedents, so the righteous precedent can only be a hypothesis, not an unbreakable truth. But in order to understand the author's mind, we also have to explore this hypothesis. Moreover, this kind of exploration requires a comprehensive investigation of all the contents of the whole scriptures, transmissions, and commentaries, so it requires a scholar to concentrate on research for a long time. This book is the result of Mr. Gao's investment of a lot of time and energy, which is very rare and valuable. When I first got this book and looked at the contents, I found that Mr. Gao rarely referred to and quoted the research papers of modern scholars, and I was quite impressed. As a hobbyist, I like to read the annotations and Zheng annotations, and I don't have the energy to study the research results of contemporary scholars. Mr. Gao is recognized as a first-class scholar in the academic world, and immersing himself in the world of "The Ram's Interpretation" and controlling himself not to be distracted by other people's arguments is a very admirable academic attitude. A deep understanding of a book can only be achieved by one person directly facing the work, and the information provided by others is not very helpful.
Teacher Gao Jiyi is teaching honestly, I have not studied "Spring and Autumn", and I have no ability to understand Mr. Gao's arguments. Even so, I think the publication of this book is a great thing. Because Mr. Gao is really exploring and studying He Xiu's personal thoughts, which is different from the past research on commenting on the rights and wrongs of He Xiu's notes, or describing He Xiu's political and social background. I knew that this book would not sell well because on the one hand it was difficult to understand and on the other hand it was very wordy. But I want to explain to Mr. Gao that this is a last resort. It's difficult to understand because ordinary readers like me haven't studied "Spring and Autumn" seriously, and they haven't read "Ram Interpretation" carefully, so they are laymen. On the basis of the "Spring and Autumn" tradition of the Han Dynasty, He Xiu wrote the "Ram Interpretation" with his superb knowledge, which is naturally not something that a layman can understand at once. It is also because of this that Mr. Gao must spend more pen and ink to explain in detail. In other words, the two major drawbacks of this book's difficulty and verbose are not with the author, but with the reader. However, I also believe that the emergence of this book will definitely produce a group of readers, through which they will deepen their understanding of "The Interpretation of the Ram", and continue to explore above the high point reached by Mr. Gao, so that future generations can better understand He Xiu and his "Interpretation of the Ram". Therefore, I think this book will have a very important academic historical significance in the future.
(This article was first published in The Paper, Shanghai Review of Books, and the author is a professor at the Faculty of Letters, Nishogakusha University, Japan)
Clarify the righteous example, use the old Confucian words to know the words, and govern the group through the subtle meaning
"Righteous Cases and Words-He's Ram Comprehensive Examination" Gao Jiyi Traditional Horizontal Row 32 Open Hardcover
978-7-101-16229-5
$88.00
This book is specially designed for the re-examination of the "Ram Commentary", not only extensively searching the "Ram" books, correcting them one by one, but also carefully examining Ho's righteous examples as the basis for his judgment. For example, when discussing the Xiping Stone Scripture, the Stone Scripture is different from the He Note Edition. Distinguish the common words of this "Interpretation", know that Yu and Yu are not universal, and Ning, Ning and Ning are different. This is the case with the Ho family. On the similarities and differences between killing and killing, it is said that it should be determined by the example of He's killing, and the saying of "killing the king thirty-six" in ancient times is well-founded. These are all textual proofreading and righteous examples. It is difficult to know the school book, not only to list the similarities and differences, but also to determine right and wrong. Clarity and righteousness, wide variation, and text, taking into account the three, can be said to re-edit the "Ram Notes".
(Co-ordinator: Yibei; Editor: Siqi)