王引之难郑氏易之论辨正  

On Wang Yinzhi’s Criticism of Zheng Xuan’s Changes

作　　者：李元骏 LI Yuan-jun

机构地区：[1]暨南大学文学院哲学研究所,广东广州510632

出　　处：《周易研究》2022年第1期19-25,共7页Studies of Zhouyi

基　　金：广东省哲学社会科学规划2019年度青年项目:“郑玄《周易》注研究”(GD19YZX01)。

摘　　要：王引之在《经义述闻》中对郑玄的爻辰说及郑氏以爻辰解《易》的注文多有不满。不过,他批评郑注的方式,反映出他不仅未厘清八卦卦气与月份的关系,也没有很好地区分郑氏爻辰说与八卦卦气说,更未同情地理解郑注兼用两种象数易例递推象、辞关系时的理路;他指责郑氏爻辰说将一卦诸爻隔月值时,但在搬出《京氏易传》作为正面典型时,又未能准确把握京房纳支之说。这缘于王氏“不囿于汉学之藩篱”的学术风格和希望探察经文本义的治学追求。王氏的这种特点,虽带来了上述问题,但也使其能跳出汉易的局限而另有深刻见解。In his work Jingyi shuwen(Narration of the Meanings of Classics), Wang Yinzhi(1766-1834) was dissatisfied with Zheng Xuan’s(127-200) Yaochen(lit., line-month, correlating the earthly branches with the hexagrams) theory and Zheng’s application of the theory to the interpretation of the Changes. However, the way he criticized Zheng’s annotation indicates that he not only failed to distinguish the relationship between gua-qi(correlating trigrams and hexagrams with the seasonal points) and months, but also failed to distinguish Zheng’s Yaochen theory and guaqi theory, and did not sympathetically understand Zhen’s reasoning when he used two kinds of theories of image-number to demonstrate the relationship between image and the ancient text of the Yijing. Wang Yinzhi criticized Zheng Xuan’s Yaochen theory that it assigned the months to each of the lines in a hexagram every other month;however, he failed to understand what Jing Fang’s(77-37 BCE) Nazhi(attaching twelve earthly branches to hexagrams) theory exactly was when taking Jing’s Commentary on the Changes as a positive example. This was due to Wang Yinzhi’s academic style of “not being limited by the barriers of the theories of Han(206 BCE-220 CE) Yi tradition” and his academic pursuit to explore the original meanings of the classical texts. Although this characteristic of Wang’s thoughts brought about the above problems, it also enabled him to break through the limitation of Changes scholarship of the Han dynasty and have other profound insights.

关 键 词：王引之 《经义述闻》 郑玄 爻辰 八卦卦气 

分 类 号：B249.9[哲学宗教—中国哲学]