<論説>南宋における四書疏釈書の登場とその要因 : 師説の継承と出版文化 (特集 : 学びのネットワーク)

Abstract

本論は朱子『四書章句集注』の解説書、いわゆる四書疏釈書が南宋で登場したその要因を考察した。宋代の経書注釈書の特徴は「議論」形式であるのに対し、『四書集注』は簡略を宗とする「訓詁」を重んじた。そのため該書は読者には理解が難しく、朱子は口頭での解説を積極的に行い、その結果多くの語録が残された。四書疏釈書はそのような語録を引用した書物であるため、朱子の意に反し「議論」形式に逆戻りしたものである。一方、経書を言葉で論理的に説明する方法を批判した陸象山も、自説拡大のためには時に多言を費やし、門人達も語録を編纂するなど師の言葉を多く残そうと務めた。しかし陸学派は朱子学との対抗上、「文字言語」を用いない学問として自己規定することで、自派の純化を図ったが、その勢力は朱子学に及ばなくなっていった。つまり、知識人の底辺が拡大した南宋社会にあって、大量に生み出された初学者たちは、言葉による丁寧な解説がなければ理解できず、四書疏釈書はそのような人々の需要に応じて登場したのである。

This article discusses factors concerning the question of why the Collective Commentaries on the Four Books 四書疏釈書 appeared during the Southern Song. These commentaries provided further explanations of Zhu Xi's commentaries on the Four Books, the Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注. Collective Commentaries were published one after another, influencing not only Chinese but all East Asian, Confucian cultures both academically and ideologically. The first section focuses on understanding the characteristics of the Collective Commentaries in the context of annotation history in the Song dynasty. As is widely recognized, commentaries on the Classics during this period put more emphasis on understanding the overall message (yili 義理) rather than providing a word-by-word interpretation (xungu 訓詁), and these were also called yili xue 義理学. As they took the discursive forms such as treatises (lunwen 論文), letters (shuxin 書信), analects (yulu 語録), lectures (jiangyi 講義), they were also called discussion (yilun 議論) studies. These are chiefly records in a colloquial form of dialogues between masters and disciples and the contents of lectures, and many were commentaries intended to refute the arguments of opponents. The contents depended on coincidental factors associated with venue of the dialogue or lecture such as the academic needs of the disciples or the identities of those in the audience. Their contents were often debates regarding the value of the Mengzi or political disputes over the thought of Wang Anshi 王安石. The interpretation of the Classics itself was still secondary as the purpose was to refute political enemies or opponents in debate. A common characteristic of these Song "discussion studies" was the deft utilization of many words to logically persuade readers so they would thoroughly understand the author's arguments. In contrast, what Zhu Xi was particularly concerned in the Sishu zhangju jizhu with emphasis on word-by-word interpretation (xungu) in order that readers would comprehend the meanings of the classics for themselves. Therefore, Zhu Xi reduced the number of the words in his commentaries as much as possible and taught his disciples to peruse the classics carefully because he was afraid that his commentaries would become "annotations for annotations".

The second section addresses the chief causes of the appearance of the Collective Commentaries. Because Zhu Xi made efforts to reduce the number of words in Sishu zhangju jizhu, he conversely became concerned that readers would misunderstand his thought. He wrote Sishu huowen 四書或問 in order to ease these concerns and carefully explained either orally or by means of his letters the gist to novices who did comprehend this work. These were then compiled as the Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類and the Zhuzi wenji 朱子文集. In other words, the Sishu zhangju jizhu commentary was difficult to comprehend without reference to the many other works of Zhu Xi. The Collective Commentaries are works based on many citations from the Zhuzi yulei or Zhuzi wenji etc. and thus without exploring the many works of Zhu Xi, one could learn the important points of his thought. Therefore, considering the commentarial tradition in the Song dynasty, the Collective Commentaries were writings that reverted to "discussion studies." They became annotations for annotations, which Zhu Xi had criticized. But why did such books become widespread despite Zhu Xi's intentions? This comes down to the fact of the demand for them after the death of Zhu Xi and his disciples. But this was thought by some to be a contradiction between, on the one hand, the idea of Neo-Confucians who insisted on the limitations of words in attaining experiential learning that would transcend comprehension by language to realize the way of saintly masters and the idea that one must use many words (language) to spread the master's thought. In order to analyze this contradiction, the third section focuses on the scholarly tradition of Lu Xiangshan 陸象山, who was an opponent of Zhu Xi and who most severely confronted this contradiction. As is well known, Lu Xiangshan criticized word-by-word interpretation (xungu) of the Classics and verbose logical explanation, and he did not leave many writings behind. Yet, he logically refuted Zhu Xi's interpretation of words in debate and was devoted to spreading this through the medium of letters. In addition, after Lu Xiangshan's death, his disciples strove to preserve as many of his words as possible, compiling collections of his writings and his analects. However, such a media strategy by the scholars in the tradition of Lu Xiangshan obviously went against his teachings, and in competing with the scholars in the tradition of Zhu Xi, they were unable to expand as a school or to write new books due to their self-discipline and effort to purify themselves as a school without "written language". In short, the scholars of the Lu Xiangshan school abandoned the way of compiling writings that the scholars of Zhu xi school had done in producing the Collective Commentaries. As a result, their influence never equaled that of the followers of Zhu Xi. Given the above argument, it was novices who could not comprehend Zhu Xi's Sishu zhangju jizhu who first called for the Collective Commentaries. The Southern Song is said to be an era when the bottom rung of the intellectual class expanded. During such a period, a considerable number of novices whether they were scholars of the tradition of Zhu Xi or that of Lu Xiangshan, could not comprehend the teachings well unless clear explanations were provided. Accordingly, the scholars of Zhu Xi's school responded to such demands with the Collective Commentaries and thereby increased the number of students in their school. In contrast, it was likely the case that the scholars of Lu Xiangshan's school failed to take in new disciples due to their loyalty to the teachings of their teacher.