前賢在分析{\textquotedblleft}有事君人者{\textquotedblright}章時，往往著眼{\textquotedblleft}天民者{\textquotedblright}中的{\textquotedblleft}天{\textquotedblright}字，以為{\textquotedblleft}天民{\textquotedblright}即大德、其德如天之民。然而，這種解讀方式一方面無視了在《孟子》裏所有作名詞用的{\textquotedblleft}天民{\textquotedblright}其實都解作{\textquotedblleft}天生之民{\textquotedblright}，另一方面則無視了{\textquotedblleft}有事君人者{\textquotedblright}章中的{\textquotedblleft}大人{\textquotedblright}境界仍在其之上的事實。例如朱熹在解釋{\textquotedblleft}天民{\textquotedblright}時指出{\textquotedblleft}必其道可行於天下，然後行之；不然則寧沒世不見知而不悔，不肯小用其道以殉於人也{\textquotedblright}，這就跟《孟子》{\textquotedblleft}大丈夫{\textquotedblright}{\textquotedblleft}得志，與民由之；不得志，獨行其道{\textquotedblright}的描述幾乎無異。《孟子》中的{\textquotedblleft}大丈夫{\textquotedblright}其實就是{\textquotedblleft}大人{\textquotedblright}，換言之，在朱熹的解釋下，{\textquotedblleft}有事君人者{\textquotedblright}章中的{\textquotedblleft}天民{\textquotedblright}跟{\textquotedblleft}大人{\textquotedblright}竟變得毫無分別。有見及此，本文嘗試另覓出路，以《孟》證《孟》之法，指出{\textquotedblleft}天民者{\textquotedblright}與{\textquotedblleft}大人{\textquotedblright}之差異在於前者著重外在事功而後者著重內聖功夫。本文繼而還原{\textquotedblleft}有事君人者{\textquotedblright}章之本貌，並結合《孟子》{\textquotedblleft}民為貴{\textquotedblright}章分析，論證{\textquotedblleft}有事君人者{\textquotedblright}章中{\textquotedblleft}天民{\textquotedblright}實為動賓結構，{\textquotedblleft}天{\textquotedblright}作動詞用，{\textquotedblleft}民{\textquotedblright}則為受事者，{\textquotedblleft}天民者{\textquotedblright}解作{\textquotedblleft}定天下四海之民者{\textquotedblright}。在方法學上，有別於清人強調"訓詁明而後義理明"，本文嘗試指出"義理明而後訓詁明"之法的可行性和（在一些情況下的）必要性。
* * *
The phrase {\textquotedblleft}tianmin zhe{\textquotedblright} 天民者 in Mencius 7A:19 has always been rendered as people who possess the heavenly virtue, that is, the greatest virtue. Although widely accepted nowadays, this interpretation is untenable, for two reasons. First, the phrase {\textquotedblleft}tianmin{\textquotedblright} 天民, when used by Mengzi in other occasions, consistently means {\textquotedblleft}people all under the heaven{\textquotedblright} 天下之民 or {\textquotedblleft}the subjects of heaven{\textquotedblright} 天生之民. In other words, the term has never been used to denote moral people. Second, to understand {\textquotedblleft}Tianmin zhe{\textquotedblright} as people who possess the greatest virtue is to ignore the fact that in 7A:19 {\textquotedblleft}the great men{\textquotedblright} 大人 actually surpass {\textquotedblleft}Tiangmin zhe{\textquotedblright} in terms of morality. Since the traditional interpretation is untenable, this essay suggests that the phrase {\textquotedblleft}Tianmin{\textquotedblright} should rather be understood as a verb-object construction. {\textquotedblleft}Tianmin zhe{\textquotedblright} are people who, acting on behalf of heaven, put into practice benevolent governance. The word {\textquotedblleft}tian{\textquotedblright}, when used as a verb, means taking care of and feeding common people in a way reminiscent of heaven giving birth to and feeding common people. This essay also argues that the important difference between {\textquotedblleft}tianming zhe{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}the great men{\textquotedblright} is that the former place a heavy emphasis on the pursuit of external political accomplishments, whereas the latter set their minds on achieving internal sagacity. Since only the latter is regarded as the ideal type in the Confucian tradition, it is only natural that Mencius places {\textquotedblleft}the great men{\textquotedblright} at the top of the hierarchy in 7A:19.
}, year = {2022}, journal = {Sino-Humanitas 人文中國學報}, pages = {41-70}, month = {07/2022}, url = {https://ejournals.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/index.php/sinohumanitas/article/view/2265}, language = {eng}, }