清代學者「禮書」復仇觀的省察與詮釋

Qing Scholars' Study and Interpretation of "Revenge" in the "Rites" Canons

10.6281/NTUCL.2011.35.06

李隆獻(Long-Shien Lee)

復仇 ； 復仇觀 ； 禮書 ； 禮／法衝突 ； 乾嘉考據學 ； Revenge ； Rites canon ； conflict between li and fa ； Qian-Jia kaoju xue

臺大中文學報

35期（2011 / 12 / 01）

205 - 246

繁體中文

傳統「禮書」的復仇材料，歷經先秦、兩漢、魏晉南北朝、隨唐，以至宋代經生、儒士的陸續詮解、闡發，元明學者大抵因循舊說，少有開創。清代學者對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋，既打破元明時期沉寂的復仇議題，又帶有鮮明的時代色彩。本文分三期述論之：一、清初學者對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋：王夫之對《周禮‧地官‧調人》「和難」的解釋，不取宋懦的「過失」說，而回歸唐‧孔穎達、賈公彥的「赦有」說；惠士奇則另闢「四海之外，別有一天」之說，以解釋《周禮》、二戴《禮記》經文的矛盾。清初禮學雖不發達，王、惠二儒已不再踵承宋人舊說，一改元明風氣。二、《欽定三禮義疏》對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋：乾隆元年（1736）詔閒「三禮館」、纂修三《禮》義疏，是為三《禮》之官定學說。《欽定周官義疏》多留意字句訓話、名物考證，開乾嘉學風之先河；《欽定禮記義疏》則承繼宋懦的詮釋進路，企圖會通《公羊》與古《周禮》之復仇學說，並多引宋儒之說以為補充，二書之詮釋性格頗不相同，其涉及復仇議題者，本文皆具體舉證論析。三、乾嘉學者對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋：隨著考據學風興起，清儒對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋，也呈現新面貌：重視字詞訓解、名物考證。此一特色與《欽定周官義疏》相近而更為細密。江永、王引之、俞樾，以至孫詒讓等學者，面對「禮書」復仇材料的態度，大有異於宋元明學者之重視義理的詮釋與試圖調和禮法衝突，而多專注於文本的字詞考察與制度詮解，具體反映乾嘉時代的學術特色。文末則對漢代以降的「禮書」復仇觀作一歷時性的省察，探究其詮釋觀點、詮解方式的嬗變之跡，總結歷代「禮書」復仇觀的沿革與特色，並呈顯清代學者之學術性格與治學特色。

Classicists in the pre-Qin, Han, Six Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Song Dynasties have long treated the issue of revenge in the Rites canon, but their interpretations diverged slightly from their predecessors'. However, breaking the relative silence on the issue in the Yuan-Ming period, Qing scholars broke new ground with their innovative interpretations. This paper is organized into the following three parts: A. The interpretation of revenge in the Rites canon by early Qing scholars: Wang Fu-zhi endorses the idea of ”conflict resolution” outlined in the ”Tiaoren” section of Zhouli's ”Diguan” chapter. Instead of accepting Song scholars' treatment of revenge as wrongdoing, Wang returns to embrace Kong Yingda's and Jiagong Yan's idea of ”amnesty” for avengers. Hui Shi-qi, for his part, opens up new interpretations to resolve the contradictions regarding revenge presented in the Zhouli and the Two Dai's Liji. B. The interpretation of revenge in the Rites canon by scholars in the Qinding Santi yishu (Imperial subcommentaries on the Three Rites). In the first year ofQianlong's reign (1736), the emperor opened the ”Sanli Academy” and ordered the compilation of subcommentaries on the Three Rites to standardize official interpretations. Participating in the beginnings of a new scholastic culture in the Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns, scholars authoring and editing the Qinding Zhouguan yishu (Imperial subcommentaries on the Zhou Rites) took a mostly philological approach to the interpretations of the language, institutions, and objects in the text. But authors and editors of the Qinding Liji yishu (Imperial subcommentaries on the Book of Rites) largely followed and supplemented the interpretations of Song classicists, who had sought to harmonize the views toward revenge in the Gongyang tradition and Zhouli. These two imperial compilations represent quite different modes of interpretation with regard to the issue of revenge. C. The interpretation of revenge in the Rites canon by scholars of the Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns: Scholars of this period devoted themselves to the linguistic and philological study of the texts as their predecessors had done for the Qinding Zhouguan yishu. Taking part in this general scholastic trend, Jiang Yong, Wang Yinzhi, Yu Yue, and Sun Yirang departed from the focus of Song scholars on the ethical implications of the conflict between li (ritual) and fa (legalism). They preferred instead to apply philological rigor to their study of texts. This paper concludes with a broad survey of the interpretations of revenge in the Rites canon from the Han period onward, summing up the development of such scholarly views and methodologies across time.

1. 李隆獻(2008)。兩漢魏晉南北朝復仇與法律互涉的省察與詮釋。臺大文史哲學報，68
   連結：
2. 李隆獻(2008)。隋唐時期復仇與法律互涉的省察與詮釋。成大中文學報，20
   連結：
3. (1979)。通志堂經解。臺北:漢京文化事業有限公司。
4. (1972)。清經解續編。臺北:復興書局。
5. (1999)。北京圖書館藏珍本年譜重編。北京:北京圖書館出版社。
6. (1972)。清經解。臺北:復興書局。
7. (1997)。四庫全書存目叢書。臺南:莊嚴文化事業有限公司。
8. (1979)。文淵閣四庫全書。臺北:藝文印書館。
9. 清‧皮錫瑞：《駁五經異義疏證》，民國23年河間李氏重刻本。
10. (1997)。四庫全書存目叢書。臺南:莊嚴文化事業有限公司。
11. (1983)。文淵閣四庫全書。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
12. (1986)。清實錄。北京:中華書局。
13. 五代劉昫(1985)。舊唐書。臺北:鼎文書局。
14. 宋歐陽脩、宋宋祁(1976)。新唐書。臺北:鼎文書局。
15. 唐孔穎達(1976)。禮記正義。臺北:藝文印書館。
16. 唐徐彥(1976)。公羊注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。
17. 唐賈公彥(1976)。周禮注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。
18. 梁皇侃(1968)。論語集解義疏。臺北:廣文書局。
19. 清方苞(1983)。方苞集。上海:上海古籍出版社。
20. 清王引之(1990)。經義述聞。濟南:山東友誼書社。
21. 清江永(1974)。禮書綱目。臺北:臺聯國風出版社。
22. 清杭世駿(1992)。續禮記集說。臺北:明文書局。
23. 清俞樾(1975)。群經平議。臺北:河洛圖書出版社。
24. 清孫詒讓(1987)。周禮正義。北京:中華書局。
25. 漢班固(1974)。漢書。臺北:鼎文書局。
26. 漢許慎、清段玉裁注(1974)。說文解字注。臺北:藝文印書館。
27. 魏何晏集解、宋邢昺疏(1976)。論語注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。
28. 何佑森(2009)。明末清初的實學。清代學術思潮，臺北:
29. 何佑森(2009)。明清之際學術風氣的轉變及其發展。清代學術思潮，臺北:
30. 李隆獻(2005)。復仇觀的省察與詮釋─以《春秋》三傳為重心。臺大中文學報，22
31. 李隆獻(2010)。元明復仇觀的省察與詮釋。經學研究期刊，10
32. 張壽安(2005)。十八世紀禮學考證的思想活力。北京:北京大學出版社。
33. 船山全書編輯委員會(1991)。船山全書。長沙:嶽麓書社。
34. 楊應芹編、諸偉奇編(2010)。戴震全書。合肥:黃山書社。
35. 趙爾巽(1981)。清史稿。臺北:鼎文書局。

1. 李隆獻(2012)。清代學者《春秋》與三《傳》復仇觀的省察與詮釋。臺大文史哲學報，77，1-41。
2. 李隆獻(2013)。近代民間復仇事例的省察與詮釋─以「地方志」為重心。成大中文學報，40，207-264。
3. 李隆獻(2015)。朝鮮儒者丁若鏞的復仇觀。臺大文史哲學報，82，119-160。