《周禮注》「故書」及其校改問題考辨

A Research on ＂Gushu＂ and the Collation of ＂Gushu＂ in Zhoulizhu

10.6281/NTUCL.201906_(65).0002

劉文清(Liu, Wen-Ching)

周禮注 ； 故書 ； 鄭玄 ； 杜子春 ； 鄭眾 ； Zhoulizhu ； Gushu ； Zheng Xuan ； Du Zichun ； Zheng Zhong

臺大中文學報

65期（2019 / 06 / 01）

25 - 67

繁體中文

「故書」為《周禮注》之專用術語，相對於「今書」，舊說多以古文、今文，或藏於秘府與否來區分「故書」、「今書」。唯後之學者多不從其說，而以「《周禮注》中凡稱引故書者，類皆附以杜及二鄭校釋之語」，從而推斷「故書」當係杜子春、鄭大夫、鄭司農所據之本；「今書」則為鄭玄當時所見《周禮》的通行本。而鄭玄校《周禮》究竟係依據「故書」或「今書」做為底本？學者亦有不同見解，今從楊天宇之說：以凡《注》言「故書某作某」所依據的底本既是今書，從而推知鄭校乃以「今書」為主，而參之以「故書」。唯何以《周禮注》「校勘的結果，則皆從今書而不從故書」？迥異於《儀禮注》、《禮記注》兼采今古、斟酌眾本的校書態度。觀全書偶或存在《經》文、《注》文二者「異文兩從」的特殊現象，可見鄭《注》對於今書並非全然信從；然於《經》文則唯今書是依，推測最可能原因殆為鄭氏未及見故書，「《注》中所稱故書，蓋轉載杜及二鄭之舊注」，故其校勘之依據唯今書耳，自然「皆從今書」而不輕易改字，以示謹慎。至於校改《經》文者究係何人？今以杜、二鄭以及鄭玄之《注》與今書《經》文皆有不盡相符者，殆可由此推斷改訂《經》文者，當非杜及二鄭，亦非鄭玄，而係今書也。

Compared with its opposite-＂Jinshu,＂ ＂Gushu＂ is a scholium terminology exclusively used in Zhoulizhu. The two terminologies were mostly distinguished by whether ＂Guwen＂ (ancient text) or ＂Jinwen＂ (current text) are used in the texts, or, whether books were stored in Mifu (secret library). However, most of later scholars have disagreed with this statement. Instead, they have usually inferred that ＂Gushu＂ could be considered the version which Du Zichun, Zheng Xing and Zheng Zhong referred to. ＂Jinshu,＂ however, was a popular version of Zhouli which Zheng Xuan viewed as a reference. Which edition Zheng Xuan referred to when he was collating Zhouli? There are controversial opinions among scholars. In this article, the statement of Yang Tianyu is adopted. For the reason that a quote ＂different words are used in Gushu＂ is stated in Zhu, we may suggest that the edition Zhu referred to shall be ＂Jinshu.＂ The article therefore concludes that Zheng Xuan basically took ＂Jinshu＂ as a reference and ＂Gushu＂ as an auxiliary. Nevertheless, why are the achievements of collation in Zhoulizhu based on ＂Jinshu＂ rather than ＂GuShu? And why do they contrast with the achievements of collation in Yilizhu and Lijizhu? According to a particular phenomenon that two different texts were used separately in Jing and Zhu throughout Zhoulizhu, this article aims to suggest that Zheng Xuan didn't completely rely on ＂Jinshu.＂ However, based on his reliance on ＂Jinshu＂ in Jing, it is suggested that Zheng Xuan may never read ＂Gushu.＂ All the texts named ＂Gushu＂ in Zhu by Zheng Xuan were all cited from past annotations. Hence, the collation by Zheng was thus based on ＂Jinshu,＂ which led to the result that he referred to it carefully without revising a single word. Lastly, there is also a question concerning about the collator of Jing. It is suggested to be neither Du Zichun, Zheng Xing, Zheng Zhong, nor even Zheng Xuan, but is assumed to be the editor of ＂Jinshu,＂.

1. (2002).續修四庫全書.上海:上海古籍出版社.
2. (2002).續修四庫全書.上海:上海古籍出版社.
3. （南朝宋）范曄(1999).後漢書.臺北:鼎文書局.
4. （清）宋世犖(2011).周禮故書疏證.濟南:齋魯書社.
5. （清）段玉裁(1973).說文解字注.臺北:宏業書局.
6. （清）段玉裁, Y.-C.(2008).經韻樓集.上海=Shanghai:上海古籍出版社=Shanghai classic publishing.
7. （清）段玉裁, Y.-C.(2010).周禮漢讀考.南京=Nanjing:鳳凰出版社=Fenghuang Publishing.
8. （清）胡玉縉(1963).許廎學林.臺北:世界書局.
9. （清）孫詒讓(1967).周禮正義.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
10. 清•徐養原：《周官故書考》，清湖州叢書本。
11. （清）焦循(2016).焦循全集.揚州:廣陵書社.
12. （清）焦循(2016).焦循全集.揚州:廣陵書社.
13. （清）程際盛(1971).周禮故書考.臺北:藝文印書館.
14. （漢）鄭玄（注）,（唐）孔穎達（疏）(1976).十三經注疏.臺北:藝文印書館.
15. 丁進, J.(2016)。《周禮》故書今書問題探索。十三經注疏與經學文獻研究學術研討會，福州=Fuzhou:
16. 王鍔(2001).三禮研究論著提要.蘭州:甘肅教育出版社.
17. 王鍔, E.(1995)。《周禮》白文經版本考辨。古籍整理研究學刊，1995(4)，34-39。
18. 李玉平, Y.-P.(2005)。試析鄭玄《周禮注》中的「古文」與「故書」。古籍整理研究學刊，2005(5)，50-54。
19. 李雲光, Y.-G.(2012).三禮鄭氏學發凡.上海=Shanghai:華東師範大學出版社=East China Normal University Press.
20. 李源澄：〈鄭注《周禮》易字舉例〉，《圖書集刊》1943 年第5 期。
21. 周大璞(2000).訓詁學.臺北:洪葉文化出版社.
22. 楊天宇, T.-Y.(2007).鄭玄三禮注研究.天津=Tianjin:天津人民出版社=Tianjin People's Publishing House.
23. 葉純芳, C.-F.(2009)。鄭玄《周禮注》從違馬融《周官傳》考─兼論漢人師法、家法之議與曹元弼〈子鄭子非馬融弟子考〉。中國文哲研究通訊，19(1)，157-192。
24. 虞萬里, W.-L.(2018)。兩漢經師傳授文本尋蹤─由鄭玄《周禮注》引起的思考。文史，2018(4)，21-66。
25. 劉文清, W.-C.(2011)。《毛詩箋》訓詁術語探究。「國科會中文學門小學類92-97研究成果發表會」論文集，臺北=Taipei:

1. (2023)。出土文物所見先秦至漢代的卜筮操作──參照《周禮．春官．大卜》的記述。中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊，94(4)，715-782。
2. (2023)。鄭玄〈《周禮》序〉「奄然如合符復析」釋疑。書目季刊，57(3)，1-10。