《厚父》「典刑」考

Textual Research on Criminal Laws in Hou Fu

李若暉(Ruohui LI)

《厚父》 ； 《尚書》 ； 典刑 ； 墨家 ； Hou Fu ； Book of Documents ； Penalty of Codes ； Mohism

哲學與文化

44卷10期（2017 / 10 / 01）

63 - 79

繁體中文

清華簡第五冊《厚父》一文，多言夏史，足補史之闕文。該篇所敘殆為成湯滅夏立商，咨於有夏遺臣厚父之作。而篇首亦追溯夏后建邦，始於大禹濬川。其開篇行文模仿〈洪範〉，而於篇中所敘治國之要，遠遜洪範九疇，殆非周史所傳舊文，更非孔子所刪《尚書》，當出戰國之世。〈豳公盨〉亦首言天命禹濬川，而歸於克用茲德，斯誠周禮之故轍。《厚父》與之相反，於刑德二者，棄德明刑。既以皋陶之威延於夏啟，又揄揚孔甲典刑，為先哲王。《國語》以孔甲為夏衰之始，《厚父》乃謂背孔甲方致夏亡。墨者誦《詩》《書》無異於儒，而背周道以用夏政。墨者鉅子腹(黃享)於秦惠王前嚴守墨者之法。《厚父》蓋秦墨習於《書》學者徵夏史以明典刑之作。晁錯傳《尚書》之學而為申商之行，此一學脈絕不出於仲尼，當始於秦墨之為《厚父》者一系。

Hou Fu, The fifth volume of Tsinghua Bamboo Slips, is mainly about the history of the Xia Dynasty which can be served as a supplement to the historical gap in this dynasty. It's said that Hou Fu was a collection of sayings and ideas attributed to a civil official named Hou Fu, a survivor of the conquered Xia Dynasty. It mainly narrated the process of Tang launched a righteous revolt to fight against the Xia Dynasty and then founded the Shang Dynasty. Besides, it referred Yu the Great who dredged the Yellow River and then founded the Xia Dynasty. The governing plans mentioned in Hou Fu can't be compared with the nine plans of Hong Fan, though it imitated the latter's style in the beginning. In my opinion, it was completed in the Warring States period, neither a part of the historical records of the Zhou Dynasty nor the chapters deleted by Confucius in Book of Documents. Zhugongxu claimed that Yu the Great was appointed by God to dredge the Yellow River at first while afterwards it stressed on the importance of benevolent governance, which was actually another manifestation of the rites of the Zhou Dynasty. On the contrary, Hou Fu attached more importance to punishment than to virtues when it comes to country governance. Only those who carry forward the impartiality of Gao Yao and advocate the punishment like Kong Jia can be a great sage. Discourses of the States held it that the Xia Dynasty began to go downhill since King Kong Jia came into power, while Hou Fu claimed the opposite. Though Mohists can recite Book of Odes and Book of Documents as fluently as Confucianists, they abandoned the rites of Zhou and followed the tradition of the Xia Dynasty. Fu Tun, the Juzi (literally, ＂chisel＂-- an image from craft making) of Mohism, scrupulously abided by the doctrine as a Mohist before King Hui of Qin State. Mohists in the Qin state who had the Confucian classics at their fingertips cited the traditions of the XiaDynasty to stress the importance of punishment, and then Hou Fu came out. Chao Cuo inherited the thought of Book of Documents and restricted the development of business, which was not originated from Confucius but Hou Fu written by Mohists in the Qin state.

1. (2007)。十三經注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。
2. (2002)。豳公盨。中國歷史文物，6(41)，4。
3. 王坤鵬，〈簡論清華簡《厚父》的相關問題〉，http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/old/srcshow.asp?src_id=2546。
4. (2007)。十三經注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。
5. (1988)。國語。上海:上海古籍出版社。
6. 西漢司馬遷(2013)。史記。北京:中華書局。
7. 東漢班固(1962)。漢書。北京:中華書局。
8. 清孫詒讓(2001)。墨子閒詁。北京:中華書局。
9. 清焦循(1987)。孟子正義。北京:中華書局。
10. 于大成(1981)。諸子與經學。經學研究論集，臺北:
11. 王永昌(2016)。清華簡《厚父》篇的文獻性質研究。魯東大學學報，33(4)，67-69。
12. 王坤鵬(2017)。論清華簡《厚父》的思想意蘊與文獻性質。史學集刊，2，38-45。
13. 王震中(2016)。清華簡《厚父》篇「咎繇」與虞夏兩代國家形態結構。南方文物，4，151-154。
14. 李峰、吳敏娜譯(2010)。西周的政體：中國早期的官僚制度和國家。北京:生活．讀書．新知三聯書店。
15. 李學勤(2015)。清華簡《厚父》與《孟子》引《書》。深圳大學學報，32(3)，33-34。
16. 李學勤(1989)。李學勤集。哈爾濱:黑龍江教育出版社。
17. 李學勤編(2015)。清華大學藏戰國竹簡。上海:中西書局。
18. 杜勇(2016)。清華簡《厚父》與早期民本思想。西華師範大學學報，2016(2)，15-22。
19. 沈建華編(2005)。饒宗頤新出土文獻論證。上海:上海古籍出版社。
20. 馬士遠(2008)。周秦《尚書》學研究。北京:中華書局。
21. 張利軍(2016)。清華簡《厚父》的性質與時代。管子學刊，3，103-111。
22. 張雙棣(2013)。淮南子校釋。北京:北京大學出版社。
23. 張覺(2010)。韓非子校疏。上海:上海古籍出版社。
24. 張覺(2010)。韓非子校疏。上海:上海古籍出版社。
25. 許維遹(2009)。呂氏春秋集釋。北京:中華書局。
26. 郭永秉(2015)。論清華簡《厚父》應為《夏書》之一篇。出土文獻，上海:
27. 陳直(1988)。文史考古論叢。天津:天津古籍出版社。
28. 陳夢家(2005)。尚書通論。北京:中華書局。
29. 程浩(2014)。清華簡《厚父》「周書」說。出土文獻，上海:
30. 舒大綱編、楊世文編(2015)。廖平全集。天津:天津古籍出版社。
31. 黃凌倩(2016)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。安徽大學中文系。
32. 黃國輝(2016)。清華簡《厚父》新探—兼談用字和書寫之於古書成篇與流傳的重要性。清華大學學報，31(3)，61-71。
33. 寧鎮疆(2015)。清華簡《厚父》「天降下民」句的觀念源流與豳公盨銘文再釋—兼說先秦「民本」思想的起源問題。出土文獻，上海:
34. 福田哲之(2015)。清華簡《厚父》的時代暨其性質。先秦兩漢出土文獻與學術新視野國際研討會論文集，臺北:
35. 蒙文通(1987)。古學甄微。成都:巴蜀書社。
36. 趙平安(2014)。《厚父》的性質及其蘊含的夏代歷史文化。文物，12，81-88。
37. 蔣禮鴻(1986)。商君書錐指。北京:中華書局。
38. 黎翔鳳(2004)。管子校注。北京:中華書局。

1. 林士翔(2020)。《清華伍．厚父》相關研究成果再探－兼及對篇中「王」的擬測。鵝湖月刊，546，35-41。
2. 孫飛燕(2021)。論清華簡《厚父》的政治思想及文本性質。哲學與文化，48(3)，39-57。