《通典．賓禮》所見的唐代對外意識

The 'etiquette to guest' in ＂Tong-tien＂ and Tu-Yu's Consciousness of Frontier

10.6672/shiyuan.2015.27.02

張哲僥(Che-Yao Chang)

賓禮 ； 《通典》 ； 君臣關係 ； 邊防 ； etiquette to guest ； Tong-tien ； relationship of emperor-official ； frontier defense

史原

復刊6期=27期（2015 / 09 / 01）

89 - 116

繁體中文

本文以三個面相分析《通典》對於賓禮的理解。首先是從〈沿革〉的編排結構與書寫內容切入，指出杜佑應該是有意識地略去與蕃國相關的賓禮材料，其動機源於他對天下秩序的想像，即維持九州以內的安定，並減少與九州之外夷狄的互動。第二部分從〈賓禮〉卷中的第一條內容切入，杜佑明確區分出君臣與主客兩種不同的關係，處於非正朔地區的夷狄只能以客禮對待。且相似的論述，可遠溯到漢代宣帝時匈奴賓服、臣服的個案討論中，蕭望之便明確指出經由主客關係建構出夷狄為「敵國」的身分，叛服不需由中國介入，但若是建構君臣關係，中國便要維持住對方「臣」的身分。此個案在《通典》中並未納入〈賓禮〉的篇章，而是放在〈邊防典〉中，這點顯示出杜佑並不將漢代朝廷與匈奴的互動視為賓禮，僅是四夷主動對中國的臣服，甚至只是「邊－四夷」間的互動，與杜佑想像中的賓禮並不相同。第三部分從唐朝賓禮施行的面貌切入，說明唐朝中央制度運作上展現出不主動干涉九州之外事務的態度，但仍與《通典》反對華夷之間密切來往的想法不同。杜佑的想法更為激進，宛若間接批判唐代盛行的冊封與朝貢體制。

The article analyze from three different facets the understanding of ettiquete toward guests seen within ＂Tong-tien＂ edited by Tu-Yu in the mid-Tang dynasty. First, from the arrangement structure and contents of the 'history' chapter, we could say that Tu-Yu might have consciously ignored the materials which concerned rituals regarding foreign countries. His motive was to construct the image of 'tian-xia order' of his own. This image was meant to maintain the stability in ＂Jiu-zhou＂, which referred to the region under the Chinese dynasty' reign. It would reduce interaction with barbarians outside ＂Jiu-zhou＂. In the second section, I investiage the first article of 'the etiquette to guest', discussing the topic of 'emperor-official' and 'host-guest' relationships. Tu-Yu distinguished these two different relationships very clearly and believed they could only treat barbarians, living outside from ＂Jiu-zhou＂, with etiquette rules that applied to a guest, not an official. A similar discourse could also be traced back to Han dynasty. In the reign of Xuan-Ti, when the Huns surrendered to the Han, a minster named Xiao-Wangzi pointed out that a 'host-guest' relationship meant that barbarians were treated as being from a foreign country. Thus their surrender was up to their own will. However, if the 'emperor-official' relationship were used, China held an obligation to ensure their official status as well as the barbarians surrender. Tu wrote about this case not in ＂etiquette to guest＂ but in ＂frontier defense＂, which illustrates that Tu did not regard the interaction between Han dynasty and the Huns as etiquette to guest, but only that barbarians took the initiative to surrender to China. It was an interaction between China's frontier and barbarians. These types of interaction were not same as Tu's notion of etiquette to guest. In the third part, I explore how the etiquette to guests functioned in Tang's institutional operation. The agency and institution showed an unwillingness to take the initiative to interfere with matters outside ＂Jiu-zhou＂. This attitude was still different from ＂Tong-tien＂, which opposed any interaction between Tang and barbarians. Tu's thought was more radical, even though he seemed opposed to the tributary system in Tang dynasty.

1. (2001).周禮.臺北:新文豐出版公司.
2. （宋）歐陽脩(1975).新唐書.北京:中華書局.
3. （後晉）劉昫(1975).舊唐書.北京:中華書局.
4. （唐）元稹(2011).元稹集校注.上海:上海古籍出版社.
5. （唐）李林甫(1992).唐六典.北京:中華書局.
6. （唐）杜佑(1988).通典.北京:中華書局.
7. （唐）張鷟(1995).龍筋鳳髓判.北京:中國政法大學.
8. （漢）班固(1962).漢書.北京:中華書局.
9. 甘懷真(2011)。第三世紀辰王政權與東亞冊封體制。新史學，22(3)，9-70。
10. 甘懷真(2011)。從《唐律》化外人規定看唐代國籍制度。早期中國史研究，3(2)，1-32。
11. 任爽(2001).唐朝典章制度.長春:吉林文史出版社.
12. 吳宗國(2010).唐代科舉制度研究.北京:北京大學出版社.
13. 李峰,吳敏娜（譯）(2010).西周的政體──中國早期的官僚制度和國家.北京:三聯書店.
14. 高明士(1999)。再論賓貢與賓貢科。臺大文史哲學報，50，233-251。
15. 高明士(1999).隋唐貢舉制度.臺北:文津出版社.
16. 高明士(2012).律令法與天下法.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
17. 高明士(1997)。賓貢與賓貢科──張寶三〈唐「賓貢進士」及其相關問題考〉一文質疑。臺大文史哲學報，46，1-13。
18. 高明士(2008)。隋唐天下秩序與羈縻府州制度。天下秩序與文化圈的探索──以東亞古代的政治與教育為中心，上海:
19. 張寶三(1998)。再論唐「賓貢進士」──敬答高明士先生之質疑。臺大文史哲學報，48，167-198。
20. 張寶三(1996)。唐「賓貢進士」及其相關問題論考。語文、情性、義理：中國文學的多層面探討國際學術會議論文集，臺北:
21. 陳寅恪(1980)。唐代政治史述略論稿。隋唐制度淵源略論稿．唐代政治史述略論稿，臺北:
22. 廣瀨憲雄(2009)。唐後半期から北宋の外交儀礼：「対」の制度と関連して。史學雜誌，118(7)，1306-1329。
23. 蔡宗憲(2008).中古前期的交聘與南北互動.新北:稻鄉出版社.
24. 黎虎(1998).漢唐外交制度史.蘭州:蘭州大學出版社.
25. 嚴耕望(2009)。論唐代尚書省之職權與地位。嚴耕望史學論文集，上海:
26. 厳基珠(2005)。唐における新羅の「宿衛」と「賓貢」。專修人文論集，77，329-349。