簡帛文獻與《詩經》書寫文本之研究

Abstract

先秦兩漢文本書寫的具體面貌是研究中國經典解釋的重大課題，近幾十年來簡牘帛書大量出土，提供了極具效益的研究材料。本論文以《詩經》文本作為研究對象，通過對出土與傳世《詩經》異文的搜集整理，從漢字體系的性質與文本書寫的角度討論先秦兩漢《詩經》文本書寫流傳的具體面貌，以及說明各家解釋的基本方法與差異內容。論文在各章節以《詩經》「書寫文本」為中心，討論與此相關的各項議題，包括回應目前學術界的相關意見等，總結以下六點結論： 第一，《詩經》異文形成於漢字體系之記號化與反記號化：本論文擬訂「異文關係構圖」，說明異文形成於漢字體系的「寫詞」層面。這一種寫詞模式的特點是：一個字形表達多個詞義（一字表多詞）與多個字形表達一個詞義（多字表一詞，本論文稱為「異文組」），由此造成多個字形表達多個詞義（多字表多詞，本論文稱為「異文群組」）。同時論文又舉《詩經》異文實例說明漢字體系結合《詩經》文本解釋而產生記號化與反記號化的現象。「異文組」研究方法的提出，有助於先秦兩漢傳世與出土文獻字詞的考釋與解讀，回應目前學術界對於出土文獻考釋異說紛陳的問題。 第二，先秦兩漢《詩經》文本以變動固定之交互方式流傳：本論文指出先秦兩漢《詩經》以口耳傳授和書寫文本的方式流傳，同時書寫文本是以一種「異文」雜出的「變動性文本」以及「本字」尋求的相對暫時「固定性文本」的互動方式流傳的，先秦兩漢任何一個《詩經》文本都只是一個相對暫時的「固定性文本」。《詩經》文本的變動性與先秦兩漢發生的相關學術史事件有若干連繫，包括秦火、隸變、今古文等，然而其中的因果關係與目前學術界的認知稍有出入，本論文對此進一步釐清。 第三，西漢三家《詩》傳承戰國魯楚、齊、三晉學術系統：本論文分析傳承人物的時代與地域，指出各家《詩經》文本具有多種方言的複雜性質，足以說明各別家派分立不是基於文本的單一地域或時代的緣故，因此博士官設立之初與《詩經》文本來源和傳承的地域無關。唯三家《詩經》博士官與戰國學術流派關係密切，可分為魯楚與魯詩、齊稷下與齊詩、三晉與韓詩等三大系統，至於《毛詩》則屬於各諸侯王之間的眾小系統之一。此外，論文比對傳世與出土《詩經》文本用字，說明任一學派的《詩經》文本用字皆同中有異，異中有同，無法僅依用字來區別所屬詩派。同時認為阜陽《詩經》、〈碩人〉銘神獸鏡、武威漢簡《儀禮．燕禮》引《詩》、上博〈孔子詩論〉皆是當時用字同異互見的眾多變動性文本之一。至於熹平石經《詩經》則是為尋求固定性文本而刊刻的。 第四，兩漢《詩經》解釋著作的類型名稱與內容多混淆通用：本論文指出以變動或固定《詩經》文本所發展的解釋著作，其型態具有多種不同的類型與稱名。《詩經》文本與解釋著作在傳授過程中，可能產生增刪更改，或後出取代前出，或旋出旋亡，各學派的文本與解釋內容都存在部份相同與歧異的情況，無法確鑿區分學派差異的標準。其中解釋類型的稱名只是就最初解釋方式著眼命名而已，在往後的文獻引用中多相混不定，同時解釋著作多先有解釋內容，隨著不同階段的集結之後才有稱名，因此後世依據解釋方式所訂定的區分標準，實無法區別所有解釋類型的稱名。至於解釋內容亦往往相互通用，不能僅據內容來斷定解釋類型的稱名。兩漢《詩經》解釋著作的內容龐雜，大部份與先秦以來各類單篇別行之作類似，論文又以上博〈孔子詩論〉、〈子羔〉與阜陽《詩經》殘片為例，說明面對這些單篇別行之作，不能以其內容來判定其必為《詩經》某一類型的解釋著作，相對的，更不能以後世漢代命名的類型來反推先秦單篇別行之作的類型稱名。 第五，《詩經》文本以聲訓方法促成詩無達詁之解釋空間：本論文指出變動或固定《詩經》文本的解釋著作立足於「多字表多詞」的基礎，以「詩無達詁」為解釋觀點，又以「聲韻訓釋」為解釋方法。本論文例舉四個異文群組說明「《詩》無達詁」發生的必然性，從中可見漢字體系詞義表達的混淆。論文又舉傳世文獻所引《詩經》解釋著作涉及「聲韻訓釋」的部份進行說明。同時比對《詩經》的「異文」與《毛傳》、《釋名》二書「聲韻訓釋」的情況。 第六，《詩經》文本以異文群組多字表多詞建立解釋論題：本論文指出《詩經》各類型解釋著作多由「多字表多詞」的理解與訓釋基礎出發，經由多個不同字形與詞義的選擇，擴大推闡詩句與詩旨以建構一套思想體系，或是普遍性的解釋論題。本論文例舉六個「多字表多詞」的「異文群組」來說明先秦兩漢《詩經》相關解釋的思想論題。

The precise ways in which texts were written in Early China present a key question for the interpretation of the Chinese classics. Books written on bamboo and silk, excavated in large numbers in the last several decades, provide the most valuable data for investigating this question. This study takes as its basis the texts of the Book of Odes, particularly their textual variants, as collected and sorted from excavated and transmitted texts. From the perspectives of the nature of the Chinese writing system, on the one hand, and the writing of texts, on the other hand, this study examines, first, the precise ways in which the texts of the Odes were written and transmitted, and secondly, the methodologies as well as the differences among the various traditions of interpretation. Throughout, the study focuses on the written texts of the Odes, considering them from a variety of perspectives and responding to the relevant views currently held among scholars. There are six main arguments. One, the textual variants of the Odes are a consequence of two tendencies in the Chinese writing system: “symbolization” and “de-symbolization.” Specifying their relations with one another, this study suggests that textual variants are generated in the ways of representing language that are specific to the Chinese writing system. Namely, a single character can represent multiple words, while multiple characters can represent a single word. This study refers to the latter of these two characteristics in terms of “groups of textual variants,” and the broader phenomenon of multiple characters representing multiple words as “webs of textual variants.” It cites actual examples of textual variants from the texts of the Odes, showing how the phenomena of “symbolization” and “de-symbolization” are observed in the interplay of the writing system and the interpretation of the texts of the Odes. Such understandings contribute to the reading and interpretation of transmitted and excavated texts from Early China, responding to the challenge of adjudicating among different reading and interpretations. Secondly, texts of the Odes from Early China are transmitted in the alternating forms of stability and change. While texts of the Odes from Early China were transmitted in oral as well as written forms, in the case of written transmission, this takes the alternating forms of a changing text with multiple textual variants, on the one hand, and a stable text which makes an attempt at fixing the writing, on the other. Such alternation between stability and change is closely entwined with the intellectual history of Early China, including the burning of the books during the Qin, the introduction of clerical script, and the debate between the “current script” and “ancient script” traditions. Reviewing these famous episodes, this study attempts to clarify their nature, providing explanations that are often different from those currently held among scholars. Thirdly, the three schools of the Odes during the Western Han transmitted scholarly traditions of the Warring States in Lu-Chu, Qi, and Jin. By investigating the activities of the various transmitters, in both time and space, this study shows that the three schools of the Odes officially recognized during the Han were not based upon certain texts of the Odes that could be associated with a specific region or a specific period. Instead, they were based on the people, the boshi 博士 “erudite scholars,” who can be traced back to intellectual lineages of the Warring States: the Lu school to a Lu-Chu lineage, the Qi 齊 school to a Qi lineage, particularly at Jixia 稷下, and the Han 韓 school to a Jin lineage. By contrast, the Mao 毛 school was among the various minor traditions of the Han feudal kings, corresponding to similar minor lineages of the Warring States. Comparing transmitted texts of the Odes with their counterparts in excavated texts, this study shows that the texts of the various schools resemble each other in some aspects, while differing in others; the text alone is not sufficient for distinguishing them. This is true for the Fuyang 阜陽 text of the Odes, an Eastern Han mirror inscribed with the poem “Shuoren” 碩人 (The stately person), the text of the Odes cited in the Yili 儀禮 (Rites and etiquettes) from Wuwei 武威, and the “Kongzi shi lun” 孔子詩論 (Confucius’ discussion of the Odes) from the Shanghai Museum; all are among the variable texts of the time, and they have texts that resemble each other in some aspects, while differing in others. As for the Xiping 熹平 stone classics of the Eastern Han, these were inscribed specifically to create a stable text. Fourthly, with regard to the interpretative works of the Odes, the names of the various genres and their respective contents were often not only interchangeable, but also confused. During their transmission, the texts of the Odes and their interpretive works acquired new contents as well as giving up old ones; later works replaced earlier works; and some disappeared just as quickly they appeared. Such changes resulted in the fact that the texts and contents of the various schools resembled each other in some aspects, while differing in others. Thus, there is no clear standard for distinguishing the various schools. As for the interpretative works, they were classified under different genres, with different titles, though these were often based on earlier manifestations of those works, and they were easily confused over time. The same is true with regard to the contents of those works, which accumulated over time or were exchanged among different works, and this resulted in a mismatch between a title and the content it refers to; a title that was indicated at one point might not correspond to the content observed at another. Such confusion is related to the fact that pre-Qin texts circulated in the small unit of pian 篇. Using the examples of the “Kongzi shi lun,” the “Zigao” 子羔, and fragments from Fuyang, the study shows that these texts cannot be grouped, based on content, with any genre of the interpretative works of the Odes. Likewise, they cannot be named according to the standards of the Han. Fifthly, the texts of the Odes employ paronomastic glosses to create an interpretative space for the Odes, where the poems have no fixed interpretation. The interpretative works of the Odes are founded on the principle that multiple characters can represent multiple words; they adopt the view that the poems can have no fixed interpretation; and they make use of paronomastic glosses as their interpretative strategy. These points are illustrated by four examples, which show how the confusion of representing a language that is inherent in the writing system leads directly to the lack of a fixed interpretation for the poems. Additionally, the study comments on the interpretative works of the Odes that make use of paronomastic glosses, comparing them with the textual variants of the Odes and those paronomastic glosses seen in the Mao commentary and the Shiming 釋名 (Explicating names). Finally, the texts of the Odes devise discursive topics based on the principle in the writing system that multiple characters can represent multiple words. This study shows that the various interpretative works of the Odes proceeded from such an understanding; by choosing among different characters and different words, they elaborated on the meanings of the poems, constructed intellectual schemes, and devised general discursive topics. At the end of this study, these points are illustrated by six specific examples.