A Study on Zheng Xuan's Integration of the Three Books of Rite
|Keywords:||鄭玄;三禮;三禮注;會通;互注;推致;通學;Zheng Xuan;Zhouli;Yili;Xiao Dai Liji;Sanli;integration;Tuizhi||Issue Date:||2015||Abstract:||
東漢的鄭玄有「通儒」的美譽，於遭黨錮之禍時遍注《周禮》、《儀禮》與小戴《禮記》，並會通彼此，使其體系化而成為一有機之整體。其意圖是在廓清「周公制禮」的內容與精神，以做為統貫六經的脈絡，也為漢末衰世提供一套足資借鑒、重振綱紀的治世藍圖。 鄭玄的會通是選擇《周禮》做為取捨、統攝其他二《禮》的核心依據。他認為《周禮》是周公所定，承載了周公秉受天命與文、武兩位聖王之意而制作的「周禮」，故與《儀禮》同樣具有神聖性與合理性，彼此不存在衝突，相異處只是側重的面向不同罷了。漢人本以《儀禮》為「禮經」，鄭玄為了將《周禮》抬升至核心，就必須重新定位兩部禮書的關係。他利用天子王朝之禮與諸侯國地方之制的關係，初步賦予彼此不同的屬性，又利用「經禮、曲禮」與「吉凶賓軍嘉」五禮的架構，將「經禮」置換為《周禮》，《儀禮》則移挪至從屬的地位。 至於《禮記》，雖屬傳記，但它對鄭玄以「周禮」為目標的禮學建構，提供不少助益，也產生不少干擾。助益處在於：其中有關禮義的論述文字，可以取用來說明或賦予其他二《禮》在官制、禮典上的制作意涵；記錄虞夏商周歷朝禮制的資料，可取來做為進一步比對周禮與非周禮記錄；而大量不見載於《周禮》、《儀禮》或從不同面向來敘述的禮制儀文，可補充其他二《禮》的細節，令鄭玄所欲廓清的郁郁周文之面貌更為完整。至於帶來干擾的記文，以〈王制〉與〈月令〉為最，這兩篇記文的內容長期被漢儒視為「周禮」，甚至肯定為周公所作，這對鄭玄以《周禮》為核心所建構的體系，造成根源性的威脅。鄭玄採以經駁記的進路，動搖全篇皆是周制的權威性，又標誌其內容有虞夏殷等前王之禮，還有東周衰世之法及暴秦之制，反映的不盡然是王道，有「雜糅」的撰述特質，摧陷其神聖性。 對於《禮記》其他記文，除去違僭之禮不計，鄭玄多是以「周禮╱非周禮」來界定其屬性；此等方式，鄭玄予以規律化，成效超越了前人，因為驗核「周禮」的主要依據定在《周禮》與《儀禮》，又明定「周禮之正」唯有周公所制之禮，而非國祚八百年間的任何記錄，令標準與體系的範圍不再游移。然而，鄭玄進一步細分《禮記》內那些不屬周制的前王之禮究竟該歸於何朝何代時，判定結果依舊不完全合理或明確，因為多是從「相對的角度」舉證，故有強分或臆測之嫌。不過，這對鄭玄的禮學建構並不妨害，因為他對「非周禮」的鑑別不是為了「排除」，許多界定為「非周禮」的材料，仍然在「因革損益」的觀點之下，對「周禮」的面貌做了相當的補充。這種融通、不對立的操作方式，是鄭玄會通的一大特質。 鑑別「非周禮」的材料後，鄭玄將三《禮》其餘的紛歧，視為是「周禮」在不同面向上的書寫。他透過「互注」、「互證」來疏通彼此，在勘誤、訓詁、補充、申明，調和、以及界定屬性及關係等種種具體操作中，展現三部禮書的記錄如何在多向且反饋的作用裡，貫串為縝密的一個體系。 鄭玄又透過「禮例」與「推致」來推演與會通禮文。操作概念來自禮的有序性；若能類聚一系列相關的儀節或器物，排列並了解其次第變化的規律，紬繹隱伏在當中的邏輯，就彷彿張開了一張網絡，不僅可以將禮書間的材料一一歸位，達到會通的效果，更可據有推無，為那些不見載的禮制儀文推演出可能的、或必然的樣態。這些方法是承繼西漢經師而來，但鄭玄擺脫從《儀禮》來推求的單一進路，而在「會通」的基礎上，深掘了更多的原則與線索，擴大了推演的面向。 鄭玄亦利用讖緯來組織三《禮》在天地神祇與相關祀典等體系上的紛歧無序，以期會通彼此。得以如此操作，在於三部禮書對這類材料的書寫，除了追述西周祀典，也摻入許多戰國時期的新信仰與宇宙觀，史實與擬想交雜，而這些又一併成為日後讖緯學說與漢代官方祀典的建構來源之一。鄭玄無法明辨其間的發展歷程與差異，又囿限於漢人以緯書為內學的經學傳統，故有所應用。 最後，是檢討鄭玄會通三《禮》的得失，以及在後世三《禮》學的發展與影響。檢討得失的角度，筆者認為不該聚焦在鄭玄的詮釋是否符合西周的史實，畢竟三部禮書在撰作上已積累不同時代的制度，又經過理想化的改造，不全然是實錄；而鄭玄所處的年代，尚缺乏足夠出土文獻以辨明禮書記錄與西周史實的差距，故堅信之而據以會通，成果自然有誤。應該改以經學傳統的立場來檢討，了解鄭玄會通三《禮》成一體系的意義是在標舉一套「價值」──一套秩序井然，結構穩固、關係明確，有致太平之功的盛世禮制，因此檢討的視角應該回到體系內，觀察鄭玄操作會通的諸種方法與步驟，是否合理地疏通分歧與矛盾，令體系內的秩序穩固合宜，後續才是檢驗這些會通方法是否曲解三《禮》的本然意義，或掩蓋了禮書的哪些撰述特性。
Zheng Xuan (鄭玄) of the Eastern Han Dynasty made thorough commentaries on the Three Books of Rite : Zhouli (《周禮》）, Yili (《儀禮》), and Xiao Dai Liji (小戴《禮記》). He integrated them to build a school of Ritualism of his own, with the intention to reproduce and clarify the content and the spirit of Zhou Gong’s establishment of Zhou rites and to use them as the inner context that would penetrate the Six Classics. He also aimed to provide a grand scheme that would be strong enough to rally the order in the decaying late Han period. In the Han Dynasty, which ruled the state on the foundation of Classics, in order to make his academic value and his grand scheme consistent, Zheng explained that the essence of both Zhouli and Yili followed not only the divine mandate Zhou Gong received but also the ideas of two Sage Kings, Wen of Zhou and Wu of Zhou, as well as the rituals they made. Therefore, Zhouli and Yili shared the same sacredness and legitimacy. When integrating Zhouli and Yili, Zheng Xuan used the relationship between the centralized system dictated by emperors and the local governments system based on vassal states to give the two books of rites different natures respectively. Also, by using the structure of ""Jingli Sanbai, Quli Sanqian"" (經禮三百，曲禮三千) and ""Five Ceremonies"" (五禮), he transferred the core of Ritualism and the core of the Classic system onto Zhouli, leaving Yili relatively subordinate. As for Liji, although it was just an expounder of the Classic, it had deeply affected the structure Zheng Xuan constructed based on Zhou Gong’s establishment of Zhou rites in various ways. In particular, the Han people considered the writings of “Wangzhi” (〈王制〉) and “Yueling” (〈月令〉) in Liji reflections of Zhou rites. People even believed they were done by Zhou Gong himself. Such assumptions deeply sabotaged the system Zheng Xuan built around Zhouli. In response, Zheng refuted the expounder with the Classics, in order to shake up people’s belief that its authority came from Zhou rites. He demonstrated how some of the contexts were related to the dictatorship in the Spring and Autumn Era and the Qin Dynasty, and therefore, they were not the way of a benevolent king. By doing so, he destroyed the sacredness of it. How Zheng Xuan defined things in terms of “Zhou rites/non Zhou-rites” and how he regulated his method made his work more successful than his predecessors. This is because he made Zhouli and Yili his criteria in the determination of “Zhou rite”. He also defined clearly that only the rites made by Zhou Gong are the rightful Zhou rites, not any other rituals or rites in the eight hundred year span of the Zhou Dynasty. By doing that, he gave clear guidelines to what the criteria were and made a clear compass for the system. Nevertheless, if we were to look into which dynasty the non-Zhou rites belong to, Zhen’s determination may not fully stand or even take place as such. His arguments are often based on “relative perspectives”, which risk being arbitrary and speculative. Yet he strongly believed that only Sage Kings who followed divine mandate were qualified to make rites and rituals, and only such ones possessed the value that would bring peace and harmony. Although Zheng Xuan defined the compass of “Zhou rites” in terms of their literature and concept, in the construction of the Ritualistic system, the materials that were defined as “non-Zhou rites” still added to the features of Zhou rites because the new dynasty might follow the ritual system of the previous one, and people tended to make innovation based one inheritance. In other words, when Zheng Xuan made the integrative Sanli (三《禮》) , he did not see the Zhou rites and the non-Zhou rites as opposite; instead, they were well linked up with each other. Having clarified about “non-Zhou rites”, Zheng Xuan regarded the rest of Sanli as wirings about Zhou rites from different perspectives. He then used mutual interpretation to help understand each other in order to make corrections, critical explanations, complementary notes, and harmony, as well as to define their attributes and relations. He did that to make the complex record of rites and rituals clearer and more correct and to help connect itself into an impeccable system. Zheng not only used the more systematic Zhouli to determine the contents of Yili and Liji, but also used the latter two to add or define the details of the former as well as of the attributes of the undefied rituals. He even did that in cross usage, making it multi-directional and responsive to each other. There is another purpose to the “mutial interpretation”: cross-examination. It is more than just comparing the above-mentioned “well-defined / ambiguous” materials. More importantly, it was to make dialogues with the traditional Ritualistic circle with all the integration. In other words, if Yili, which reflected Zhou rites and was based on Government schools, were thoroughly compatible with Zhouli and held clear attributes, and moreover, if Liji, which Confucian scholars chose to add to and to help explain Yili, could also work for Zhouli, then the fact that the three books of rites actually shared the same nature and were all records of Zhou rites was revealed abundantly clear. In addition to the mutual interpretation and cross-examination, Zheng Xuan also used Lili (禮例) and Tuizhi (推致) with the attempt to infer the parts and bits that were supposed to exist in the books of rites but were left unwritten, in order to make the system of Zhou rites more complete. Although he inherited the methodology from Western Han Ritualists, he lost inferring from the limited rites of Yili’s seventeen chapters. Instead, on the basis of integration, he dug more referable principles and clues, and expanded inferable aspects. Zheng Xuan also referred to Chenwei (讖緯) to ease out the contradictions and organize the chaos in the three books of rites regarding the materials on deities and related worship ceremonies. Although it is true that explaining the Classics with Chenwei went against the humanistic approach of Confucianism, Zheng still managed to do it because the knowledge and writings of the three books of rites have already gone far beyond recounting Western Zhou ceremonies. Plenty of the new beliefs and world outlook of the Warring States period were involved. There were records of historical facts as well as idealized fictitious elements, all of which became the source of construction for Chenwei texts and official Han ceremonies. Lastly, the results of Zheng Xuan’s “integration” are to be examined at three different levels. First, are there any differences from historical facts? Second, has it interpreted the original meanings of the books of rite precisely? Third, being a school of knowledge that lives in the commentaries, is it solid and meticulous enough to be free from inconsistency? Regarding the first question, comparing to the literature unearthed in modern times, Zheng’s understanding certainly does not match the historical facts. However, given that Zheng would not have been able to see these materials, examining him in such a way may seem unfair. As for the second question, the writings of the three books of rites involve materials from different periods and are reformed in an “idealized” way. Also, the reason why some ritual details appear different in different books of rites may just be results of adaptation. It may not be necessary to define them as rules or regulations of different classes or periods. And in order to integrate into one single system, it is obvious that Zheng would fail to point out such facts and even twist some of the contents. Lastly, in terms of the third question, as a Confucian scholar who attempts to build a doctrine of his own, he has clear methodology that holds value, standard, and principles of explanation, and he also does his best keeping it consistent. Even though there might be speculations, unfounded opinions, or inconsistency, generally speaking, such problems, which might just be results of his negligence, are rather few. His work still holds great value in spite of the minor demerits.
|Appears in Collections:||中國文學系|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.