明代通禮書對朱熹「曲禮」說的繼承與轉化

本文嘗試考察禮學史中鮮受關注的明代通禮書，指出它們接受朱熹《儀禮經傳通解》中對經禮、曲禮的新解，進而抬升曲禮作為主要禮類型之一的共通傾向。從成化年間偽託吳澄的《三禮考註》開始，貢汝成、湛若水、柯尚遷、李經綸、鄧元錫、唐伯元、黃道周等人通禮書中的曲禮論述，雖然認定的文獻範圍不盡相同，大抵著重「行乎日用之間」的面向而淡化「行乎經禮之中」者。通禮書中的曲禮也逐漸翻轉經／曲原有的本／末關係，取代經禮成為禮之本，甚至出現以之撤換《禮記》的「新三禮說」，從典籍之三轉變為類型之三。這些現象一方面反映〈大學〉修齊治平的實踐次第，一方面也反映明儒行道途徑由得君退縮為覺民的策略調整。若進一步綰合其他明儒言，還能發現這種提倡低門檻、高頻率禮類型的主張，乃以須臾不可離的實踐對治揣想本體、動輒語悟之弊。以上種種，既不只發自通禮書撰作者之口，也不限於特定思想學派，卻是明代獨有的禮學群體現象。若正視此一脈絡的起訖時間，勢必有助於調整現有的明代禮學史論述。

關鍵字

通禮；曲禮；明代禮學；儀禮經傳通解；三禮

並列摘要

This article attempts to investigate Ming dynasty comprehensive ritual books 通禮書, a source material which has received little scholarly attention, indicating that these works have inherited Zhu Xi's 朱熹 (1130-1200) new interpretations of ＂jing li＂經禮 and ＂qu li＂曲禮 (＂rules of propriety＂) from Yili jingzhuan tong jie 儀禮經傳通解 and even elevate the latter as an important type of ritual. First disguised in Wu Cheng's 吳澄 (1249-1333) San li kao zhu 三禮考註 starting in the reign of the Chenghua Emperor, ＂qu li＂ began being discussed in the comprehensive ritual books of Gong Rucheng 貢汝成 (1476-1539), Zhan Ruoshui 湛若水 (1466-1560), Ke Shangqian 柯尚遷 (fl. sixteenth century), Li Jinglun 李經綸 (?-?), Deng Yuanxi 鄧元錫 (1529-1593), Tang Boyuan 唐伯元 (?-?), Huang Daozhou 黃道周 (1585-1646), etc. Although the scope of the writings is not necessarily the same, the majority emphasize the aspect of daily use and ignore portions that are performed in ceremonies. At the same time, the ＂qu li＂ found within comprehensive ritual books gradually reverses the relationship between the beginning 本, or source, and the end 末 originally held by ＂jing＂ and ＂qu,＂ replacing ＂jing li＂ as the beginning of rituals and even supplanting the Book of Rites 禮記 to form a new theory of ＂san li＂三禮, namely moving from the ＂san＂ of canon to the ＂san＂ of type. In one respect, these phenomena reflect the practical order within the ＂Great Learning＂大學, and in another, mirror the strategic adjustment of Ming Confucian approaches from cooperating with rulership towards teaching the people. If we further combine the thoughts of other Ming scholars, we can find that the promotion of low-threshold, high-frequency propriety types employs notions of continuous practice to counter rival ontological discourses. The above, however, is neither exclusive to the authors of comprehensive ritual books nor limited to specific ideological groups, but is instead unique to ritual study in the Ming dynasty. If able to recognize the developments and time period of these phenomena, we can then further existing discussions on the history of Ming rituals.