清代學者「禮書」復仇觀的省察與詮釋

傳統「禮書」的復仇材料，歷經先秦、兩漢、魏晉南北朝、隨唐，以至宋代經生、儒士的陸續詮解、闡發，元明學者大抵因循舊說，少有開創。清代學者對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋，既打破元明時期沉寂的復仇議題，又帶有鮮明的時代色彩。本文分三期述論之：一、清初學者對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋：王夫之對《周禮‧地官‧調人》「和難」的解釋，不取宋懦的「過失」說，而回歸唐‧孔穎達、賈公彥的「赦有」說；惠士奇則另闢「四海之外，別有一天」之說，以解釋《周禮》、二戴《禮記》經文的矛盾。清初禮學雖不發達，王、惠二儒已不再踵承宋人舊說，一改元明風氣。二、《欽定三禮義疏》對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋：乾隆元年（1736）詔閒「三禮館」、纂修三《禮》義疏，是為三《禮》之官定學說。《欽定周官義疏》多留意字句訓話、名物考證，開乾嘉學風之先河；《欽定禮記義疏》則承繼宋懦的詮釋進路，企圖會通《公羊》與古《周禮》之復仇學說，並多引宋儒之說以為補充，二書之詮釋性格頗不相同，其涉及復仇議題者，本文皆具體舉證論析。三、乾嘉學者對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋：隨著考據學風興起，清儒對「禮書」復仇觀的詮釋，也呈現新面貌：重視字詞訓解、名物考證。此一特色與《欽定周官義疏》相近而更為細密。江永、王引之、俞樾，以至孫詒讓等學者，面對「禮書」復仇材料的態度，大有異於宋元明學者之重視義理的詮釋與試圖調和禮法衝突，而多專注於文本的字詞考察與制度詮解，具體反映乾嘉時代的學術特色。文末則對漢代以降的「禮書」復仇觀作一歷時性的省察，探究其詮釋觀點、詮解方式的嬗變之跡，總結歷代「禮書」復仇觀的沿革與特色，並呈顯清代學者之學術性格與治學特色。

關鍵字

復仇；復仇觀；禮書；禮／法衝突；乾嘉考據學

並列摘要

Classicists in the pre-Qin, Han, Six Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Song Dynasties have long treated the issue of revenge in the Rites canon, but their interpretations diverged slightly from their predecessors'. However, breaking the relative silence on the issue in the Yuan-Ming period, Qing scholars broke new ground with their innovative interpretations. This paper is organized into the following three parts: A. The interpretation of revenge in the Rites canon by early Qing scholars: Wang Fu-zhi endorses the idea of ”conflict resolution” outlined in the ”Tiaoren” section of Zhouli's ”Diguan” chapter. Instead of accepting Song scholars' treatment of revenge as wrongdoing, Wang returns to embrace Kong Yingda's and Jiagong Yan's idea of ”amnesty” for avengers. Hui Shi-qi, for his part, opens up new interpretations to resolve the contradictions regarding revenge presented in the Zhouli and the Two Dai's Liji. B. The interpretation of revenge in the Rites canon by scholars in the Qinding Santi yishu (Imperial subcommentaries on the Three Rites). In the first year ofQianlong's reign (1736), the emperor opened the ”Sanli Academy” and ordered the compilation of subcommentaries on the Three Rites to standardize official interpretations. Participating in the beginnings of a new scholastic culture in the Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns, scholars authoring and editing the Qinding Zhouguan yishu (Imperial subcommentaries on the Zhou Rites) took a mostly philological approach to the interpretations of the language, institutions, and objects in the text. But authors and editors of the Qinding Liji yishu (Imperial subcommentaries on the Book of Rites) largely followed and supplemented the interpretations of Song classicists, who had sought to harmonize the views toward revenge in the Gongyang tradition and Zhouli. These two imperial compilations represent quite different modes of interpretation with regard to the issue of revenge. C. The interpretation of revenge in the Rites canon by scholars of the Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns: Scholars of this period devoted themselves to the linguistic and philological study of the texts as their predecessors had done for the Qinding Zhouguan yishu. Taking part in this general scholastic trend, Jiang Yong, Wang Yinzhi, Yu Yue, and Sun Yirang departed from the focus of Song scholars on the ethical implications of the conflict between li (ritual) and fa (legalism). They preferred instead to apply philological rigor to their study of texts. This paper concludes with a broad survey of the interpretations of revenge in the Rites canon from the Han period onward, summing up the development of such scholarly views and methodologies across time.