北風去南風回－論鄭和下西洋之新說與舊說

西元1931年在福建長樂南山寺出土的「天妃靈應之記」碑，記載了鄭和七次下西洋的史蹟，但出使年代與明史紀錄稍有不同。其中一次碑文載永樂五年至七年之役，明史不載，男一次明史載永樂二十二年舊港之行，碑文不載。兩者同為七下西洋，而內容不盡相間，因此有舊說與新說之別。本文根據季風變化與航海往返之規律，參酌些曾被質疑或被忽略的史料，重新詮釋這兩次有爭論的西洋之行。事實上，鄭和於永樂五年九月第一次西洋行返回南京後，直留在國內。鄭和在永樂六年九月再次奉詔後，便積極籌備第二次航海事宜，他在永樂七年一月奏請明成中且封海神宋靈車夫人為弘仁普濟天妃並建祠于儀鳳門，永樂七年二月奏請皇帝佈施錫蘭山佛寺，同年三月籌組航海官兵及錢糧、及備妥大明皇帝敕諭諸番國之昭告文等事項。這些事實說明了鄭和在永樂五年至七年間，沒有親率船隊下西洋。關於永樂二十二年鄭和奉命賜印印尼舊港施進卿之子施濟孫請襲宣慰使之事，明史記之，而碑文略之，碑文不計此放，學者看法不一。其一有謂此放不及印度洋而不計西洋之旅者，其二有謂成祖駕崩後仁宗繼位罷寶船，故有受命而未成行之說者，其三有謂鄭和無法在月受命梭的七個月內完成任務，並於八月回京者。然而本文參考《前聞記》所載鄭和宣德年航海，重估南京舊港問之行程，認為此行乃輕舟簡從之臨時任務，可以在四個月內完成舊港之放。此外，成祖於永樂二十二年七月辛卯駕崩榆木川行次，朝廷以六軍在外密不發喪，仁宗八月丁巳繼位後，始罷寶船，鄭和不可能在受命後遲未啟程而設失風信。因此，鄭和是在完成賜印舊港酋長回京後，始聞成祖駕崩消息。綜上所述，明史所云鄭和七下西洋之舊說，仍較碑文為合理可信。

關鍵字

鄭和航海；西洋；明史；「天妃靈應之記」碑；季風

並列摘要

Ever since the unearthing of the Tien-fei-ling-ying-zhi-chi inscription in 1931 at the Nan-san Temple in Fu-chien province, Chinese historians and scholars have debated over claims about the actual voyages made by Zheng-he during the period 1407-1431 A.D.. Much of the controversy was centered on the voyage made during 1407 to 1409 A.D.. and the voyage made in 1424 A.D.. The confusion of the debate arose from what evidence was provided by the Ming-shih vs. what was revealed by the Tien-fei-ling-ying-zhi-chi inscription. According to climatic and historical sources, Zheng-he had crossed the South-China Sea and the Indian Ocean several times before and after the 1407-1409 A.D. voyage. However, because he had to lead a fleet of ships staffed with 27,000 crewmembers, it was unlikely that he could have finished three round-trips in six years during 1405-1411. Moreover, during 1407-1409, Zheng-he was busy preparing a monument for a Buddhist temple in Sri Lanka, planning and organizing necessities for crewmembers for the 1409 voyage. He was not even on the ocean as he stayed behind in China during 1407-1409. Regarding the 1424 A.D. voyage, the completion of the trip was questioned because the Ming-shih had no record of the date of return. While that voyage was short and considered not important by some interpretations, it still would have been possible to complete it in due time with reference to Chien-wen-chi which recorded the last trip of Zheng He. Overall, statements in the Ming-shih tend to be more reliable than those made by the Tien-fei-ling-ying inscription concerning Zheng-he’s voyages in the Ming Dynasty.