夷夏觀研究：從春秋歷史到《春秋》經傳的考察

Changing Yi-Xia Distinction: Spring and Autumn Period and the Classical Writing of Its History

魏千鈞(China-Jiun Wei)

指導教授 ： 何澤恒

國立臺灣大學/文學院/中國文學研究所/博士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.02269

摘要

春秋時期的夷夏觀念是學術上一個重要的議題，不但具有歷史意義，同時也具備經學上的意義。本文試圖結合這兩者進行探討，關注春秋當時的夷夏觀念為何，包含夷夏之間透過怎樣的標準進行區分，這種區分意識的運作具有何種性質與意義，以及這樣的觀念對《春秋》經傳的影響為何，《春秋》與三傳又闡發出具有何種特色的夷夏觀念。
在夷夏區分的標準方面，本文歸結當時建立於文化以及血緣兩項標準之上。不過當時各地的文化面貌相當複雜，顯出以文化區分的主觀特性。在透過秦、楚、吳為例探討夷夏身份歸屬問題時，發現秦被視為諸夏，楚被視為蠻夷，但是兩國在春秋時期卻同時不認為自己歸屬於夷或夏；吳則是姬姓國家被視為蠻夷，應是蠻夷國家透過血緣的攀附，試圖融入諸夏圈的案例。分析春秋時期的的夷夏關係時發現夷夏各國之間牽動的政治利益相當複雜，不利於族群認同的凝聚，因此將夷夏對立視為當時局勢的發展核心，恐有過於誇大的嫌疑。另一方面透過上國與辟陋這組政治地理觀念的產生，顯示春秋中晚期後族群意識正逐漸加強，代表春秋時期夷夏觀念的進一步開展，奠定之後發展的方向。
春秋時期的夷夏觀念提供了若干的養分，使得《春秋》與三傳吸收後轉化出儒家經典意義上的夷夏觀，這是本論文另一個側重的面向。孔子堅持夷夏的分別，這點顯現在《春秋》大義上，但是其夷夏觀念拋棄血緣區分，專注在文化上，並賦予更深刻的涵義。重視夷夏之別的孔子並不歧視蠻夷，也不贊成武力征討蠻夷而主張和平相處。三傳的夷夏觀雖有其不同的面貌，但是基本精神則是承襲孔子的夷夏觀而發展，形成儒家的詮釋傳統。而隨著《春秋》與三傳成為通經致用所憑藉的典範，《春秋》學上的夷夏觀就又輾轉影響後代的政治格局與思想，於是經學上的主張又回歸到歷史脈絡之中，夷夏觀也就成為中國政治歷史上重要的一環。

關鍵字

夷夏觀 ； 春秋 ； 左傳 ； 公羊傳 ； 穀梁傳

並列摘要

The Yi-Xia concept(夷夏觀) in the Spring and Autumn Period is academically crucial. It not only has historical significance, but also contains implications for the study of Confucian classics. By integrating the two dimensions, this thesis seeks to reveal the substances of the Yi-Xia concept in the Spring and Autumn period. More specifically, this thesis attempts to address the following questions. What are the criteria according to which Yi and Xia differentiated between each other? What are the features and meanings of such differentiation? What influences does the concept have in the Spring and Autumn Annals(《春秋》)? And finally, what are the characteristics of the Yi-Xia concept that the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Three Commentaries(三傳) in turn proposed and elaborated on?
Chapter two analyzes the criteria for the differentiation between Yi and Xia in the Spring and Autumn Period. The analysis encompasses cultural, political, and consanguine dimensions. The cultural criterion could be further categorized into material and immaterial cultures. Material culture, such as apparel system and living style, can clearly differentiate Yi from Xia; while immaterial culture, such as war pattern and language, cannot. In addition, morality served as a more specific criterion for the differentiation between Yi and Xia. For example, the people of the Zhou Dynasty always vilified barbarians for their own political interests. Accordingly, culture seemed to be one of the criteria for the differentiation between Yi and Xia at that time. However, to distinguish between different cultures was getting much more difficult, primarily due to the cultural exchange and interaction between Yi and Xia. This implied that the cultural criterion was used in a subjective rather than an objective manner. The political criterion, such as claiming kingship and acknowledging allegiance, did not alter their diplomatic identities. Therefore, it was not an effective criterion for the differentiation between Yi and Xia. With regard to consanguinity, it functioned as an effective criterion. For example, the people of the Zhou Dynasty shaped the isonymous states into a core, and strived hard towards a united community by connecting the core with other states of different surnames by marriage. In sum, the differentiation between Yi and Xia in the Spring and Autumn Period was made on the basis of culture and consanguinity.
After identifying the criteria for the differentiation between Yi and Xia, Chapter three explicates the problems of self-identity and sense of belonging by taking three states, namely Qin, Chu, and Wu, as examples. During the Spring and Autumn Period, the Xia-states regard Qin as their equivalent rather than a barbarian state. However, Chu was regarded as a barbarian state in spite of its profound cultural standing. Consanguinity was assumed to be the cause of this phenomenon. Behind this phenomenon, Qin and Chu developed similar identities, that is, neither barbarian nor Xia-states. They regarded themselves as significant and unique. This proved that Qin and Chu did not develop a sense of belonging to Xia, though they actively assimilated Xia-culture. The Xia-states regarded Wu as a barbarian state, even though Wu was a state bearing the surname of Ji. Nevertheless, according to the historical context, unearthed utensils, and form of tombs, the ruling class of Wu was unlikely to be Zhou people. Therefore, Wu served as an example of trying to integrate itself into the Xia-culture through consanguinity. By examining the three states, we clearly observe different facades of identity that shifted between Yi and Xia in the Spring and Autumn Period.
Chapter four analyzes the characteristics and functions of the Yi-Xia concept. It reveals the complex relationship between Yi and Xia in the Spring and Autumn Period. On the one hand, there were not only occasional conflicts, but also frequent exchange and cooperation between Yi and Xia. On the other hand, when conflict of interests occurred among Xia-states, they tended to distinguish themselves from each other or even took military actions. Their frequent diplomatic exchange and cooperation did not serve as a remedy for conflict of interests. Such competition hindered not only their coherence, but also the formation of their collective identity. The primary cause of conflict in the Spring and Autumn Period was that stronger states continuously aggressed and annexed weaker states. Therefore, the political structure shaped by strong and weak states clearly represented the situation of the Spring and Autumn Period. It also implied that the conflict between Yi and Xia has been exaggerated. For example, in order to sanction Qi’s disobedience, Jin cooperated with the Eastern Yi states. This practice demonstrated the reality and complexity of politics. Jin regarded the barbarians as allies, while the other Xia-states unreliable. It showed that the Yi-Xia concept at that time did not contain strong ethnic identities. Nonetheless, the differentiation between Yi and Xia still occupied a crucial role. Such differentiation suggested a greater antagonism towards barbarians. What is worth noticing is that the differentiation between Yi and Xia was not a common political principle. It was contingent on state’s strategies in different situations. In addition, the substance of Yi-Xia concept changed gradually rather than being static. The set of vocabulary, namely supreme state/remote-uncultivated area, which was closely related to the Yi-Xia concept, emerged in the mid- and late Spring and Autumn Period and exemplified the gradually consolidated ethnic identities. This development also paved the way for the evolution of Yi-Xia concept.
Chapter five investigates the Yi-Xia concept in the Spring and Autumn Annals (focusing on Confucius) and the Three Commentaries. Confucius insisted on the differentiation between Yi and Xia. He focused on culture rather than consanguinity, and granted much more connotations of culture. Despite the idea of the differentiating between Yi and Xia, Confucius did not discriminate against barbarians. He argued that the basic principles of dealing with people and affairs, such as propriety, justice, loyalty, and honesty, could be also put into practice in barbarian regions. Besides, he strongly advocated the harmony between Yi and Xia, and disagreed over the expansion of Zhou culture’s sphere of influence through military forces. Zuo Zhuan(《左傳》) advocated distinguishing Yi from Xia by adopting cultural criteria. In comparison to Zuo Zhuan, which paid little attention to the relationship between Yi and Xia, Gongyang Zhuan(《公羊傳》) and Guliang Zhuan(《穀梁傳》) frequently discussed that issue. Gongyang Zhuan advocated the necessity of distinguishing Yi from Xia, and emphasized the moral substance of the Yi-Xia concept. The identities of Yi and Xia were not constant but changeable with behavior. Morality, propriety, and justice determined the difference between Yi and Xia. The substance of the Yi-Xia concept advocated in Guliang Zhuan was not only similar to that in Gongyang Zhuan, but also unique. For example, it built a kind of Yi-Xia concept with the standpoint of pure morality and a distinctive harmonious orientation. The Three Commentaries shared common spirit, though they diverged on the substance of Yi-Xia concepts. They adopted the behavioral consistency with morality, propriety and justice as the criterion for the differentiation between Yi and Xia. They claimed that the identity as Yi or Xia was not static. They did not discriminate against barbarians. Such spirit was perfectly consistent with Confucius’ perspective on the relationship between Yi and Xia, and therefore formed the conventional interpretation on the Yi-Xia concept in the Confucian classics.
The Yi-Xia concept in the Spring and Autumn Period nurtured the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Three Commentaries, and thereby facilitated its own evolution in the Confucian classics. In this process, historical facts were transformed into thoughts revealed in the Confucian classics. After the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Three Commentaries became the paradigm for the study and application of Confucian classics, the Yi-Xia concept in the Spring and Autumn Annals influenced the politics and thoughts of later generations. As a result, the thoughts, namely the Yi-Xia concept in the Confucian classics, were brought back into the historical context and therefore became a critical component in Chinese political history.

並列關鍵字

Yi-Xia concept ； Spring and Autumn Annals ； Zuo Zhuan ； Gongyang Zhuan ； Guliang Zhuan

參考文獻

梁雲：《戰國時期的東西差別：考古學的視野》，北京：文物出版社，2008年。

王明珂：〈鄂爾多斯及其鄰近地區專化遊牧業的起源〉，《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》65本2分，1994年，頁375-434。

杜正勝：〈歐亞草原動物文飾與中國古代北方民族之考察〉，《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》64本2分，1993年，頁231-408。

杜正勝：〈中國古代社會多元性與一統化的激盪：特從政治與文化的交涉論〉，《新史學》11卷2期，2000年，頁1-39。

陳昭容：〈從青銅器銘文看兩周漢淮地區諸國婚姻關係〉，《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》75本4分，2004年，頁635-697。