劉師培《周禮古注集疏》研究

Abstract

《周禮古注集疏》為劉師培（1884-1919）晚年的得意之作。該書的宗旨有二：一為將鄭玄（127-200）以前的「古注」整理出頭緒，並藉以修正鄭玄經說；一為會通《周禮》及其他先秦兩漢典籍之經說，以為《周禮》徵實。本論文謹依據此二宗旨來討論《集疏》的學術意義。 劉師培治學恆尚兼通。為能兼容並包，所以有志於扶植微學，不讓「鄭學」獨尊；亦為此精神，所以反對經今文家以古文諸經為偽造之論，並以今古門戶之見為誡。《集疏》之作正為此番精神之充分體現。劉師培早年在《國粹學報》上為文，嘗為經今古文爭議而對當代今文家之言論有所排擠。至其為《集疏》之時，卻兼採廖平（1852-1932）早年嚴分今古之方法以為學，並走出與廖氏不同之學術道路。可見劉氏晚年治學確實能夠做到「實事求是，不立門戶」，而《集疏》為其代表之作，故為劉氏所重視。 鄭玄經說其實多繼承「古注」而來。劉師培有意利用「古注」來修正鄭玄經說，卻過於偏重在放大「古注」與鄭注相異的部分，而不知由相通處著眼，藉由古注來進一步瞭解鄭注。由是難免時常將「古注」與「鄭注」視為對立，反陷於自立的門戶之中而未能真正解決問題。此不免為《集疏》之缺憾所在。例如，《漢書•刑法志》會通《司馬法》成同與丘甸兩說，其實對於解釋《周禮•匠人》與〈小司徒〉成同與丘甸異制的問題具有相當大的參考價值。劉師培為不滿於鄭玄成容一甸之論而選擇不信《司馬法》一成三十人出車一乘之講法，未免忽略了與此相關的文獻證據而未能真正釐清成同與丘甸兩制的文化意涵。本論文通過〈刑法志〉及其相關文獻之分析而得出成同制度乃在李悝「盡地力之教」的影響之下，為估計一若干面積的土地之最大生産力而設；丘甸制度則用於計算具體田畝的「出賦」潛力之結論，或可彌補鄭玄與劉師培經說之不足云。

This dissertation is a study of Liu Shipei’s （劉師培，1884-1919）‘Exegesis on a Conglomeration of the Old Commentaries to the Zhouli’ （《周禮古注集疏》）. By ‘Old Commentaries’, we mean those which were made prior to that of Zheng Xuan （鄭玄，127-200）, a Confucian scholar near the end of the Han dynasty, whose annotations to the Scriptures came to eclipse those of old. Liu Shipei’s project was to reconstruct and revive obscure interpretations to the Zhouli or Rites of Zhou from the recesses of history, thereby providing an alternative to those of Zheng Xuan, which had dominated the scene for centuries since, despite their sporadic incongruity and inaccuracies. The work purports to serve yet another purpose, namely, to prove the reliability of the Zhouli as a source of history – one which has been passed down by the Ancients from the epoch of the Duke of Zhou（周公）. This was specifically meant to counter the claims of the New Text School （今文家）led by Kang Youwei（康有為，1858-1927）and Liao Ping（廖平，1852-1932）, who alledged that the Old Text Scriptures（古文經）, to which the Zhouli belonged, were counterfeit. This dissertation argues that the Exegesis, a work started on in his twilight years, is a display of magnanimity and scholarship which passes as an embodiment of wisdoms gathered through Liu Shipei’s short but eventful life. This explains why Liu thought highly of the work. The latter part of this dissertation deals with a specific issue brought up in the Exegesis which seems unresolved. The issue invloves the discrepancy between two systems under which land area can be tabulated – the Chengtong（成同）and the Qiudian（丘甸）system. By tracing each to its own sources through a careful analysis of the Treatise to Penalty and Law chapter in Han History（《漢書•刑法志》）, a text which Liu Shipei counted as one of the Old Commentaries, this dissertation offers to show that Liu’s overemphasis on the virtues of the Old Commentaries causes him to be inclined toward seeing the Old Commentaries and those of Zheng Xuan as necessarily antagonistic to one another, which is often not the case. Such skewed outlook inevitably distorts facts and discounts the value of the work.