東漢職官儀注書研究

Abstract

《隋書·經籍志》史部職官類、儀注類所著錄的幾種漢代著作，是東漢重要的制度史著作，但已盡數亡佚。本文選擇三種具代表性的著作，即衛宏《漢舊儀》、胡廣《漢官解故》、應劭《漢官儀》，進行細緻的文獻考察，盡量復原其著作面貌，並分析其著作背景、資料來源、風格，討論東漢時代制度史書寫的演變。 以孫星衍為代表的清人輯佚成果不適宜作為精確研究的文獻基礎，有必要重新對這些著作加以整理校訂。職官儀注類著作的早期代表衛宏與王隆書以記西漢制度為主。但是兩書側重點與時代斷限有差異，對引入經學話語的態度也有不同。胡廣、應劭等承繼東漢中期以來的編纂漢代制度的風氣，將因革作為書寫制度的必要成分，勾連古典，補充今制，建構通貫的沿革史，對後期正史志體的創作產生影響。本研究將職官儀注書置入制度史書寫的傳統中，發掘其作為史學著作的內涵，考察其與時代背景的關聯，並重估其對制度史研究的價值。

Several Han-dynasty books on bureaucracy and ceremonial recorded in Book of Sui are important institutional history works of the Eastern Han Dynasty, but most of them have been long lost. This thesis selects three representative works, namely Wei Hong’s Han Jiu Yi, Hu Guang’s Han Guan Jie Gu and Ying Shao’s Han Guan Yi, to carry out a close review. Trying to restore the features of these works and to analyze their background, sources and styles, this thesis reveals the evolution of the institutional historiography in the Eastern Han Dynasty. For Sun Xingyan’s collection results Hanguan Liuzhong do not qualify as the basis for accurate research, it is necessary to re- collate and revise these works. Wei Hong and Wang Long’s works, as the early representatives of this genre, mainly record the institutions of Western Han. The foci and age limits of institutions in the two books remain distinct from each other, as their attitudes to the introduction of Confucian discourse are also different. Hu Guang, Ying Shao and other authors influenced by the campaign of compiling the Han rituals and institutions since the middle of the Eastern Han Dynasty make the change of institutions as such a necessary component of the works. They managed to introduce the Confucian classics into historiographies to endorse their accounts, and constructed a comprehensive record of institutions, which had an impact on the compilation of later official historical works. This thesis places the works on bureaucracy and ceremonial into the tradition of institutional history writings, in order to inspect their historiographical features and engagement with the historical background, before reassessing their significance in the study of institutional history.