論王夫之《禮記章句》與其所涉及之明清《禮記》學問題

On Wang Fu Zhi's Li Ji Zhan Ju and the Related Issues of the Book of Rites in Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty

本文旨在透過闡繹王夫之《禮記章句》所運用之經學方法暨所開發之《禮記》學議題，觀察其對明代《禮記》學觀念之延續與變革，同時蠡測其對清代禮學產生之可能影響。研究結果為：船山的〈大學〉、〈中庸〉回歸論述一如郝敬，乃思透過註解經書的方式彰顯儒家聖學的正統地位，進而達到分殊陽明心學與二氏之學等異端思想的目的；其不同處則在於，船山在標榜朱子的前提下，〈大學〉仍從用〈補傳〉改本，且為駁詰陽明擇用之《古本大學》，更從根本上直接否定鄭注之《禮記》本〈大學〉。此種毫無顧忌地批評鄭玄，正是延續明代《禮記》學發展中「去鄭玄化」之傳統而來。此外，《章句》新創之〈禮運〉「錯簡說」，延續了宋明以來疑經改經之風氣，進而影響包括欽定《義疏》在內的清代學者，而成為《禮記》研究的新興議題。船山又同時變化運用「章句」之法，離析〈坊記〉、〈表記〉、〈緇衣〉等3篇經文，將過去認為盡屬孔子話語的「子曰」分為「孔子之言」與「記者之言」，亦啟發了包括陳澧在內的後世學者。而船山對《記》文中「子曰」之崇奉，則具體化為另種「尊經」的「表象」，大幅改變了明人動輒質疑經文的態度。惟其對經文之信從乃立基於「尊孔」之信仰，而非「尊經」之信念，故與乾嘉「神聖經典」指導原則下所建構之「絕對文本」概念仍有本質上的差別，亦見《章句》居明清禮學過渡中所蘊含之未成熟轉型條件。本文綜論王夫之身處明清之交所開展之多樣化禮學議題及新舊學術因革，對於船山之經學與明清《禮記》學史之發展研究當有實質助益，為其價值所在。 This paper analyzed the approaches that Wang Fu Zhi had adopted in Li Ji Zhang Ju and different scools on the Book of Rites, and thus concluded the possible influences Wang had made on the study of the Book of Rites in Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty. The finding was that Wang held the same position as Hao Jing did, which was to emphasize the orthodox position of Confucianism. The differences between Wang and Hao lay in the fact that Wang completely denied Zheng Xuan's perspective on the Book of Rites, which was also the mainstream of the study on the Book of Rites in Ming dynasty. Furthermore, what Wang had proposed the wrong compilation of “Li Yun” in Li Ji Zhang Ju became the new approach studying the Book of Rites. By analyzing “Fang Ji”, “Biao Ji”, “Zi Yi”, Wang separated “Confucius said” into two categories, “what Confucius said”, and “what the writer said”. In conclusion, the contribution of the paper was to provide a clear picture of Wang's position in the study of the Book of Rites in his time and of the development of research on the Book of Rites.

This paper analyzed the approaches that Wang Fu Zhi had adopted in Li Ji Zhang Ju and different scools on the Book of Rites, and thus concluded the possible influences Wang had made on the study of the Book of Rites in Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty. The finding was that Wang held the same position as Hao Jing did, which was to emphasize the orthodox position of Confucianism. The differences between Wang and Hao lay in the fact that Wang completely denied Zheng Xuan's perspective on the Book of Rites, which was also the mainstream of the study on the Book of Rites in Ming dynasty. Furthermore, what Wang had proposed the wrong compilation of “Li Yun” in Li Ji Zhang Ju became the new approach studying the Book of Rites. By analyzing “Fang Ji”, “Biao Ji”, “Zi Yi”, Wang separated “Confucius said” into two categories, “what Confucius said”, and “what the writer said”. In conclusion, the contribution of the paper was to provide a clear picture of Wang's position in the study of the Book of Rites in his time and of the development of research on the Book of Rites.