《尚書•無逸》篇今古文異同與錯簡

On the Wrong Compilation of and the Differences between the “Old Text” and “New Text” Version of the “Wu yi” Chapter of Shang Shu

《尚書•無逸》是一篇周公告誡成王的訓辭，周公列舉殷商三宗的經歷與施政作為，勸勉成王。傳世《古文尚書》三宗以中宗、高宗、祖甲為次，馬融和鄭玄以祖甲次於高宗，遂指為武丁之子，《孔傳》和王肅則認為是商湯之長孫太甲。二說各有理據，難判是非。宋代熹平石經〈無逸〉殘石出土，經排列復原，高宗後無「祖甲」一段文字，而中宗前有近四十字空位，顯然歐陽本今文《尚書•無逸》是以太甲、中宗、高宗為次，證明孔傳、王肅之說有文本依據。清儒因為《古文尚書》案的牽連，對此還在左袒右袒，猶疑不定。民國間三體石經馬鄭本《古文尚書•無逸》出土，次序與傳世本古文〈無逸〉一致，在佐證馬鄭本古文前有所承的同時，確定了〈無逸〉今古文的不同，並使這一異同產生年代推到西漢甚至西漢以前，也使孔、王說之來源上推到西漢。求證於殷商古史，甲骨卜辭顯示，太甲不僅進入祀譜，還出現於周原甲骨，這與周公訓辭取例有內在邏輯關係。校覈當今出土竹簡的書寫格式，聯繫劉向以中秘古文《尚書》校大小夏侯、歐陽三家經文的脫簡實例，祖甲一段文句適為二支竹簡的字數，經排列〈無逸〉文字，可以確證祖甲應為太甲，原在中宗之前，其舛亂到高宗之後係由錯簡所造成。夏商周斷代工程在殷商晚期的年代排列中，將高宗武丁以後的祖庚、祖甲、廩辛、康丁四王年數框定為四十四年，康丁後的武乙三十五年，文丁十一年。專家從馬鄭之說，認〈無逸〉之祖甲為武丁子，因為將祖庚排斥在外，所以與〈無逸〉中周公所說祖甲之後「或十年，或七八年，或五六年，或四三年」的晚商帝王在位年數不合，於是只能認為周公是泛指中宗、高宗、祖甲以後的某些王。但如根據熹平和正始石經殘石的錯位作符合歷史的推測，將祖甲定為太甲，成太甲、中宗、高宗三宗，則高宗武丁之後便容有祖庚王位年數。據文獻記載，祖庚在位有七和十一年、廩辛有四或六年、康丁有六或八年之說，加上文丁十一年，適可與周公所說高宗後逸樂之王在位十年、七八年、五六年、四三年之言相印證。

In the so-called “Old Text” version of the “Wu yi” chapter of Shang shu, the first three kings of the Shang dynasty were Zhong Zong, Gao Zong, and Zu Jia. In the opinion of Ma Rong and Zheng Xuan, Zu Jia was Gao Zong’s son. However, their opinions differed from that of the Kong zhuan of Shang shu and Wang Su, which argued that Zu Jia was in fact the grandson of Tang of Shang, Tai Jia. This latter argument later gained theoretical ground from the fragment of the “Wu yi” chapter, which was found from the Xiping Stone Classics and showed the sequence of the three kings to possibly be Tai Jia, Zhong Zong and Gao Zong. On the other hand, though, the Three Styles Stone Classics was thought to be consistent with the opinion of Ma Rong and Zheng Xuan, who were the main proponents of the “New Text.” Taken all these into consideration, it can be concluded that the diverging points of view might occur no later than the Former Han dynasty. While the fact that Tai Jia belonged to the sequence of the three kings was recorded in the oracle bones. The information of “Wu yi” must be related to this fact. With reference to the writing system of bamboo and wood slip documents as well as other historical precedents, this paper tries to prove that the term Zu Jia used in “Wu yi” in fact was Tai Jia, whom was placed in the wrong chronological order in the text during compilation. The experts of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project followed the opinion of Ma Rong and Zheng Xuan, so the period between Zu Geng and Kang Ding was concluded to be 44 years, while the reign of Wu Yi was concluded to be 35 years and that of Wen Ding to be 11 years. Their conclusion contradicts to the statements in the “Wu yi” chapter; therefore the experts had to impose a liberal interpretation to “Wu yi.” As the Xiping and Three Styles Stone Classics suggested, if we identify Zu Jia as Tai Jia, the statement in the chapter of “Wu yi” would then match with the time records in the Stone Classics and other historical literatures.