「制曰聞」與奏呈記錄：揚州蜀秀河M1木牘的文書學考察

The Imperial Reply Form of“Known”(Wen) and Records of Presented Memorials: A Paleographical Study of Wooden Tablets Unearthed from Shuxiuhe Tomb No. 1

揚州蜀秀河一號西漢墓出土的六方木牘，是墓主臣遂與江都王劉建的往來文書，可據以檢討漢代皇帝詔書制度的相關問題。由牘文「命曰聞」，可推定「制曰聞」這一皇帝批示形式的存在。日常政務中，「制曰聞」以表示知悉為本義，本身不含否定意味。其否定意味，是在皇權運行過程中出現的衍生義。以陳述、陳請區分，木牘呈現出兩種文書格式，或與《獨斷》、秦令的分類有關。奏呈記錄的文書格式為「某日某官某奏某所」，在兩漢官文書制度中行用不廢。〈無極山碑〉、〈四時月令詔條〉、〈乙瑛碑〉、《史記‧三王世家》、〈元康五年詔書冊〉的奏呈記錄，可相應補足、復原或推進認識，並完善詔書冊的復原格式。是否帶有奏呈記錄，或可作為判定正本文書的依據之一。「制曰聞」與奏呈記錄在文獻與簡牘中的普遍缺失，既有刪削的原因，也與簡牘發現的局限有關。墓葬出土文書簡牘原件的可能性及其獨特史料價值，仍有待發掘。

The six wooden tablets unearthed from Shuxiuhe蜀秀河tomb no. 1of the Western Han dynasty in Yangzhou, are official documents that detail the dealings between Liu Jian劉建(?–121 BCE), prince of Jiangdu, and Sui遂, acontemporary official and occupant of the tomb. Based on these documents, the present article furthers our understanding of the institution of Han imperial edicts. From the form of the prince’s reply, namely ming yue wen命曰聞(the command says,“known”), the existence of the emperor’s similar reply form of zhi yue wen制曰聞(the edict says,“known”) can be inferred. Within everyday government affairs, the basic meaning of this reply form is, just as the word implies,“known,”which in itself carries no negative meaning; its negative meaning, however, is aderivative connotation that originated in the operation of imperial power. These wooden tablets exhibit two forms of documents, namely distinguishing statements and petitions, which may correspond to the classification of commands in the Qin dynasty as well as Du duan獨斷. The document format of recording presented memorials includes the date on which the memorial was presented, official position and name of the presenter, and the place from where it was presented, apractice which was adopted in the official document systems of the Western and Eastern Han dynasties. The records of presented memorials of other similar texts in wooden slips or stone carvings, including“Wuji shan bei”無極山碑,“Sishi yueling zhao tiao”四時月令詔條,“Yi ying bei”乙瑛碑,“San wang shijia”三王世家from Shiji史記, and“Yuan Kang wu nian zhaoshu ce”元康五年詔書冊, can correspondingly be supplemented, restored, or further understood, as well as improving the restoration of imperial edict formats. The presence of apresented memorial record may even be used as one of the bases for determining the original document. The reason for the general absence of both the reply form of zhi yue wen and memorial records in certain documents and wooden slips is related to the omissions of characters and limitations of the slips themselves. Ultimately, original documents written on wooden slips which may be unearthed from tombs and await our attention can fill in lacunas concerning document formats and imperial edicts.