《尚書．顧命》「御王冊命」行禮場所考異——兼論冊命地點的儀式空間意義

Study on King Kang of Zhou's Enthronement Site in Shangshu．Guming——Also about It’s Space Symbolizing and Meaning in the Ceremony

《尚書．顧命》中康王即位的地點素有爭議。以鄭玄為首的柩前即位說佔據歷代經解的主流地位，且與後世官方禮典相符；以司馬遷為首的宗廟即位說支持者較少，但在證據上更具說服力。本文以此爭論為中心，對兩種說法分別加以考辨。綜合考量之下，本文認為宗廟即位較為可信，不論從儀式的性質、空間的安排、細節的推敲來看，都更為合理，而柩前即位雖然是歷朝遵循的正統禮制，但本身未必是〈顧命〉的正確解讀。
宗廟作為行禮場所的空間意義，可以參照范熱內普提出的「過渡禮儀」來理解。身份過渡通過空間轉換得以更直觀的呈現，而且宗廟的性質與邊緣儀式的神聖性契合。嚴謹肅穆的儀式進程與空間安排共同建構禮儀時空，康王的國君身份經此得以確認。

Whether King Kang of Zhou(周康王) was enthroned in Qin(寢) or Miao(廟) in Guming is always controversial. Most scholors supported the explanation that King Kang should be enthroned in front of the coffin of King Cheng(周成王) , led by Zheng Xuan(鄭玄). Relatively few scholors agreed that the ceremony should take place in the Imperial Ancestral Temple, which was first proposed by Sima Qian(司馬遷) in Shiji. But they could provide valid evidence to make themselves credible. This article focuses on this debate and separately examines the two arguments. In comprehensive comparation, the latter is more reasonable. Enthroning in front of the coffin itself is originally an interpretation of Guming, despite its official legitimacy in history.
The space symbolizing and meaning can be analysed by comparing the ceremony with rites de passage proposed by Arnold van Gennep(1873-1957). The identity transition was presented more obviously through the change of space and orientation, and the nature of the Imperial Ancestral Temple fit with the sanctity of the rites de marge or rites liminarities. Ritual process and space cooperatively constructed the holy spacetime, which finally confirmed King Kang's status as a King.