胡培翬「禘祫問答」之「禘」、「祫」禮義考釋

The Research and Interpretation of Etiquette Significance of 'Di' and 'Xia' of Hu Peihui's 'Q & A of Di and Xia'

「禘」、「祫」古禮因時代久遠，且文獻不足的關係，歷代議論者說法紛紜。東漢學者善於章句訓詁，能集今古文經之長，然鄭眾、鄭玄、王肅對「禘」、「祫」之說或異或同，各有偏重。到了唐、宋，學者對漢說採取了修正與批判的態度，但各家論述亦不一，故「禘」、「祫」的詮解更趨複雜。清代，乾嘉學術發展後，學者克紹漢學，有所謂家法、顓門的傳統，禮學亦成為專門學問，考禮、證禮之風氣嚴然成形，禮學者大抵能反溯古經，並以考據為治學途徑。績谿胡培翬克承徽學、家學之風，治禮客觀求是，其說經大抵宗法鄭玄，然對鄭說仍有相當的補充、考辨、糾誤，故其援「例」治禮的方法頗可探討之。胡氏「禘祫問答」一書，則由禮制典章的考辨入手，反覆考察古經之例，並議論鄭玄說法，欲對「禘」、「祫」古禮作一合理的申辨。本文乃以三個面向闡釋「禘祫問答」的「禘」、「祫」禮說，即「禘」、「祫」之定義、「禘」、「祫」之年紀履踐、對鄭玄古說的檢驗等，並旁證于清代諸儒的意見，推敲其中異同。大抵胡氏論「禘」、「祫」有異於前儒與清儒的識見，宗鄭、駁鄭，與古說或同或異，其定位「禘」、「祫」的用意實有獨特之價值，可為學界聊備一說。

Because of the remote past, and insufficient literature, opinions were widely divided regarding the ancient rites of “Di” and “Xia” in all the past dynasties. The scholars of Eastern Han Dynasty were good at proper division into chapters and sentences and explanatory notes in ancient books, and were able to gather the advantages of classical style prose and modern style prose; however, Zheng Zhong, Zheng Xuan, and Wang Su had same or different opinions about “Di” and “Xia,” and they laid particular stress on diverse points. In Tang and Song Dynasties, the scholars adopted the attitude of correction and criticism for the theories of Han Dynasty, yet the exposition of each school was still varied. Hence, the interpretation of “Di” and “Xia” became more complicated. In Qing Dynasty, with the development of academic activities during the period under the reign of Emperor Qianlong and Emperor Jiaqing, the scholars followed and inherited the theories of Han Dynasty, there was the so-called tradition of domestic discipline and specialty, the study of rites had become a specialized scholarship, and the climate of texture research of study of rites took shape; generally speaking, the scholars that researched the study of rites could trace back the ancient classics, and take textual criticism as the approach of study. Hu Peihui of Jixi inherited the school of Anhui and the knowledge of family legacy, and he was objective at researching the study of rites; on the whole, he learned from Zheng Xuan to explain the classics; however, he still did make a lot supplement, textual criticism and mistake correction on Zheng’s theory. Therefore, his method of citing “examples” to research the study of rites is worthwhile to explore. In Hu’s book of “Q & A of Di and Xia,” he started from the textual research of system of ceremonial forms, institutions, decrees and regulations, inspected and made a survey of the examples of ancient classics repeatedly, and commented on Zheng Xuan’s argument, desiring to present a reasonable argument of ancient rites of “Di” and “Xia.” The dissertation took three dimensions to expound the rite theory of “Di” and “Xia” in “Q & A of Di and Xia,” namely, the definition of “Di” and “Xia,” putting “Di” and “Xia” into practice in accordance with the interval of the time, and the examination of ancient theory of Zheng Xuan; moreover, he added the opinions of several Confucianists in Qing Dynasty as indirect evidence to deliberate the similarities and dissimilarities. Generally speaking, Hu’s observation for “Di” and “Xia” were distinct from the knowledge of Confucianists in Qing Dynasty and previous dynasties; he learned from Zheng Xuan, yet rebutted Zheng Xuan’s theory, and his opinions were partially same as or different from the ancient theory; his intention of positioning “Di” and “Xia” actually has an unique value, and it may establish and prepare a theory for academic circles.