「尚書．君奭」寫作動機蠡測

Initial Understanding of Writing Motive of 'Book of Documents - Jun Shi'

「尚書．君奭」乃關於周成王時兩位輔佐大臣周公與召公的文獻紀錄，但歷來對〈君奭〉的寫作動機卻有不同的推測，此文首先歸納歷代詮釋的三種系統：「書序」首先提出此乃周召共輔時，召公不悅，周公安撫召公之言辭。但「史記」卻言此乃周公踐祚，召公疑之，周公解釋之文。而朱熹及蔡沈等則從文本語言出發，提出此乃召公告老，周公慰留之文，文中實未見不悅之意。以文本為根據的理解，更逐漸成為現代詮釋〈君奭〉的主要方法。此文則根據出土郭店竹簡〈成之聞之〉的異文及「墨子．非命」的相關記載，改正並申述〈君奭〉文本中關鍵疑義文句：「襄我二人，汝有合哉言」之意涵，並由此得出周公在文中實已提供「召公不說」的可能訊息，再配合周初情勢推斷〈君奭〉的寫作動機應以「史記」之說較為可靠。

“Book of Documents - Jun Shi” is a literature record of how two vice-ministers, Chou Kung and Chao Kung, assisted Chou Cheng Wang, but the previous conjectures towards the writing motive of “Jun Shi” were different. This thesis first generalized three systems of interpretations in all the past dynasties: “Shu Xu” indicated that this was the words that Chou Kung said to comfort Chao Kung when Chao Kung was unhappy during the time both Chou Kung and Chao Kung assisted the king. “Shiji” indicated that it was a document that Chou Kung wrote to explain to Chao Kung because Chao Kung was suspicious to Chou Kung ascending the throne. Chu Hsi and Cai Shen discussed this document from the perspective of text and language, indicating that this was the article that Chou Kung asked Chao Kung to stay when Chao Kung retired on account of age, and unhappiness was not shown in the article. The interpretation based on text has gradually become the main method to explain “Jun Shi”. According to "Cheng zhi wen zhi" of Guodian bamboo-slip manuscripts and relevant record in “Mo Zi – Fei Ming”, this thesis corrected and appealed the meaning of key dubious sentence in “Jun Shi” – “Xiang wo er ren, ru you he zai yan”. It was found that Chou Kung had already provided the possible message, “Chao Kung did not say anything”, in the article plus the situation of early Chou, this thesis inferred that the explanation towards the writing motive of “Jun Shi” that was provided by “Shiji” should be more reliable.