說「南」——再論《詩經》的分類

A Paleographic Analysis of “Nan” and Its Significance in Interpreting the Rationale for the Divisions of the Sections of Shih ching

本文試圖結合文獻與音樂考古資料，對《詩經》的分類問題提出一個假說。首先，通過對甲文中「南」的文字學分析，本文提出「南」字象早期一種竹木製筒形器物，並由此進一步闡釋它在刻劃文字資料及文獻資料中，中心義與邊際義之關係。其次，由此對「南」的重新釋讀，本文提出「南」後演變為竹木製打擊樂器，以及南方樂鐘的代稱。借助古代音樂史研究的新成果，特別是近年來音樂考古學的成就，本文認為「南」所指當為商、周之際江漢流域常見的樂鐘如：句鑃和鎛等。而《詩經》中的「南」一名，本源於由南方這類樂鐘所代表的具有地方色彩的樂式。最後，重新審視「風」、「雅」、「頌」三者的命名，本文認為由宋代《詩經》學者所提出來的樂式分類理論，較諸漢儒諸說，更接近史實。在此基礎上，本文進一步認為，這些不同的樂式蓋出於不同的樂器。更明確的說，也就是，「風」最初為普通管弦樂器的代稱，又進而成為各地方具有民間色彩的音樂的代稱；「頌」則源自商代的流行樂鐘，也就是前人所稱的「鐃」，李純一所說的「庸」（或「鏞」），商代貴族或宗室用於祭祀、饗宴，乃至軍旅所用之器。而「雅」即「夏」，所指的是源自關中地區的，流行於周代貴族中的編懸的甬鐘和鈕鐘。在分類編排的時候，《詩經》的編者不但根據不同的音樂體式，同時也考慮到了地域的因素。

The rationale for the divisions of the sections of Shih ching, conventionally assumed as subject matter, has long perplexed modern scholars. This paper, attempting an approach interweaving historical records with some archaemusicological data and paleographic analysis, seeks to find the origins of the designations of these divisions. I propose a new reading of the character “nan,” as used in the first two subsections of the “Feng” section of Shih ching. First, I explain this character, judging from its form and appearance in inscriptional writings, and from its denotation in early lexical works, as a pictorial representation of a bamboo section. This was an early way of making a water or wine container. I will seek to interpret the character's core meanings and links with extended uses, in early epigraphic and documentary texts. This new perspective about the meaning of “nan” will suggest that it was initially the name of a musical instrument. It refers to the bronze bells prevalent in southern China during the late Shang and early Chou times. Bells called po-chung and kou-tiao were representative of this type. Building on modern studies of early Chinese musical history, especially on works by modern archaeologists and musicologists, I hypothesize that the designation of the “Nan” sections of Shih ching was initially derived from the name of a musical style which originated from these bronze bells. Finally, a reexamination of the designations of other parts of Shih ching, “Ya,” “Sung” and “Feng,” suggests that the musical style theory, as posited by Sung dynasty scholars, is a tenable method of explaining these designations. I will further propose that these different musical styles were in turn derived from their accompanying instruments: namely nan, po bells and kou-tiao bells prevalent in southern China along the Chiang River valley; feng wind instruments; ya, the yung-chung bell, a mallet-struck bell with a shank atop of it, prevalent in the central Chou domain during the Western Chou times; sung, or yung, an earlier bell type restricted to the use of the Shang nobility. In designating the poems of Shih ching, the compiler or the editor seems to have differentiated poems of different styles according to their accompanying musical instruments, with different geographical origins.