論韓儒丁若鏞禬說對鄭玄郊禘說之顛覆與重構

Subversion and Reconstruction: Jeong Yak-yong and His Attempt to Replace the Jiao and Di Sacrifices of Zheng Xuan

茶山丁若鏞自許其《禮》《易》二學可以不朽，而其論禮最重喪祭。在三《禮》中，茶山最尊信《周禮》，以為其書成於周公之手，只要「覈其本旨，露其真面」，則禮之聚訟皆可解決。茶山以《春秋》為孔子親手之筆，認為欲認知周禮，就必須徵實於《春秋》，以魯禮推致周禮。在茶山看來，鄭玄破壞聖典，以郊禘說為甚，故不惜顛覆鄭說，重構《周禮》祭祀譜系，以闡明聖人制禮本義為依歸。根據考察《春秋》九次郊事，茶山得出古之郊期本在建卯之月，又認定啟蟄為春分之候，非寅月之氣，復謂啟蟄郊天，非主祈農，魯僅一郊，天子之郊亦如是。茶山說禘，根本於《周禮》，考信於《春秋》，縱論古今，徹底拋棄舊說，而創發新說。若依其說，《周禮》有雖不名禘而實為禘之文，禘為大祭之首，故與郊並稱，而其別在於郊祭上帝、禘祭五帝（人帝）。茶山表達了他對〈大司樂〉及〈神仕〉的獨特看法，將二至奏樂與二至致神皆解讀為禬禮。《樂書孤存》從樂律學的角度提出他的理據，認為三大奏樂一反祭祀六樂取律之正例，把最尊的祭天神的黃鍾之宮用於人鬼，卻把最卑的圜鍾之宮用於天神，顛倒錯置，且五調中獨缺商調。因而推想取律上的改變，正是為了凸顯禬除取律有別於正祭。茶山以禬取代郊禘，據之破譯〈大司樂〉的三大奏樂，氣魄恢弘，自信昂揚。只是禬之為禮，文獻自來已無足徵，且茶山所論及者，過於粗疏，其說有商榷與辨正的必要。其以〈大司樂〉三大奏樂為禬樂，說有未安。須知《周禮》各禬於其祭祀譜系裏都是小祀，所適用的場合可能有異，只據〈神仕〉為說，顧此失彼，膽氣有餘而證據薄弱。茶山論說雖然得失互見，但其廓清鄭注以來聚訟的用心，具有啟迪後人重讀經文和重構《周禮》祭祀譜系的作用。

This paper is a critical re-examination of Jeong Yak-yang's theory of sacrifice. Jeong Yak-yong (1762-1836), better known as Dasan, was a highly influential Confucian scholar who lived in Korea during the Joseon period. Dasan argued that Zheng Xuan (127-200), the noted Han-dynasty Confucian scholar, had been mistaken in his attempts at reconstructing the ancient sacrificial system. Dasan pointed out that whereas Zheng Xuan had based his sacrificial views on the Three Books of Rites, the Spring and Autumn Annals, and the apocryphal works (chenwei), the work that he should have consulted was the Zhouli, which Dasan felt had far greater authority. Furthermore, according to Dasan, Zheng Xuan focused on the jiao 郊 and di 禘 sacrifices, when in fact he should have looked more closely at the kui 禬 sacrifice. Thus, as can be seen, Dasan not only criticized Zheng Xuan's theory of sacrifice, he also attempted to put a new one in its place. After examining the reasoning and sources used by Dasan, this paper concludes that Dasan made a valiant effort to overturn Zheng Xuan's sacrificial theories, but in the end he was unsuccessful: his theories are in fact speculative and far-fetched. Nevertheless, Dasan's views deserve to be studied closely, for they prompt us to revisit and reinterpret classical texts. Indeed, scholars have recently begun to pay more attention to Dasan's views on sacrifices. Hongkyung Kim, for example, has just published an English translation and commentary on Dasan, under the title The Analects of Dasan: A Korean Syncretic Reading. This paper can be seen as yet a further attempt to help us better understand the work of Dasan.