官修經解與道統意識──以《禮記集說大全》為對象的探討

Commentaries on Officially Compiled Classics and the Thought of Confucian Orthodoxy: The Complete Meaning of the Book of Rites

本文藉分析《禮記集說大全》（《禮記大全》）纂修群徵引朱子經解，探討纂修群如何增附諸儒議論，製成小注。並且從《五經大全》小注功能的差異，說明朱子對《大全》產生的影響所在。全文先從明成祖、纂修群、讀者三種視角，討論《五經大全》定位的異同與意義。受到讀者對《大全》的改編與尊朱傾向的閱讀立場，使成祖原期望承繼道統、效法太祖的敕纂目的無法顯明。從纂修群的角度來說，胡廣等秉承成祖敕纂《大全》目的，兼顧上諭、與推廣學習等考量，歸結成《大全》書前凡例。纂修群根據八項標準增附諸儒議論。這標準從《禮記大全》對朱子、方愨的引述表現得到印證。值得留意的是：在《五經大全》中，《禮記大全》小注注經而不解傳的性質，與其他四部《大全》不同。推測應是與朱子以降《禮記》學發展有關。其他四部《大全》小注用以解傳的情形，反映纂修群看重朱子的立場。過去研究者從《大全》修纂底本的選擇表現，探討其與朱子的關聯性。本文對這樣的研究進路提出反省與補充。而從纂修群在《禮記大全》中特別完整引述朱子關於宗法、嫡庶意見，呈現明代官方借重朱子學說推動文治的傾向。

The focal point of the present article is how the editors of Liji daquan 禮記大全 (The Complete Meaning of the Book of Rites) in the Ming dynasty cited Zhu Xi's 朱熹 (1130-1200) classical interpretations as a sub-commentary of the book in question, as well as illustrating the impact of Zhu Xi on this work by analyzing the differences in the sub-commentaries of Wujing daquan 五經大全 (The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics). To begin, this article explores the various meanings of The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics by analyzing the text from the point of view of the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402-1424), readership, and the editors. Considering the reading stance taken by most readers and their proclivity to hold Zhu Xi in an esteemed position, the connotations of The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics that the Yongle Emperor hoped to establish, such as adopting a certain Confucian orthodoxy and imitating the Hongwu Emperor's (r. 1368-1398) edicts concerning compliation, became impossible to actualize, which would become a focus of later criticisms. From the point of view of the editorial team, Hu Guang 胡廣 (1370-1418) and others adhered to the underlying purpose of compiling The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics by order of the Yongle Emperor and took into account the promotion of learning, all of which is summarized in a guide to the reader that prefaces the work. According to eight criteria, the editors also added the commentaries of Confucian scholars, criteria which can be confirmed from the citing of Zhu Xi and Fang Que 方愨 (jinshi 1118) in The Complete Meaning of the Book of Rites. But notably, within The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics, the sub-commentary of The Complete Meaning of the Book of Rites differs from the other four classics. This phenomenon is likely related to Zhu Xi and the study of the Book of Rites in the Yuan dynasty. The sub-commentaries of the other four books are used to interpret the commentaries, not the main text of the canon, thereby reflecting how Zhu Xi's classical interpretations played an important role in the official editorial team's compiliation of The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics. Previous researchers have often investigated the relationship between Zhu Xi and The Complete Meaning of the Five Classics by considering how compilers used selectivity when working with the original texts their production was based on, a research direction which this article questions and then supplements. In addition, the editorial team paid special attention to the opinions of Zhu Xi on the ''lineage system'' 宗法, even adding his thoughts in full to The Complete Meaning of the Book of Rites, demonstrating the tendency of Ming officials to rely on the thought of Zhu Xi to promote moralization.