告朔与朝享 :《论语》告朔之饩羊章郑玄注的辨识与诠解

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

Abstract

郑玄注礼,以《周礼》为正,《论语注》所见礼说为其明证。本文旨在辨识及复原唐写本告朔之饩羊章郑注之文,并诠释当中的“告朔”及“朝享”。篇中所论,主要针对近人错误释读唐写本郑玄《论语注》中的“庙享”。传世众多引用郑玄此注的文献,确有将“朝享”写作“庙享”的例子,如明范钦天一阁及清张海鹏《墨海金壶》本韩愈《论语笔解》所引郑注便是一例,其中所录韩愈说亦然。然而,韩愈解说中出现的“庙享”,与郑注一样,皆为“朝享”之误,伊东龟年《挍刻韩文公论语集解》可提供佐证。郑玄说的“朝享”,本于《周礼·司尊彝》之文。依郑义,“朝享”专指一种间于禘祫与四时之祭的特定祭名。“庙享”不见于现存郑玄经注及其他著作,唐人疏释郑义,也没有用上此词。总之,“庙享”与“朝享”两词,含义有别,不能混同。郑玄用“朝享”注解告朔之饩羊章,实据《周礼》解《论语》,为其以《周礼》会通经典的体现。要想理解其确切含义,就必须把它放在郑玄整个礼学体系中来考虑。

The primary criterion of Zheng Xuan's annotations to the Confucian classic of rites lay in Zhouli ( Book of Rites of the Western Zhou). The present author analyzes Zheng's annotation to the seventeenth sentence of Analects' third chapter, arguing that quite a few scholars since Ming mistakenly took chaoxiang ( sacrificing in the imperial ancestral temple) as miaoxiang ( the privilege of placing memorial tablet in the imperial ancestral temple). It must be pointed out that chaoxiang and miaoxiang were different from each other. Zheng's selection of chaoxiang was an embodiment of his effort to interpret Analects in light of Zhouli.
Original languageChinese (Simplified)
Article number1007-1873(2019)03-0026-08
Pages (from-to)26-33
Journal史林
Volume2019
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019

Keywords

  • 郑玄; 《论语注》
  • 《周礼》
  • 告朔
  • 饩羊
  • 朝享
  • 庙享

Cite this

@article{a4836712d5e746f0a79c28254bb4eb1f,
title = "告朔与朝享 :《论语》告朔之饩羊章郑玄注的辨识与诠解",
abstract = "郑玄注礼,以《周礼》为正,《论语注》所见礼说为其明证。本文旨在辨识及复原唐写本告朔之饩羊章郑注之文,并诠释当中的“告朔”及“朝享”。篇中所论,主要针对近人错误释读唐写本郑玄《论语注》中的“庙享”。传世众多引用郑玄此注的文献,确有将“朝享”写作“庙享”的例子,如明范钦天一阁及清张海鹏《墨海金壶》本韩愈《论语笔解》所引郑注便是一例,其中所录韩愈说亦然。然而,韩愈解说中出现的“庙享”,与郑注一样,皆为“朝享”之误,伊东龟年《挍刻韩文公论语集解》可提供佐证。郑玄说的“朝享”,本于《周礼·司尊彝》之文。依郑义,“朝享”专指一种间于禘祫与四时之祭的特定祭名。“庙享”不见于现存郑玄经注及其他著作,唐人疏释郑义,也没有用上此词。总之,“庙享”与“朝享”两词,含义有别,不能混同。郑玄用“朝享”注解告朔之饩羊章,实据《周礼》解《论语》,为其以《周礼》会通经典的体现。要想理解其确切含义,就必须把它放在郑玄整个礼学体系中来考虑。The primary criterion of Zheng Xuan's annotations to the Confucian classic of rites lay in Zhouli ( Book of Rites of the Western Zhou). The present author analyzes Zheng's annotation to the seventeenth sentence of Analects' third chapter, arguing that quite a few scholars since Ming mistakenly took chaoxiang ( sacrificing in the imperial ancestral temple) as miaoxiang ( the privilege of placing memorial tablet in the imperial ancestral temple). It must be pointed out that chaoxiang and miaoxiang were different from each other. Zheng's selection of chaoxiang was an embodiment of his effort to interpret Analects in light of Zhouli.",
keywords = "郑玄; 《论语注》, 《周礼》, 告朔, 饩羊, 朝享, 庙享",
author = "许子滨",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
language = "Chinese (Simplified)",
volume = "2019",
pages = "26--33",
journal = "史林",
issn = "1007-1873",
publisher = "上海社會科學院歷史研究所",
number = "3",

}

许子滨 2019, '告朔与朝享 :《论语》告朔之饩羊章郑玄注的辨识与诠解', 史林, vol. 2019, no. 3, 1007-1873(2019)03-0026-08, pp. 26-33.

告朔与朝享 :《论语》告朔之饩羊章郑玄注的辨识与诠解. / 许子滨.

In: 史林, Vol. 2019, No. 3, 1007-1873(2019)03-0026-08, 06.2019, p. 26-33.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - 告朔与朝享 :《论语》告朔之饩羊章郑玄注的辨识与诠解

AU - 许子滨, null

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - 郑玄注礼,以《周礼》为正,《论语注》所见礼说为其明证。本文旨在辨识及复原唐写本告朔之饩羊章郑注之文,并诠释当中的“告朔”及“朝享”。篇中所论,主要针对近人错误释读唐写本郑玄《论语注》中的“庙享”。传世众多引用郑玄此注的文献,确有将“朝享”写作“庙享”的例子,如明范钦天一阁及清张海鹏《墨海金壶》本韩愈《论语笔解》所引郑注便是一例,其中所录韩愈说亦然。然而,韩愈解说中出现的“庙享”,与郑注一样,皆为“朝享”之误,伊东龟年《挍刻韩文公论语集解》可提供佐证。郑玄说的“朝享”,本于《周礼·司尊彝》之文。依郑义,“朝享”专指一种间于禘祫与四时之祭的特定祭名。“庙享”不见于现存郑玄经注及其他著作,唐人疏释郑义,也没有用上此词。总之,“庙享”与“朝享”两词,含义有别,不能混同。郑玄用“朝享”注解告朔之饩羊章,实据《周礼》解《论语》,为其以《周礼》会通经典的体现。要想理解其确切含义,就必须把它放在郑玄整个礼学体系中来考虑。The primary criterion of Zheng Xuan's annotations to the Confucian classic of rites lay in Zhouli ( Book of Rites of the Western Zhou). The present author analyzes Zheng's annotation to the seventeenth sentence of Analects' third chapter, arguing that quite a few scholars since Ming mistakenly took chaoxiang ( sacrificing in the imperial ancestral temple) as miaoxiang ( the privilege of placing memorial tablet in the imperial ancestral temple). It must be pointed out that chaoxiang and miaoxiang were different from each other. Zheng's selection of chaoxiang was an embodiment of his effort to interpret Analects in light of Zhouli.

AB - 郑玄注礼,以《周礼》为正,《论语注》所见礼说为其明证。本文旨在辨识及复原唐写本告朔之饩羊章郑注之文,并诠释当中的“告朔”及“朝享”。篇中所论,主要针对近人错误释读唐写本郑玄《论语注》中的“庙享”。传世众多引用郑玄此注的文献,确有将“朝享”写作“庙享”的例子,如明范钦天一阁及清张海鹏《墨海金壶》本韩愈《论语笔解》所引郑注便是一例,其中所录韩愈说亦然。然而,韩愈解说中出现的“庙享”,与郑注一样,皆为“朝享”之误,伊东龟年《挍刻韩文公论语集解》可提供佐证。郑玄说的“朝享”,本于《周礼·司尊彝》之文。依郑义,“朝享”专指一种间于禘祫与四时之祭的特定祭名。“庙享”不见于现存郑玄经注及其他著作,唐人疏释郑义,也没有用上此词。总之,“庙享”与“朝享”两词,含义有别,不能混同。郑玄用“朝享”注解告朔之饩羊章,实据《周礼》解《论语》,为其以《周礼》会通经典的体现。要想理解其确切含义,就必须把它放在郑玄整个礼学体系中来考虑。The primary criterion of Zheng Xuan's annotations to the Confucian classic of rites lay in Zhouli ( Book of Rites of the Western Zhou). The present author analyzes Zheng's annotation to the seventeenth sentence of Analects' third chapter, arguing that quite a few scholars since Ming mistakenly took chaoxiang ( sacrificing in the imperial ancestral temple) as miaoxiang ( the privilege of placing memorial tablet in the imperial ancestral temple). It must be pointed out that chaoxiang and miaoxiang were different from each other. Zheng's selection of chaoxiang was an embodiment of his effort to interpret Analects in light of Zhouli.

KW - 郑玄; 《论语注》

KW - 《周礼》

KW - 告朔

KW - 饩羊

KW - 朝享

KW - 庙享

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 2019

SP - 26

EP - 33

JO - 史林

JF - 史林

SN - 1007-1873

IS - 3

M1 - 1007-1873(2019)03-0026-08

ER -