論韓儒丁若鏞禬說對鄭玄郊禘說之顛覆與重構

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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》,以爲其書成於周公之手,只要「覈其本旨,露其眞面」,則禮之聚訟皆可解決。茶山以《春秋》爲孔子親手之筆,認爲欲認知周禮,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,以郊褅説爲甚,故不惜顛覆鄭説,重構《周禮》祭祀譜系,以闡明聖人制禮本義爲依歸。根據考察《春秋》九次郊事,茶山得出古之郊期本在建卯之月,又認定啓蟄爲春分之候,非寅月之氣,復謂啓蟄郊天,非主祈農,魯僅一郊,天子之郊亦如是。茶山説褅,根本於《周禮》,考信於《春秋》,縱論古今,撤底抛棄舊説,而創發新説。若依其説,《周禮》有雖不名褅而實爲褅之文,褅爲大祭之首,故與郊並稱,而其別在於郊祭上帝、褅祭五帝(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爲禬禮。《樂書孤存》從樂律學的角度提出他的理據,認爲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,正是爲了凸顯檜除取律有別於正祭。茶山以禬取代郊褅,據之破譯〈大司樂〉的三大奏樂,氣魄恢弘,自信昂揚。只是禬之爲禮,文獻自來已無足徵,且茶山所論及者,過於粗疏,其説有商榷與辨正的必要。其以〈大司樂〉三大奏樂爲禬樂,説有未安。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〉爲説,顧此失彼,膽氣有餘而證據薄弱。茶山論説雖然得失互見,但其廓清鄭注以來聚訟的用心,具有啓廸後人重讀經文和重構《周禮》祭祀譜系的作用。<eng>This paper is a critical re-examination of leong Yak-yang?s theory of sacrifice, Jeong Yak-yong (1762-1836X 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 (chemvei), 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 unsuecessful: 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.
Original languageChinese (Traditional)
Pages (from-to)113-160
Number of pages48
Journal中國文哲研究集刊 = Bulletin of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy
Issue number53
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Subversion
Confucian
Apocryphon
Joseon
Annals
Han Dynasty
Authority
Analects
Spring
English Translation
Prompts
Rite
Korea

Keywords

  • 丁若鏞
  • 《周禮》
  • 《春秋》
  • Dasan
  • Jeong Yak-yong
  • Zheng Xuan
  • Zhouli
  • Jiao-sacrifice
  • Di-sacrifice
  • Kui-sacrifice
  • The Three Orders of Grand Sacrificial Music

Cite this

@article{d4abee37b17145aeb1bb14daeaa2bde3,
title = "論韓儒丁若鏞禬說對鄭玄郊禘說之顛覆與重構",
abstract = "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》,以爲其書成於周公之手,只要「覈其本旨,露其眞面」,則禮之聚訟皆可解決。茶山以《春秋》爲孔子親手之筆,認爲欲認知周禮,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,以郊褅説爲甚,故不惜顛覆鄭説,重構《周禮》祭祀譜系,以闡明聖人制禮本義爲依歸。根據考察《春秋》九次郊事,茶山得出古之郊期本在建卯之月,又認定啓蟄爲春分之候,非寅月之氣,復謂啓蟄郊天,非主祈農,魯僅一郊,天子之郊亦如是。茶山説褅,根本於《周禮》,考信於《春秋》,縱論古今,撤底抛棄舊説,而創發新説。若依其説,《周禮》有雖不名褅而實爲褅之文,褅爲大祭之首,故與郊並稱,而其別在於郊祭上帝、褅祭五帝(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爲禬禮。《樂書孤存》從樂律學的角度提出他的理據,認爲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,正是爲了凸顯檜除取律有別於正祭。茶山以禬取代郊褅,據之破譯〈大司樂〉的三大奏樂,氣魄恢弘,自信昂揚。只是禬之爲禮,文獻自來已無足徵,且茶山所論及者,過於粗疏,其説有商榷與辨正的必要。其以〈大司樂〉三大奏樂爲禬樂,説有未安。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〉爲説,顧此失彼,膽氣有餘而證據薄弱。茶山論説雖然得失互見,但其廓清鄭注以來聚訟的用心,具有啓廸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 leong Yak-yang?s theory of sacrifice, Jeong Yak-yong (1762-1836X 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 (chemvei), 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 unsuecessful: 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.",
keywords = "丁若鏞, 《周禮》, 《春秋》, 郊, 褅, 禬, Dasan, Jeong Yak-yong, Zheng Xuan, Zhouli, Jiao-sacrifice, Di-sacrifice, Kui-sacrifice, The Three Orders of Grand Sacrificial Music",
author = "許子濱",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
language = "Chinese (Traditional)",
pages = "113--160",
journal = "中國文哲研究集刊 = Bulletin of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy",
issn = "1017-6462",
publisher = "中央研究院中國文哲研究所",
number = "53",

}

論韓儒丁若鏞禬說對鄭玄郊禘說之顛覆與重構. / 許子濱.

In: 中國文哲研究集刊 = Bulletin of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy, No. 53, 09.2018, p. 113-160.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - 論韓儒丁若鏞禬說對鄭玄郊禘說之顛覆與重構

AU - 許子濱, null

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - 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》,以爲其書成於周公之手,只要「覈其本旨,露其眞面」,則禮之聚訟皆可解決。茶山以《春秋》爲孔子親手之筆,認爲欲認知周禮,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,以郊褅説爲甚,故不惜顛覆鄭説,重構《周禮》祭祀譜系,以闡明聖人制禮本義爲依歸。根據考察《春秋》九次郊事,茶山得出古之郊期本在建卯之月,又認定啓蟄爲春分之候,非寅月之氣,復謂啓蟄郊天,非主祈農,魯僅一郊,天子之郊亦如是。茶山説褅,根本於《周禮》,考信於《春秋》,縱論古今,撤底抛棄舊説,而創發新説。若依其説,《周禮》有雖不名褅而實爲褅之文,褅爲大祭之首,故與郊並稱,而其別在於郊祭上帝、褅祭五帝(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爲禬禮。《樂書孤存》從樂律學的角度提出他的理據,認爲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,正是爲了凸顯檜除取律有別於正祭。茶山以禬取代郊褅,據之破譯〈大司樂〉的三大奏樂,氣魄恢弘,自信昂揚。只是禬之爲禮,文獻自來已無足徵,且茶山所論及者,過於粗疏,其説有商榷與辨正的必要。其以〈大司樂〉三大奏樂爲禬樂,説有未安。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〉爲説,顧此失彼,膽氣有餘而證據薄弱。茶山論説雖然得失互見,但其廓清鄭注以來聚訟的用心,具有啓廸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 leong Yak-yang?s theory of sacrifice, Jeong Yak-yong (1762-1836X 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 (chemvei), 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 unsuecessful: 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.

AB - 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》,以爲其書成於周公之手,只要「覈其本旨,露其眞面」,則禮之聚訟皆可解決。茶山以《春秋》爲孔子親手之筆,認爲欲認知周禮,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,以郊褅説爲甚,故不惜顛覆鄭説,重構《周禮》祭祀譜系,以闡明聖人制禮本義爲依歸。根據考察《春秋》九次郊事,茶山得出古之郊期本在建卯之月,又認定啓蟄爲春分之候,非寅月之氣,復謂啓蟄郊天,非主祈農,魯僅一郊,天子之郊亦如是。茶山説褅,根本於《周禮》,考信於《春秋》,縱論古今,撤底抛棄舊説,而創發新説。若依其説,《周禮》有雖不名褅而實爲褅之文,褅爲大祭之首,故與郊並稱,而其別在於郊祭上帝、褅祭五帝(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爲禬禮。《樂書孤存》從樂律學的角度提出他的理據,認爲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,正是爲了凸顯檜除取律有別於正祭。茶山以禬取代郊褅,據之破譯〈大司樂〉的三大奏樂,氣魄恢弘,自信昂揚。只是禬之爲禮,文獻自來已無足徵,且茶山所論及者,過於粗疏,其説有商榷與辨正的必要。其以〈大司樂〉三大奏樂爲禬樂,説有未安。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〉爲説,顧此失彼,膽氣有餘而證據薄弱。茶山論説雖然得失互見,但其廓清鄭注以來聚訟的用心,具有啓廸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 leong Yak-yang?s theory of sacrifice, Jeong Yak-yong (1762-1836X 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 (chemvei), 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 unsuecessful: 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.

KW - 丁若鏞

KW - 《周禮》

KW - 《春秋》

KW - 郊

KW - 褅

KW - 禬

KW - Dasan

KW - Jeong Yak-yong

KW - Zheng Xuan

KW - Zhouli

KW - Jiao-sacrifice

KW - Di-sacrifice

KW - Kui-sacrifice

KW - The Three Orders of Grand Sacrificial Music

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

SP - 113

EP - 160

JO - 中國文哲研究集刊 = Bulletin of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy

JF - 中國文哲研究集刊 = Bulletin of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy

SN - 1017-6462

IS - 53

ER -