《曹操墓研究》上篇 曹操墓认定的礼制性误判

The Illogical Ritual Judgement Made in Identification of Cao Cao’s Mausoleum——"Study on Tomb of Cao Cao", Part Ⅰ

本文着重从汉魏丧葬礼仪制度的视角,研判所谓"曹操墓"的墓主身份及其相关问题。主要结论是:1.按照汉魏君主的丧葬礼制,其随葬品上谥号书写的规范格式,是谥号加身份,绝不会再加上国号;2.君主谥号书写的规范格式,来源于孔子创立的正统儒家理念,并由孔子亲手在儒家经典《春秋》中树立起权威性样式,目的是凸显天子高于诸侯国君的独一无二至尊地位,具有重要的现实政治功用;3.曹操生前已充分享有天子特权,并在安排自己陵园中公然以天子自居,所以曹操封号"魏王"的"王",完全不能理解为普通诸侯王公的"王",而是周朝天子称谓"周王"的"王",是与皇帝并称"帝王"的"王",也就是天子;4.在其权位继承人曹丕和丧事主要经办大臣司马孚等的一致支持下,曹操丧葬必定会以天子等级办理。其随葬品上谥号书写的格式,应当是"武王",而绝非加国号"魏"字的"魏武王";5".魏武王"称谓的出现,非但不是认定墓主为曹操的关键性物证,反倒成为证明墓主绝不可能是曹操的关键性物证;6.仅仅因为随葬品有"魏武王"的称谓,就将墓主认定为曹操,是在不了解当时丧葬礼制和政治现实的情况下,做出的根本性误判;7.陵园中两座墓葬的相对位置,也是以上误判的有力佐证。

This paper,mainly from the perspective of the Han and Wei funeral etiquette system,analyzes and studies the identity of the host of the so-called ＂Tomb of Cao Cao＂ and related issues with the main conclusions as follows： 1.In accordance with the Han monarch＇s funeral ritual,the normal form of the posthumous writing on funerary objects was the posthumous title plus the identity of the dead,never including the title of a reigning dynasty;2.The normal form of posthumous writing for a mmonarch came from the Confucian orthodox philosophy and was an authoritative style set up by Confucius himself in the Confucian classic,＂Spring and Autumn＂ in order to highlight the unique and supreme position of the Son of Heaven over all leuds,thus having important practical and political functions;3.As Cao Cao had the full enjoyment of the privileges of the emperor during his lifetime,and openly posed as the emperor in the arrangements for his own cemetery,the ＂King＂ in his title ＂King of the Wei State＂ can not be interpreted as the ＂king＂ of ordinary leuds,but the ＂King＂ equal to that of the Son of Heaven of the Zhou dynasty,or the monarch,or the Son of Heaven;4.With the unanimous support of Cao Pi,his power and position successor and Sima Fu,a minister in charge of his funeral affairs and other key ministers,Cao Cao’s funeral must have been handled the way the Son of Heaven was buried.The format of the posthumous writing should have been the ＂King Wu＂ instead of the ＂King Wu of the Wei State＂;5.The title of ＂King Wu of the Wei State＂ could not be the key evidence in the identification of the tomb owner of Cao Cao;to the contrary,it proves the certainty that it couldn’t be Cao Cao’s;6.It is a fundamental illogical judgement to identify this tomb as Cao Cao’s simply because of the title of ＂King Wu of the Wei State＂ on the funeral objects,a result from lacking of understanding the funeral rituals and political realities of that time;7.And the relative position between the two mausoleums is also a more convincing evidence of the above-mention illogical judgement.