郑玄、王肃郊祀立说再审视

A Re-examination of Zheng Xuan's and Wang Su's Views on Suburban Sacrifice

郑玄郊、丘二分的主张是他的学术底线和逻辑起点,由此导致他对《郊特牲》"周之始郊"等诸多问题的看法都未尽副实。王肃以郊、丘为一,周本有二郊,在立说的周延性上远较郑君为优。郑君之误,多据纬书及信《周礼》太过,是主要原因;王肃之说不唯博引经子史传以为证,更上承贾、马、先郑诸儒,故王说既有广泛的文献适应性,又秉承经学内部一贯的知识谱系。王肃虽引及《孔子家语》,但该书在其证据系统中地位并不突出,辨伪学者囿于经学门户之见,对《家语》的作用有夸大之嫌。学者由《家语》与他书之间的"互见"径指其为王肃作伪铁证的辨伪逻辑,实受伪《古文尚书》辨伪方法的误导,系经典辨伪学"范式"的扩大化,其结论并不可信。

The view that jiao(郊the suburban sacrifice)is different fromqiu(丘the circular mound sacrifice)are Zheng Xuan's starting point of study and logic on this issue,which make some of his opinions on problems like'Zhou's first suburban sacrifice'(周之始郊)in Jiao Te Sheng(郊特牲)somewhat out of line with reality.Wang Su,on the contrary,claimed that jiao and qiu were the same and there were two suburban sacrifice sites in Zhou,which made his theory much more rational than Zheng's theory.Zheng made these mistakes because he based his views mainly on Wei Shu(纬书)and the Rites of Zhou.Wang Su's theory not only made extensive reference to books included classics,works of scholars,books of history,biographies,etc.,but also to works of many Confucians such as Jia Kui,Ma Rong,Xu Shen and Zheng Xuan.Therefore,Wang's theory is not only extensively literature-based,but also adherent to the consistent propositions in the Confucian classics.Although Wang Su made reference to the Homely Talks of Confucius(孔 子 家 语),the book is not very important in his deduction.Scholars dedicated in distinguishing the genuine from the false had a biased and overstated opinions about the function of the Homely Talksof Confuciusin this regard.They took the similar contents in the Homely Talks of Confucius and other books in Wang Shu's deduction as the irrefutable evidence of his forgery.This is in fact logically wrong and is misled by methodused in distinguishing the fake Book of Documents(古文尚书),an extension of the paradigm of classical study of forgeries.Therefore their conclusions are not reliable.