科舉視角下的明清《禮記》學——《禮記》義考試之流弊、批評與回應
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2015-06-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立台灣師範大學國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract
明、清科舉《五經》義中，不考《周禮》、《儀禮》，僅考《禮記》一經，原尊用古註疏，自永樂以後，改尊陳澔《禮記集說》。對《禮記》考試之功令規定及實施流弊，前人迭有批評。歸納前人所批評的三大流弊為：《禮記》喪禮凶諱等考官不出的內容，刪去不讀；僅考《禮記》，以致《周禮》、《儀禮》乏人問津；功令所尊陳澔《禮記集說》簡陋不足，導致禮學空疏。本論文說明前人不滿的焦點何在，探討前人所提出的救弊之道，以及朝廷的回應，並分析流弊未能改善之故。
The Book of Rites was one of Five Classics in the imperial examination of Ming and Qing Dynasty, which did not include Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial and Rites of Zhou. The grading criterion was originally based on the ancient interpretation; however, after Youngle Emperor, it was adapted to Chen Hao’s The Collection of Commentaries on the Book of Rites. With regard to the drawbacks and regulations of the exam of Book of Rites, there were former scholars criticizing consecutively. Hence, the three greatest drawbacks which were criticized by the former scholars are the unused content of the Book of Rites involving funerals, taboos and ill omens by the examiners, confined testing content of the Book of Rites leading Chouli and Yili to be ignored, and the criticism of the hollow Rites caused by Chen Hao’s The Collection of Commentaries on the Book of Rites. This study mainly focuses on discussing the reasons why the former scholars dissented. Furthermore, it analyzes the scholars’ suggestions for modifying and the officials’ responses to find out why the modification was failure.
The Book of Rites was one of Five Classics in the imperial examination of Ming and Qing Dynasty, which did not include Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial and Rites of Zhou. The grading criterion was originally based on the ancient interpretation; however, after Youngle Emperor, it was adapted to Chen Hao’s The Collection of Commentaries on the Book of Rites. With regard to the drawbacks and regulations of the exam of Book of Rites, there were former scholars criticizing consecutively. Hence, the three greatest drawbacks which were criticized by the former scholars are the unused content of the Book of Rites involving funerals, taboos and ill omens by the examiners, confined testing content of the Book of Rites leading Chouli and Yili to be ignored, and the criticism of the hollow Rites caused by Chen Hao’s The Collection of Commentaries on the Book of Rites. This study mainly focuses on discussing the reasons why the former scholars dissented. Furthermore, it analyzes the scholars’ suggestions for modifying and the officials’ responses to find out why the modification was failure.