【作者】 吕庙军；

【导师】 陈启云； 张荣明；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 中国古代史， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 周公是研究中国古代思想文化及中华文明史上重要的关键的历史人物。上世纪八、九十年代学术界对周公的研究主要围绕周公摄政称王这一热点问题而展开的。进入二十一世纪以来,学术界对周公的研究倾以格外的关注,因而形成几部有重要影响的系统研究周公的专著。这些研究成果不仅是对当前全球蔚然成风的“儒学热”、“孔子热”等国学研究广度、深度的拓展和继续,也是对孔子之前的前枢轴时代思想文化的追溯和反思。这些思路和运作的意义无疑都是应当得到肯定的。然而,周公研究的课题涉及的方面和领域特别宽广,加上周公研究本身的复杂性,远非是几部著作所能囊括的。本文择取周公研究当中的若干重要专题尝试进行攻疑补缺式的研究,分别从周公的政治身份、事迹疑点、思想文化诸层面逐一展开。论文融合了历史学、语言学、考古学等多学科的研究方法,在充分尊重和利用前人学术成果的基础上,考证和思辨并重,对周公的诸多疑点和思想文化等问题尽可能作出言之有据、合乎情理的诠释,以便能够为推进周公的研究和弘扬中国传统思想文化尽绵薄之力。考量周公是否称王的史实,是周公研究中的学术热点和焦点,也是难以回避的历史问题。周公是否称王不仅属于一个历史事实的判断问题,而且也属于一个史学方法论的问题。同时,这也涉及到对周公政治地位和作用如何正确地进行评价。周公在周初严峻复杂的政治形势下以成王主要辅臣的身份,力挽狂澜,使周室得以转危为安。以是观之,周公确实起到了关键的政治作用,但并不能据此认为周公曾经继承王位并宣布为王。盖周初因武王新丧、成王年幼、三监叛乱等危机局势以及后来周公效劳周室的卓功伟绩导致了很多学者主张周公称王的误解。从传世文献《尚书·周书》的记载来看,很难说周公曾经继承王位、宣布为王即称王的史实。《周书》中出现的“王曰”、“王若曰”有些应视作周公以成王名义命诰,有些是史官记录之习语。诰文的内容实际均为周公所言。《康诰》中出现的“孟侯,朕其弟,小子封”这句话向来被视作周公称王的“铁证”。可是,同样这句话也正如有的学者指出的那样：是周公在命诰时根据话语对象所使用的插入语。如果再结合西周彝铭有关周王的世系并无周公一世的载录,可以推论周公自己不曾宣布为王。准此,我们可以基本论定周公不曾称王的事实。周公在周初只是辅佐成王,不过因为主客观历史条件的原因使他担当了极其重要的政治角色。《尚书·周书》中很多篇目均出自周公或与其有关,这种现象也充分表明周公在周初历史上的政治地位和作用。周公辅政成王,后人艳称周公摄政,两者含义实质等同。不能因为有后世出现的“摄政王”而据此推出周公称王的结论。对周公其它事迹疑点的研究,除了尊重前人的研究成果,合理利用之外,还可以采用历史文献考证和思想史研究的方法相结合的路径,进行多重互证以使结论更加逼近真实。有关周公的一些传说事迹很多具有史实的背景,故亦可视作研究周公思想的素材。周公思想的内容和来源非常丰富。学术界对周公的史鉴思想、忧患思想关注不够,对周公天命思想虽有论述,但存在着不少的误解需要加以澄清。史鉴思想、忧患思想并非周公一人所独有,而是周初的一种思想共识。这些思想集中反映在周公身上,既是历史时代的机遇,又与周公个人主观条件紧密相关。周公的史鉴、忧患等思想,是中国前枢轴时代的重要标志,对中国传统政治思想的影响甚为长远。周公的天命思想相较于其前代的思想也属于一种进步意义的思想体系。这主要体现在周公提出或倡导的“天棐忱”(天辅助诚信,与“天命佑德”近似)、“天命不易”(天命难保)、“天不可信”(天命不可完全信赖)等主要命题上。天命、史鉴和忧患等思想属于周公思想研究中比较大的思想范畴,其中往往互相交叉、互相联系、互为包含。这些思想都从不同层面彰显了人类的理性光芒,成为周公等周初统治者勤政明德、积极作为的重要动力和统治方针工具。今天看来,这些传统思想资源依然有其一定的现实借鉴意义。周公与中国传统文化的关系,是一个比较大的问题。论文主要选取有代表性意义的《诗经》、《周易》、《尚书》这三部儒家经典著作进行一些学术整合、辨析厘正、梳理诠释的工作,重点说明周公与三部经典著作的关系程度。具体而言,《诗经》当中似有一些诗篇确为周公所作,如《鸱鸮》、《大雅·文王》、《周颂·清庙》以及构成《大武乐章》的《时迈》、《武》、《赉》、《般》、《酌》、《桓》六篇。但若据此,即言周公是《诗经》的作者则不当；若说周公与《诗经》有一定的关系尚可。关于《周易》,本文主要探讨文王、周公与《周易》经文的关系,并提出文王、周公合作卦爻辞的新说法。诸多文献记载和卦爻辞的思想蕴味表明文王、周公与《周易》确实存在着密切关系,而孔子是《易传》作者的说法却很难成立。孔子晚年学易、嗜易,与孔子作《易传》并非等同,亦无必然因果关系。此二者实是性质不同的两回事。对《尚书》中周公话语的特点的诠释可以透视周公谋划周密、谨慎持重、细致耐心、平易近人的思想性格。这是周公内心深处的真实思想世界。周公政治家、思想家的历史面目和身份得以彰显,同时体现出他与传统思想文化的内在关系和在中国古代文化史上的重要地位。周公不仅在周初政治生活领域中担当了关键的政治角色,而且在中国古代思想文化史上占据着重要的地位。周公对中国古代政治文化的形成和发展做出了开拓性的贡献,对中国传统文化价值观产生了原发性的影响。故而我们也可以说周公已成为古代中国政治思想文化的一种符号。更多还原

【Abstract】 Zhou Gong is an important and critical historic figure in researching Chinese ancient culture and early civilization. In the 1980s and 1990s the attention of Chinese scholars is mostly focused on the problem whether Zhou Gong had been the regent or king of the Zhou regime. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Chinese scholars have paid greater attention to Zhou Gong and have written several important and systemic works about Zhou Gong. These efforts not only continue to expand the current "national studies fever", but also retrospective reflect on the Chinese culture in the Primal Axial Period before Confucius. All these are worthy endeavoring. The problems about Zhou Gong involve many academic fields and aspects, adding to the complexity of the on-going studies.This dissertation attempts to clarify and fill up the gaps by choosing the important topics covering the political identity, the controversial deeds and the cultural implications concerning Zhou Gong. It adopts a multi-disciplinary research method involving history, archeology and language analysis to deal with those doubtful points about facts and reasons so as to do my part in promoting the research on the Chinese traditional culture.The controversy on Zhou Gong having become a king or not is not only a hotpot in current academic debates, but also an unavoidable problem in studying Zhou Gong. It involves not only historical facts but also historical methodology. This comes down to evaluating his place in history. The crises facing the early Western Zhou Dynasty, the rigorous efforts which Zhou Gong made to turn the tide and helped the dynasty out of the crisis in his role as the prime minister of the young and inexperienced King Cheng. Viewed in this light, Zhou Gong played a critically important role in this. We can not thus conclude that Zhou Gong had laid claim to the Zhou throne because of this. It is the critical situation of king Wu death, king Cheng young and the armed rebellion of the remnant of the vanquished Yin-Shang and leading members of the Zhou ruling clan resulting in Zhou Gong’s great achievements, which later lead to the misunderstanding about Zhou Gong’s role and ambitions. My conclusion is that these hardly proves that Zhou Gong have ever ascended the throne and become king according to recorded wordings in the Zhoushu section of the Shangshu, such as "the king said" or "the king said so" in should be regarded as Zhou Gong’s speech on behalf of the King Cheng or the formulated phraseology of the Zhou court historiographer. The words "Head of the vassals, my brother, young Feng" in the Kanggao has been considered hard evidence which Zhou Gong had become king. However, just as some scholars have proved that which is parenthesis of Zhou Gong based on the addressee. If we probe into the subject again with the fact that bronze inscriptions in Western Zhou are lack of recordings on Zhou Gong as a king, we could draw inferences that Zhou Gong has never been a king in history. We may confirm the fact that Zhou Gong was not a king. He only assisted King Cheng governing the state in early Western Zhou Dynasty, but extraordinary history conditions made him to be a kingly persona in political life playing a great role in the Western Zhou Dynasty. He assisted King Cheng in the so-called Zhou Gong regency. As a matter of fact, this regency does not necessarily mean Zhou Gong was a king. Studies on other doubtful points about Zhou Gong should respect and use the achievements of previous researches for reference, combining historical analysis with intellectual historical study, and using also those legendary accounts about Zhou Gong as meaningful research material.The contents and sources of Zhou Gong’s thought are very colorful. Many senior Chinese scholars had already written about this, but there are misunderstandings needed to be clarified. Ideas about the Mandate of Heaven visa-avis humanistic efforts, critical awareness about conditions of the state, etc., as expressed by Zhou Gong was probably not the sole characteristics of his thought but the common concerns of all capable and far-sighted rulers, or the common intellectual trends of early Zhou time. These intellectual concerns were symbolic of the Primal Axial Age in China, and greatly influenced China’traditional political culture. These enlightened notions of Zhou Gong’s signified a step forward in China’s ancient intellectual-ideological development. The sayings reportedly coming from Zhou Gong, such as "Heaven assists those of good faith", "Heaven could not be gain-said for sure", "Heaven could not be completely trusted " constituted major currents in Chinese traditional thought, which often crisscrossed and complimented each others. These demonstrate humanistic reasoning from different respects still with their positive and progressive significance today.The relationship between Zhou Gong and the traditional culture of China is a significant problem. This dissertation focused on analyzing three typical Confucianist classics, the Book of Songs(shijing), the Book of changes (Yijing), and the Book of History (Shujing). It studies how Zhou Gong is thought to be related to the classics. Specifically speaking, there are some poems in the Book of Songs written by Zhou Gong indeed, i.e. Chi Xiao, Da ya Wen wang, Zhou song qing miao and Da wu which consists of Shi mai, Wu,Lai, Ban, Zhuo, Huan. It is unsuitable to say that Zhou Gong is the author of the Book of Songs on the basis of this. But some of poems mostly were his. Regarding the Book of Changes, we mainly discuss the relationship that the role of King Wen and Zhou Gong on the Book of Changes and put forward the viewpoint that they both wrote some of it. According to many historical documents and the thought flavor of the book, it is likely that king Wen and Zhou Gong are closely related in authoring the Book of Changes. On the other hand, the statement that Confucius wrote the Yi zhuan section in the present Book of Changes can hardly hold water. The fact that Confucius read and love the yi is not the same as he wrote Yi zhuan. There are twelve chapters about Zhou Gong in Zhou shu. It is observed that Zhou Gong is a man of planning well, ponderous and cautious, considerate and of easy access. This is about the real inner world of Zhou Gong. It shows that he is not only a statesman and thinker, but also that he is intimately related to the traditional culture of China and stands an important position in the history of Chinese intellectual-cultural development.Zhou Gong played a critical role not only in the political filed of early Zhou Dynasty, but also in the history of Chinese culture. He contributed to the formation and development of Chinese political culture and influenced cultural values primarily. All in all, we may rightly consider Zhou Gong as a outstanding symbol of Chinese political culture.更多还原