《清華簡（拾叁）》〈大夫食禮〉、〈大夫食禮記〉文獻研究

Abstract

本文以《清華簡（拾叁）》〈大夫食禮〉和〈大夫食禮記〉作為主要的研究對象，並著重於探討兩篇簡文的「文獻性質」及「重要職稱」、〈大夫食禮〉的「特殊儀節」以及〈大夫食禮記〉的「飲食屬饋」，最終得出如下結論：就重要職稱而言，憑藉簡文本身提供的訊息，本文判斷屢見於〈大夫食禮〉的「客者」類於《儀禮》之介、擯、相，除了「代替席上眾人傳辭」外，尚需負責「請求主人或相關執禮人員行事」和「宣告儀節始末」，並具備「食餕」的權利；「友者」作為〈大夫食禮〉內另一重要角色，旨在彰顯「愛敬」之精神。其主要承擔「侍饋」之責，故得以與賓主雙方一同進食，並設有專門的屬饋者為該職服務。而儘管《儀禮》內的「侑」、彝器銘文所見之「右者」跟友者的讀音相近，卻因性質特徵存在明顯差異而不相類。若單從職務範疇來看，其與「贊者」則多有相像之處；至於〈大夫食禮記〉的「屬饋者」係按屬饋對象分工，並呈現「單對單」的形式，不同於〈公食大夫禮〉按食物種類分工，反而與〈燕禮〉所言較為貼合。就特殊儀節而言，〈大夫食禮〉所載異於尋常「大食」者有三：一是相對於大食的「小食」，兩者的相異處主要體現於「宴飲環節」、「所食薦數」、「君子入場時機」三方面。首先，小食於宴飲環節可直接設長者之食而無須先撤食，大食則視情況而定，有時需要先撤食方能設長者之食。其次，小食的薦數似是固定為二薦，大食則較為彈性，或一薦，或二薦。最後，大食的入場時機稍早於小食。整體而言，大食給予的彈性空間多於小食；二是「五大夫客七大夫以食」，該處以地位較高的五大夫為主人，而地位較低的七大夫則作賓客。全段出現的人員眾多，除了賓主雙方外，尚有「客者」、「亞主」、「亞客」以及「諸長」，局面看似複雜，卻能按彼此拜辱時的辭讓次數劃分成三組，分別是「主人」對「賓客」，「客者」對「亞客」，「亞主」對「諸長」及其餘七大夫，整體布局則大抵同〈鄉飲酒禮〉相仿；三是「縣大夫食」，其定位較為特殊，準確來說其應屬於前一種特殊儀節下的另一特殊儀節。該段提到的縣公、莫敖、連敖、司馬皆是具地方性質的縣大夫，上述諸官受邀前往觀禮而躋身「諸長」之列，此處即專就席次安排進行說明。就飲食屬饋而言，固然〈大夫食禮記〉文末處對飲食種類及其陳設位置的敘述失之簡率，卻難以掩蓋食物種類之豐富多元。整段內容以「醢醬」為饌本，且以「畢」字為界分成兩次屬饋：首次屬饋的品項較少，僅有䰞（鉶）、湆、醢三種，且前兩種的具體數量未明，但對方位的描述較清楚，䰞（鉶）乃離席位最近者，接著才是湆、醢；二次屬饋的品項增多，依序為膞、肍、炙、秏、糂、𩱷、食、齏八種，展現出楚地的獨特飲食習慣，但對方位的描述較模糊，僅能大致判斷應是以類相從，屬於肉食的膞、肍、炙置於醢旁，而屬於米食的秏、糂、𩱷、食則都附有齏用以佐食。從文獻性質來看，〈大夫食禮〉全篇「客者」一詞凡48見，雖載有楚地食禮之儀節，卻詳於禮辭而略於飲食，且未見被視為飲食禮重要組成部分的「祭食」環節；〈大夫食禮記〉專論「屬饋」一事，文末處附有飲食種類和陳設位置，但相較於《儀禮‧公食大夫禮》，前者敘述飲食的段落顯得過於簡略，不僅各項飲食的具體數量不明，且難以憑藉簡文本身的訊息來加以還原各項飲食所在的相對位置。有鑑於此，本文認為〈大夫食禮〉和〈大夫食禮記〉係分別供「客者」或「屬饋者」這類暫時性任務用以熟悉楚地大夫食禮的習禮之作，屬於獨特的楚地禮書，其間具有明顯的《禮記》類文獻特徵，尤其是「禮辭」的部分。無論是使用時機抑或呈現形式，〈大夫食禮〉皆同《儀禮》、《禮記》乃至《左傳》內的禮辭形態相仿。至於兩篇簡文的關係當是地位相等、各自獨立卻又相輔相成，而非整理者所言「經文」與「附經記文」的關係。

This study examines “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li” (大夫食禮) and “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li-Ji” (大夫食禮記) from the Qinhua University Chu Bamboo Slips Volume XIII. It focuses on their textual characteristics and key ceremonial titles, the unique ritual forms in “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li” (大夫食禮), and the food-serving system described in “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li-Ji” (大夫食禮記).In terms of roles, the term ke-zhe (客者), appearing 48 times, resembles the functions of jie (介), bin (擯), and xiang (相) in the Yi-Li (儀禮). Besides conveying messages on behalf of attendees, the ke-zhe (客者) requests actions from the host or officiants, announces the ritual process, and is entitled to share in leftovers. The you-zhe (友者), emphasizing affection and respect, serves alongside host and guest and is supported by dedicated zhu-kui-zhe (屬饋者). Though phonetically close to you (侑) or you-zhe (右者), its role aligns more with zan-zhe (贊者). In “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li-Ji” (大夫食禮記), zhu-kui-zhe (屬饋者) are assigned on a one-to-one basis by recipient rather than food type, consistent with the structure found in “Yan-Li” (燕禮) rather than “Gong-Shi-Da-Fu-Li” (公食大夫禮).“Dai-Fu-Shi-Li” (大夫食禮) features three atypical ceremonial formats: (1) distinctions between xiao-shi (小食) and da-shi (大食) regarding sequence, number of offerings, and entry timing—da-shi (大食) allows more flexibility; (2) a banquet where five high-ranking hosts and seven lower-ranking guests interact, alongside ke-zhe (客者), ya-zhu (亞主), ya-ke (亞客), and zhu-zhang (諸長), in a structure akin to “Xiang-Yin-Jiu-Li” (鄉飲酒禮), divided by levels of deference; and (3) a “County Officials’ Meal,” highlighting seating for local dignitaries (xian-gong (縣公), mo-ao (莫敖), lian-ao (連敖), si-ma (司馬)) among the zhu-zhang (諸長).In terms of food presentation, although “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li-Ji” (大夫食禮記) is brief, it shows Chu regional culinary richness. The offerings are divided by the character bi (畢) into two rounds: the first includes xing (鉶), xi (湆), and hai (醢), with clear spatial hierarchy; the second adds eight items—zhui (膞), qiu (肍), zhi (炙), hao (秏), shen (糂), mie (𩱷), shi (食), and ji (齏)—with meats grouped near sauces and grains paired with condiments.Textually, “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li” (大夫食禮) emphasizes ceremonial dialogue over food description and omits sacrificial offerings, while “Dai-Fu-Shi-Li-Ji” (大夫食禮記) focuses on food service but lacks quantitative and positional details. Both texts appear to be ritual handbooks for ke-zhe (客者) and zhu-kui-zhe (屬饋者), bearing structural and stylistic traits of the “Li-Ji” (禮記) corpus, especially in the use of formal ritual language. Rather than forming a canonical text with its commentary, the two are independent yet complementary guides in Chu ritual tradition.