摘要
習見於侯馬、温縣盟書最後的詛咒之詞“明亟■之麻夷非氏”,其具體意涵過去即已有不少學者參與討論,近年董珊、沈培都分别撰文研探,促使學界再度注意到此議題。在既有的説法中,“亟”讀爲殛是最普遍的解釋,但不論訓爲誅殺或誅罰,都違反了漢語的時間順序原則。若讀爲“極”,爲極度之意,則又難以解釋金文“公則明亟”一類的句子。在上述的兩種困境中,董珊提出“■”應讀爲“示”,“明殛”是其直接賓語的看法,對此則沈培亦已指出,直接賓語提前缺乏語法上的證據支持。至於沈培將“亟”解釋爲“窮困之、監視之”,對於結盟的詛咒之辭而言,“監視”不會造成實際傷害,“窮困”則内容較不明確,恐難收威嚇之效。鑑於既有的説法對此句仍有疑義,本文希望可以從最基本的字詞訓詁入手,結合古籍盟詛之辭的比較,嘗試將“■”改釋爲“致”,從上古漢語雙賓語動詞的用法,提出一個可以符合時間順序與文例語境的解釋。
There has been significant scholarly discussion about the connotations of the curse ming ji shi zhi ma yi fei shi明亟之麻夷非氏commonly found at the end of the alliance pledges unearthed in Houma City and Wen County,He'nan province.Recently,Dong Shan and Shen Pei respectively brought this subject to academic fora again.Among the established interpretations,the word ji was generally construed as“putting to death.”However,this interpretation,as“kill”or“punish,”violates the chronological principle of Chinese language.If it is glossed as“extreme,”it would not make sense in contexts such as gong ze ming ji公則明亟in bronze inscriptions.To solve this dilemma,Dong Shan argues that the word shi現should be interpreted as shi示(reveal or show)and ming ji as its direct object.Shen Pei refutes Dong s argument as it lacks compelling evidence of this kind of syntax(i.c.,the direct object being placed before the verb).Shen interprets the word ji as“impoverishing someone”and“putting someone under surveillance.”However,“surveillance”would not cause any injury;the meaning of“impoverishing”is unclear in the context.These glosses do not fit in the context of alliance vows and curses.This paper attempts to remedy these deficiencies by means of the synthesis of classical Chinese philology,grammatical analysis,and the comparison of other alliance vows in classical texts,to offer an alternative explanation that conforms to chronological and contextual rules.
作者
林宏佳
Lin Horng-Jia(Depattment of Chinese Literature,Taiwan University,China)
出处
《人文中国学报》
CSSCI
2023年第2期1-42,共42页
Sino-Humanitas
关键词
盟書
盟誓
施事
致送
雙賓句
alliance pledges
alliance vows
agent
deliver
double object sentence
