晁时杰 英国牛津大学
Chard, Robert, University of Oxford
原 文Original
Perspectives on Li (礼) and ‘Ritual’ in Western Sinology
For several centuries Western sinologists have been preoccupied with the nature of ritual in China, and often direct consideration of the Chinese concept of li (礼). This word has no simple English equivalent, and is translated by terms such as ‘ritual, rites, ceremonial, etiquette, manners, rules of behaviour, ritual propriety,’ and, in a wider sense, something along the lines of ‘prescriptive rules or norms which govern society.’ In the earlier history of Western sinology, eighteenth-century accounts about China (especially that of Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, 1674–1743) exerted a strong influence on understandings of Chinese religion (T.H. Barrett 2005), and, given that Western perceptions of other civilizations tended at that time to be largely conditioned by categorizations according to religion, it was primarily within a religious context that the concept of li was defined. One significant landmark in Western analyses of li is James Legge’s translation of the Li ji (礼记), completed in 1885. This is the last of his major translations of ancient Chinese canonical texts, and (as argued in Norman Girardot 2002) its scholarly value in modern terms ranks among the best of Legge’s work, yet is less well known than most of his other translations. Overall, it succeeds remarkably well in making sense of this text – and the concept of li – on Chinese terms, with less distortion than one might expect from previous efforts to view the Chinese canon in a purely religious context.
In more recent times, especially the last two to three decades, following the appearance of ‘ritual studies’ as a field of study in its own right, Western sinologists have applied similar anthropological and historical methods to ritual in China. This has concentrated in three areas. One of these, perhaps the most active, is the study of rituals in Chinese religion, especially observances in local and popular religion, but in general this seems to be more an application of the category of ‘ritual’ to the Chinese case, emphasizing ritual as practice, performance, or orthodox prescription in different contexts; such studies are less likely to consider the Chinese concept of ‘li’ itself. Another area, explored by historians, is the official and private implementation of rituals based on the Confucian ritual canons, in which li is significant, linked to conceptions of orthodoxy: such studies address such topics as the official observances of the court and government, or private rites following prescriptions in texts such as the Jiali (家礼) of Zhu Xi (朱熹). A third area of scholarship, associated in particular with the philosophical study of ancient Confucianism, has explored the meanings of li in a broader sense, as applied to concepts of social structure and order, to the cultivation of the individual within a moral and spiritual context, and as a significant defining concept in Chinese civilization from very early times (for example, writings by Benjamin Schwartz, Robert Eno, and Joachim Gentz). This paper will concentrate on the second and third areas, and offer general comments on the approaches used, and how these approaches either enhance, or limit, the results obtained.
译文Translation
西方汉学之“礼”观
几个世纪以来，西方汉学家们一直在思考中国礼仪的本质问题，并且常常会直接考察汉语中“礼”这个概念。而“礼”这个词并没有简单明了的英文对等词，它被翻译为“ritual，rites，ceremonial，etiquette，manners，rules of behaviour，ritual propriety”等。广义地讲，它含有“治理社会的限制性规范准则”的意义。在西方汉学的较早阶段，18世纪有关中国的记述（特别是Jean-Baptiste Du Halde，1674–1743）对理解中国宗教影响重大（T.H. Barrett 2005）。此外，由于当时西方人在审视其他文明时往往从宗教角度来分类，因此“礼”这个概念主要是在宗教语境下加以界定的。在西方对“礼”的研究中，理雅各（James Legge）完成于1885年的《礼记》翻译是一个里程碑式的贡献。这是由他译出的主要中国经典中的最后一部，其学术价值在理氏诸多译作中排在前列（Norman Girardot 2002），但是不如他翻译的其他译作那么出名。总的来讲，这部译作在文本——以及“礼”这一概念——的格义方面尤为出色。同之前那些在纯宗教语境下对中国经典的研究相比，理氏译文中术语的意义偏差要小得多。
近年来，特别是最近二、三十年间，“礼仪研究”成为一个专门性的研究领域，于是西方汉学家们也将相关的人类学、历史学方法应用于中国礼仪研究上。这集中体现在三个领域。其中第一个（恐怕也是最活跃的一个）领域是对中国宗教礼仪的研究，特别是民间宗教和新兴宗教的礼仪研究。但总体来说，这似乎更多地是将“礼仪”范畴应用于中国，强调礼仪是在不同语境下的实践、表演或者正统规定。这类研究很少考虑汉语中“礼”这一概念本身。历史学家们开辟了另一个领域，关注基于儒家礼教经典的礼仪在公私场合的应用，其中“礼”关系到正统观念，可谓举足轻重：这类研究引出了一些议题，如官员在庙堂的谨礼，以及依据诸如朱熹的《朱子家礼》等文本而建立的私人礼仪规范等。第三个学术领域同古代儒家的哲学研究有密切关联，在更广泛的意义上探究“礼”的含义。如将“礼”用在社会结构和秩序上，用于道德精神语境下的修身。“礼”是一个可以追溯到中华民族上古历史的决定性概念（如Benjamin Schwartz，Robert Eno，Joachim Gentz等人著作中所述）。此篇论文将集中考察后两个领域，对其研究方法进行总体评价，并评述这些方法如何增进或者限制了研究所获得的成果。