<論説>商君変法研究序説

Abstract

商君変法には膨大な研究の蓄積があるが、その史実性の問題は等閑視されてきた。本稿は、『史記』の商君関係の記述の包括的分析に基づき、この問題を検討する。第一章では、秦本紀・商君列伝・六国年表を比較検討して、これらの商君関係の記述の先後、『史記』が利用した商君関係資料の概要、『史記』の創作のありかたを確認する。第二章では、秦本紀・商君列伝の矛盾を手掛かりに、通説と異なり、『史記』が変法開始を孝公元年に置くことを確認する。『史記』以前の商君説話は、変法期間を十年程度とするが、年代記的資料の実在の商君は孝公二十四年のほぼ全期間にわたって活動する。『史記』がこの矛盾を解消するため、一つの説話の起点を孝公元年に、今一つの説話の終点を二十四年に置くことを確認する。第三章では、変法関係の記述を分析し、年代記的資料との矛盾を内包する第一次変法の記述は、法家が商君を理想の変法者として記号化したのちに創作されたものであること、第二次変法の記述は、年代記的部分をも含むが、阡陌制は、漢代以降、商君に附会されたものであることを論ずる。『史記』の商君関係の記事には、年代記的記述、法家すなわち昭襄王朝以降に成立した秦の商君学派の説話、秦・商君が否定的に記号化された漢代以降の儒家の説話が混在する。年代記などの確実な資料による限り、商君変法の史実性は認めがたい。近年増加しつつある戦国秦漢出土文字資料を扱うに際して、商君変法なる「史実」を自明の前提とするのではなく、一個の「歴史認識」として相国化することが要請されよう。

Many scholars have studied Shangjun 商君 (Lord Shang)'s Reforms, but the historical reality of the Reforms has never been examined. In this article, the author attempts to examine this problem on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of Shiji 史記's description of Lord Shang. In the first part, he comparatively examines Qinbenji 秦本紀, Liuguonianbiao 六国年表 and Shangjunliezhuang 商君列伝, and confirms the order of these descriptions of Lord Shang, the general condition of materials concerning Lord Shang quoted by Shiji, and the characteristics of Shiji's creation. In the second part, on the basis of analysis of the contradiction between Qinbenji and Shangjunliezhuang, he confirms that Shiji, opposed to the popular theory, dated the start of the Reforms to the 1st year of the reign of Xiaogong 孝公 of the Qin State. Legends about Lord Shang before Shiji told that the Reforms continued for ten years or so, but the real Lord Shang recorded in the chronicle materials acted during almost the whole of Xiaogong's 24 year reign. The author argues that to solve this contradiction, Shiji dated the start of one legend to the 1st year, and the end of another to the 24th year of Xiaogong's reign. In the third part, he analyzes descriptions about the Reforms and concludes that descriptions about the first Reforms contradictory to chronicle materials were created after symbolization of Lord Shang as an ideal reformer by legalists, and some of the descriptions about the second Reforms certainly contained chronicle materials, but the Qianbo 阡陌 system was secondarily added to Lord Shang after the Former Han period. Shiji's descriptions about Lord Shang are a mixture of chronicle materials, legends created by legalists of Lord Shang's school established in the Qin state after Zhaoxiangwang 昭嚢王's reign, and legends created by Confucians of the Former Han period after negative symbolization of the Qin state or Lord Shang. As far as reliable materials such as chronicles are concerned, the historical reality of the Reforms can not be confirmed. While analysis excavated literary materials of the Warring States, Qin and the Former Han periods have recently increased, the Reforms must not be premised as an absolute historical reality, but be regarded as merely part of historical tradition.