本文旨在闡究漢世〈鹿鳴〉詩說之美刺不同，論其「為〈小雅〉始」之雙重義涵，從而重新詮釋《史記．孔子世家》之「四始」。首先分別《詩序》與《史記》言四「始」之差異，認為毛鄭遠承孔子，看重居「始」者之教化意義，惟「正」者能當，乃價值取向之排列；司馬遷則基於一種歷史意識，以「始」為事件之起點，取其陳述現象義，乃次序取向之排列。進言〈鹿鳴〉之美刺，蓋即取決於兩造持義不同，毛鄭必以「禮燕臣下」為旨，一應孔子「於〈鹿鳴〉見君臣之有禮」說，乃端正上下之原，故以美詩為始；司馬遷則謂「仁義陵遲，〈鹿鳴〉刺焉」，著眼詩之本事，殆指周衰趨敗，乃亂世之發端，故以刺詩為始。是得言「〈鹿鳴〉為〈小雅〉始」之雙重義涵：詩在毛鄭則美善大備，為君臣楷模、教化之原，大其價值而為始；而司馬遷既以刺詩定調，衰周為始，〈鹿鳴〉以下便無復稱美，故云「〈小雅〉怨誹而不亂」，篇無正詩矣。從而可知〈孔子世家〉 所載：「故曰：〈關雎〉之亂以為〈風〉始，〈鹿鳴〉為〈小雅〉始，〈文王〉 為〈大雅〉始，〈清廟〉為〈頌〉始」殆有兩解：言者孔子，則四詩必美，居始皆正，顯其人倫教化義；言者史遷，則美刺並陳，居始者蓋為發端，以是詩之質性引領全篇，故美刺不拘，但以次序列之。本文憑〈鹿鳴〉之美刺，抉發「四始說」之兩端詮解，所論關涉漢代《詩經》學暨四始之研究，為其價值所在。

This paper mainly discussed the two different comments on ＂Lu Ming＂, reinterpreting the meaning of “Si Shi” in “Shi Ji Confucius Shi Jia”. First, the paper tried to differentiate the annotations in “Shi Xu” and “Shi Ji” respectively, proposing that Mao and Cheng followed Confucius’ explanation and focused on the positive meaning of “Shi”; on the contrary, Shi Ma Qian adopted the negative concept, arguing that “Shi” described the decaying of Zhon dynasty. From Mao and Cheng's view, “Shi” served the purpose of being the principle of the interaction between the emperor and his ministers and educating the public; whereas ShiMa Qian introduced an ironic tone to depict the rot of Zhou dynasty. Therefore, as quoted in ＂Confucius Shi Jia＂, the “Shi” in “Feng”, “Xiao Ya”, “Da Ya”, and “Song” are as follows “Guan Ju”, “Lu Ming”, “WenWang”, and “Qing Miao”. As proposed above, two different approaches were adopted to interpret the four “Shi”. Confucius argued that the four works are used to emphasize the good part of human nature and have a positive meaning; by contrast, Shi Ma Qian introduced an ironic tone for analyzing the works. The purpose of this paper lies in offering two different views toward the study of “Si Shi”.

〈鹿鳴〉、四始、司馬遷、孔子、〈小雅〉

“Lu Ming”, Si Shi, Shi Ma-Qian, Confucius, “Xiao Ya”