中國古代禮學史上，南宋出現的《朱子家禮》據有承上啟下的地位1，本文主要論述其在明清時代如何普及與傳播的問題。 明清時代《朱子家禮》的普及，以明初朱學定於一尊、《朱子家禮》被吸納進國家禮制為時代背景而展開。爾後，圍繞《朱子家禮》形成了一種獨特的「家禮學」著述類型，並湧現出數量眾多的此類作品；籍此，《朱子家禮》得到更廣泛的傳播。雖然對《朱子家禮》的評價也逐步趨於多元化，甚至出現了抵制和反對的聲音，但在「家禮學」範圍內，《朱子家禮》的獨尊地位沒有移易；甚至在更大的思想意識層面，《朱子家禮》的尊崇地位也沒有受到實質性的撼動。由此明清兩代在相當大的地域和不同程度上，《朱子家禮》得以傳播、普及並產生重大影響，成為民間通用禮。本文擬從四個方面，就「明清時代《朱子家禮》的普及與固定過程」展開論述。首先，考察明初《朱子家禮》如何進入國家禮制；然後探討《朱子家禮》的「一尊」地位及在多元評價中的延續；進而從禮俗層面分析《朱子家禮》在各地傳播、普及的具體情形；最後對《朱子家禮》的文本進行若干梳理。

Historically, Confucianism has played a large role in shaping traditional Chinese notions about revenge, particularly with respect to the question of vendettas carried out in the name of non-blood related associates, or members well beyond the extended family circle. Although the Analects and Mencius both touch on the idea of revenge, it was not until the Gongyang commentary and the Rites appeared that stronger arguments were forwarded, explicating the circumstances under which retributive murders were considered legitimate. Building on these early Chinese texts, generations of later scholars proposed increasingly sophisticated theories about the limits and legitimacy of homicidal revenges: in the Han-Wei period, the idea of revenge was no longer only a matter of study and scholarship but of legal application as well; in the Tang period, scholars applied their theories concerning revenge to current affairs in the context of ritual and legal thought; in the Sung, exegetes used representations of revenge in ancient texts to justify political decisions. Theories of revenge were produced increasingly less in the context of classical study and more in view of the practical implications that acts of revenge have for society. In the Yuan and Ming dynasties, little scholarship was produced on the topic of vengeful murders. During this period, scholars who studied the Spring and Autumn Annals did not differ much in opinion from their predecessor, Hu Anguo, who in his Chunqiu zhuan interpreted the Annals in ways that supported his view on the necessity of revenge in the maintenance of societal bonds. Few scholars re-examined ideas about revenge as formulated in the Rites texts. And compilers of the standard histories incorporated few incidents of revenge into their records, as the issue of revenge gradually disappeared from forums of discussion. It is fair to say that the amount of scholarship on revenge dwindled largely in the Yuan and Mind periods. However, the voices of two Ming scholars, Qiu Jun and Hao Jing, are exceptions to this trend of relative silence on the topic, as both advanced novel theories of revenge. Qiu Jun’s theory departs from old interpretations in the classics and their exegesis; instead of simply endorsing revenge, he uses cosmic and human bonds to justify the naturalness of revenge while at the same time appealing to the force of law to regulate the excesses of private vendettas. Hao Jing, on the other hand, firmly opposes any expression of fraternity or loyalty through violent reprisals. On the one hand, Hao finds insufficient material for justifying such revenge within the classical texts; on the other hand, even if there was enough textual evidence legitimizing such revenge, he thinks it would still have catastrophic social and human costs if freely practiced. Both Qiu’s and Hao’s concerns about revenge go beyond matters of textual interpretation, extending instead into the realms of practical application.