洪金富
一、《元史•兵志•宿衞•四怯薛》條載，元朝怯薛（kesig，禁衛軍）分四隊，由四傑家族世襲任為怯薛長，依十二地支序輪流值班三日夜。四怯薛輪值日地支，依序是：申酉戌、亥子丑、寅卯辰、巳午未。
二、今傳元朝文獻散見的官員奏事記錄中，尚有一小部分倖存「某年某月某日，某某怯薛第某日」字樣。這類記載，可名之曰「怯薛輪值史料」。
三、取怯薛輪值史料，檢驗《元史•四怯薛》條，有相符者，有牴觸者。後者如「至正十二年三月二十二日，咬咬怯薛第三日」。查該日丙寅，據〈四怯薛〉條，為第三怯薛輪值的第一日，史料卻記為第三日，兩者日次不符。又查咬咬是博尔朮後人，據〈四怯薛〉條，博尔朮家所領應為第二怯薛，而據史料推算，卻是第三怯薛，則怯薛名稱並告不符。
四、一九一六年，箭內亙據十八條史料，宣稱〈四怯薛〉條所謂四怯薛按地支輪班之制，世祖以後，實未嘗行。一九七七年、一九八三年，片山共夫、葉新民各據史料八十二條、四十八條，證明〈四怯薛〉條所載，基本符合歷史實際。對於史料所載牴觸〈四怯薛〉者，二氏均試圖疏通。或謂〈四怯薛〉條所載輪值地支，僅適用於至元二十八年以後，或謂史料誤記怯薛長甲為乙，或謂怯薛長丙代丁之班而仍書丙名，或謂誤記日期或日次，等等說法，不一而足。二氏之說有對有錯，而不能解者仍然不少。
五、本文攷察史料九十七條。與〈四怯薛〉條牴觸者三十條：仍然無解的六條，尚待鐵證來確認答案的十三條，史料記載肯定錯誤的十一條。概括而言，十之八九出在日期或日次記載錯誤——誤三為二，誤二為一，或十八誤為二十八，二十八誤為十八之類的錯誤。這類錯誤，應歸咎於人的疏忽。抄手或刻工應負最大責任，原始作者也有可能誤記。
六、本文長篇攷釋兩怯薛。一是察察爾怯薛，史料四條，具牴觸〈四怯薛〉條的記載。其中三條，尚然無解。唯本文已證明乾隆君臣改譯的察察爾，實即《元史》中的月赤察兒。本文並且對中華書局點校本《元史》中關於月赤察兒的一條史文的校勘，以及片山共夫推測察察爾即月赤察兒的方法，有所商榷。
七、本文攷釋哈剌章怯薛最詳。哈剌章怯薛輪值史料，文本已佚，僅存石本。錢大昕最早著錄，文曰：「至正廿三年十月廿三日，哈喇章怯薛第一日」。次為法人沙畹 (Chavannes)，文曰：「至正廿三年十月十三日，哈剌章怯薛第二日」。次為箭內亙，轉引自沙畹。次為馮承鈞，文曰：「至正二十三年十月十三日，哈剌章怯薛第二日」。次為柯立夫 (Cleaves)，轉引自沙畹。次為蔡美彪，文同馮承鈞所著錄。六人均未發現哈剌章怯薛輪值史料有問題。片山轉引自箭內，終於發現問題：史料所載日期干支為戊申，據〈四怯薛〉，應為第一怯薛第一日，史料卻記為第二日。片山認為史料有誤，惜未能更正。葉新民轉引自蔡美彪，而所作推測——「如此哈剌章為脫脫之子的話，則有可能是第四怯薛長」，只是另一種假設。我們有幸發現問題的癥結並順利解決問題。按傅斯年圖書館藏有石本三本，文字漫漶，但仍可釋讀出來，文曰：「至正廿三年十月十六日，哈剌章怯薛第一日。」北京圖書館也有此碑拓片，也釋讀作十六日。按是日辛亥，第二怯薛第一日，哈剌章是博尔朮後人，所領正是第二怯薛，日次也相合。正確釋讀哈剌章怯薛輪值史料，可以為《元史》所謂四怯薛按日支依序輪值三日的說法，添一明確證據。我們解決了片、葉兩氏解決不了的問題，更正了兩百五十年來諸家著錄的錯誤。
關鍵詞：元朝怯薛
金石史料 錢大昕
蒙古譯語 傅斯年圖書館
Reexamination
of Chinese Sources on the Kesig or Imperial Guard of the Yüan Dynasty
Chin-fu Hung
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica
According to the Yüan History (Yüan-shih 元史), the Kesig (ch’ieh-hsüeh 怯薛) or “Imperial Guard” was divided into four groups under the hereditary command of the “Four Heroes” families. Each of the four Kesig went on duty for three straight days in accordance with the 12 cyclical characters (ti-chih 地支). Accordingly, the First or the Yeke Kesig served on shen 申, yu 酉 and hsü 戌 days; the Second Kesig on hai 亥, tzu 子 and ch’ou 丑 days, etc.
Was the three-day rotation system observed as the Yüan History prescribed? By examining Yüan documents bearing the customary formula “x年x月x日, x怯薛第x日” (_year, _month, _day, the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd day of the Kesig of _), one may answer this question satisfactorily. After having examined 18 passages using this formula, Yanai Wataru 箭內亙claimed in 1916 that since Qubilai Qan’s reign the system was not followed at all. Subsequently, however, after examining additional source materials, Katayama Tomoo 片山共夫 and Yeh Hsin-min 葉新民 confirmed the veracity of the Yüan History’s statements in 1977 and 1983 respectively. Nevertheless, the presence of many passages consisting of the aforesaid formula and conflicting with the prescription of the Yüan History still needs to be explained.
In this paper, I examine 97 passages concerning the Kesig’s rotation system. Of these, 30 passages show discrepancies with the Yüan History. I do not know the causes of such discrepancies for 6 of the 30 passages, including 3 passages concerning the Kesig under the command of Ch’a-ch’a-er 察察兒, whom I have discussed at length. I have, however, concluded that most of the discrepancies derive from textual corruption. Careless copyists and woodblock carvers may have mistaken the Chinese numerical character “三” for “二”, or “二” for “一”, as well as “二十八” for “十八”, or “十八” for “二十八”, and so on. Authors may also have made such mistakes.
The case of the Kesig of Qara ǰang (Ha-la-chang 哈剌章) is worth mentioning here. About 250 years ago, the great scholar Ch’ien Ta-hsin 錢大昕 cited a passage from an inscription that read as follows: “至正廿三年十月廿三日, 哈喇章怯薛第一日.” That date was the day wu-wu 戊午. According to the Yüan History, it was the 2nd day of the Fourth Kesig, but the above passage states that it was the 1st day, while Qara ǰang was the commander of the Second Kesig, not of the Fourth Kesig. Ch’ien seemed to be ignorant of these discrepancies. As late as the 20th century, the passage in question appeared in 1908 in the work of Édouard Chavannes , who was quoted by Yanai Wataru in 1916 and by Francis W. Cleaves in 1951. Yanai Wataru was in turn quoted by Katayama Tomoo in 1977. The passage can also be found in the work of Feng Ch’eng-chün 馮承鈞 in 1933 and that of Ts’ai Mei-piao 蔡美彪 in 1955, who was quoted by Yeh Hsin-min in 1977. However, the readings provided by these scholars differ slightly from that of Ch’ien Ta-hsin. Instead of “廿三日” or “the 23rd day”, they have “十三日” or “the 13th day”; while Ch’ien has “第一日” or “the 1st day,” they have “第二日” or “the 2nd day.” The date “十三日” was the day wu-shen 戊申, which was, according to the Yüan History, the 1st day of the First Kesig, neither the 2nd day nor the Kesig of Qara ǰang. Among the above-mentioned scholars, only Katayama and Yeh noticed the “mistakes” in the passage, but they proved unaware of the exact nature of these mistakes. Fortunately, I found three pieces of the rubbing of the said inscription in the Fu Ssu-nien 傅斯年 Library, and, after making comparisons among them , was able to decipher the passage as follows: “至正廿三年十月十六日, 哈剌章怯薛第一日.” The Peking Library also has a rubbing of the same inscription. The librarians read it “十六日” as I do. The “十六日” or “the 16th day” of the said year and month was the day hsin-hai 辛亥, which according to the Yüan History was the 1st day of the Second Kesig. The passage, when read correctly, testifies to the accuracy of the Yüan History. Thus, I have been able to correct a 250 year-old misreading, and add one more piece of evidence to support what the Yüan History asserts.
Keywords: Yüan
History, Kesig, inscription,
Ch’ien Ta-hsin, Mongolian