《尚书考异》版本比较研究
    点此下载全文
引用本文:高原乐.《尚书考异》版本比较研究[J].湖南大学学报社会科学版,2010,(3):25-31
摘要点击次数: 1425
全文下载次数: 389
作者单位
高原乐 (中国社会科学院 历史研究所北京100102) 
中文摘要:《尚书考异》是第一部系统考辨《古文尚书》为伪作的著作,具有重要的学术研究价值。关于此书版本。较有价值的是台湾故宫藏旧抄本、《四库全书》文渊阁抄本、孙星衍平津馆刻本。台湾故宫藏旧抄本年代最早,有了它,可以大体推测《尚书考异》在传写过程中致误之由。文渊阁抄本最为常见,四库馆臣在将此书收入《四库全书》时,对书中许多讹误作了校正。平津馆刻本最为完整,它不仅比前两个抄本多出两万余字。而且更全面而系统地对《古文尚书》进行了辨伪搜证工作。但此本虽经顾广圻、孙星衍两位清代大学者“详加校正”,但书中仍沿袭了故宫旧抄本的许多错误。这也就是说,《尚书考异》迄今尚无一部理想的版本。本文通过《尚书考异》版本的比较研究,以见各版本的优缺点及其价值。
中文关键词:梅鷟  《尚书考异》  版本比较
 
A Comparative Study on Different Versions of Shang Shu Kao Yi
Abstract:As the first systematic work on the falsification of Gu Wen Shang Shu, Shang Shu Kao Yi is of great academic values. The most valuable versions of this work include: The manuscript from National Palace Museum of Taiwan Province, the manuscript from Si Ku Quan Shu (Complete Library in the Four Branches of Literature) originally collected at Wen Yuan Pavilion of the Imperial Palace, the block-printed version collected at Pingjin Library, the private library of Sun Xingyan, a well- known textual critic of the Qing Dynasty. The manuscript from National Palace Museum of Taiwan Province is the earliest version, and it may generally suggest contributing factors of errors in Shang Shu Kao Yi. The manuscript from Si Ku Quan Shu originally collected at Wen Yuan Pavilion of the Imperial Palace is the most common version that has corrected many errors of the original. While the block-printed version from Pingjin Library is the most complete one that has not only over 20,000 words more than the other two versions, but also much more comprehensive and systematic evidences to prove the falsification of Gu Wen Shang Shu. Although Gu Guangqi and Sun Xingyan, two experts on textual emendations of the Qing Dynasty have made intense calibrations in this version, a multiplicity of corruptions that are common to Imperial Palace manuscripts could still be found in it. In other words, so far there is no perfect version of Shang Shu Kao Yi as yet. This present paper makes a comparative research on merits and faults as well as academic values of the aforementioned three versions of this work.
keywords:Mei Zhuo  Shang Shu Kao Yi  version comparison
查看全文   查看/发表评论   下载pdf阅读器