|
|
|
| The Song Version Features and Academic Values of the Wusilan Manuscript Version of Shitong in Ming Dynasty |
| Liu Zhanzhao |
| School of Literature, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract No Song version of Shitong has been handed down to the present world, but there are several well-known materials related to it. One is Zhang Zhixiang’s engraved copy in the Ming Dynasty, which was basically printed and engraved according to Qin Zhonghan’s private home collection of Song version in Liangxi, but the problem is that the textual pattern of the Song version has been changed a lot. The other important one is Lu Wenchao’s book named Shitong Jiaozheng in the Qing Dynasty. He made 748 entries of collations, which was totally based on the reprinted version of the Song Dynasty by Mr. Zhu in Huating. In spite of this, the two above-mentioned materials cannot fully show the general features of the Song version. Furthermore, there are serious errors in the engraved versions of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, which differ from the original version and thus many academic disputes have emerged.Taiwan collection of the Wusilan manuscript version is the one that is closest to the original Song version and also closest to the original features of Shitong. The reasons are as follows: firstly, the author’s signature is Liu (surname only), which is a very popular way of signature in the works of commentary on Confucian classics in the Han and Tang dynasties, demonstrating Liu Zhiji’s humble attitude of academic research and his ideal of developing unique theoretical system or thoughts. Secondly, the preface, the table of the contents and the text of the first five chapters were copied continuously, which was a popular binding pattern legacy in the Tang Dynasty. Thirdly, more than 400 different characters which existed before the Tang and Song dynasties were preserved in this version, and in turn can confirm Liu Zhiji’s original intention of avoiding the Tang taboos. Fourthly, the Wusilan version tried to avoid using the Song taboos , such as Yin (胤), Jing (镜), Wu (戌), Yin (殷), Jing (竟), Jing (敬), Heng (恒), Huan (桓), Gou (构), etc, but not avoiding the Emperor Xiaozong’s taboo, so the time of this version should be Emperor Gaozong’s period in the Southern Song Dynasty. Wusilan version did not avoid the taboo of the Ming and Qing emperors, as the taboos were loose in the Ming Dynasty and were strictly avoided in the Qing Dynasty, therefore Hong Ye’s conclusion that it was a Ming version tends to be correct and credible. The Wusilan version is helpful to sort out the confusions and differences of later literature from the source, which is worthy of the further study.He Zhuo’s collation during the Qing Dynasty was quite influential, and his criticism of Shitong has not been included in his Yimen Reading Notes. He Zhuo collated the original edition, which was engraved by Zhang Zhixiang. He corrected the errors of the text either based on the version of Guo Kongyan, or on the historical original text, or on the context. Most of its 350 collations are the same as those of the Wusilan manuscript version (23 items are different). When it is copied and written according to the Song version, its purpose is not to correct the text errors, but to faithfully preserve the original features of the Song version. This is another important material related to the Song version. But the predecessors did not understand He Zhuo’s collation style and confused his collation with other collation records.Pu Qilong’s Shitong Tongshi is the most widely circulated and influential version, and other scholars in the Qing Dynasty believe that he might have referred to the Song version, which can be regarded as the final version. But in fact, Pu Qilong modified the texts a lot, which mainly showed that he neither knew the style of ancient books, the author’s writing, as well as the habit of quoting ancient books, nor did he know the idioms of annotating ancient books. He also made improper revisions and deletions according to the Confucian classics, which had influenced Ji Yun’s Shitong Xuefan. What’s more, he followed the method of writing parallel prose to beautify the text, deleting or merging the old notes to rectify the text, which had violated Liu Zhiji’s original intention and the academic norms of editing the ancient books, resulting in the missing of a large amount of important academic information. Therefore, the Wusilan manuscript version may provide a reliable version for correcting such errors.
|
|
Received: 21 November 2023
|
|
|
|
1 永瑢等：《四库全书总目提要》，北京：中华书局，1965年。
2 余英时：《文史传统与文化重建》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2012年。
3 刘昫等：《旧唐书》，北京：中华书局，1975年。
4 郁逢庆：《书画题跋记》，见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第816册，台北：台湾商务印书馆，1986年。
5 张振珮：《史通笺注》，北京：中华书局，2022年。
6 范邦甸等：《天一阁书目 天一阁碑目》，江曦、李婧点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
7 黄本骥：《黄本骥集》，刘范弟校点，长沙：岳麓书社，2009年。
8 陈垣：《史讳举例》，北京：科学出版社，1958年。
9 卢文弨：《群书拾补初编》第4册，乾隆五十五年（1790）余姚卢文弨抱经堂刻本。
10 傅增湘：《藏园群书经眼录》，北京：中华书局，2009年。
11 余嘉锡：《目录学发微 古书通例》，北京：中华书局，2022年。
12 杜预注、孔颖达疏：《春秋左传正义》，见李学勤主编：《十三经注疏》（整理本），北京：北京大学出版社，2000年。
13 毛亨传、郑玄笺、唐孔颖达正义：《毛诗正义》，见李学勤主编：《十三经注疏》（整理本），北京：北京大学出版社，2000年。
14 班固：《汉书》，颜师古注，北京：中华书局，1962年。
15 刘知幾：《明本史通》，北京：国家图书馆出版社，2019年。
16 陆心源：《仪顾堂书目题跋汇编》，冯惠民整理，北京：中华书局，2009年。
17 浦起龙：《史通通释》，王煦华整理，上海：上海古籍出版社，2009年。
18 陆德明：《经典释文》（影印本），上海：上海古籍出版社，2013年。
19 李慈铭：《越缦堂读书记》，北京：中华书局，1963年。 |
| [1] |
. [J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(1): 152-164. |
|
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
