论《文选集注》的编纂原则及其成书年代

doi:10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2017.06.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 斯波六郎先生尝比勘《文选集注》与宋刊单李善注本,发现刊本详于《集注》。探其原因,起初存《集注》本为人所混淆或刊本为后人增补两种考虑,结果则取后人增补立说。此说于考订《集注》成书之年代,影响甚巨。迄今乃有唐世、五代、北宋、南宋四说。愚以《集注》编者之原则是删略所收李善注,而以补彼之《文选钞》、陆善经注及《音决》,因称之为“扬钞而抑善”。于《集注》成书年代,余旧从屈守元南宋说,今则合参小尾郊一说,盖以《集注》编纂当受南宋经疏合刻大背景之制约,复取内证二,兼驳他说,欲襄成南宋独尊一说。

关键词: 《文选集注》, 抑善扬钞, 后人增添, 集注文选

Abstract: In comparison with the Song Journal which was noted by Li Shan, Mr. Suporrorangu has found that the Song version was more detailed than The Variorum to the Anthology. There are two reasons in the beginning: One is that The Variorum was confused by people, the other is that the Song version whose notes were supplemented by posterity. Then eventually, the Song version has been annotated by posterity as a reason to create a school. This school had a great influence on the time when The Variorum was examined and compiled. So far there are four schools in the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.), the Five Dynasties (907-960 A.D.), the Northern Song (960-1127 A.D.), the Southern Song (1127-1279 A.D.). The author thinks that the principle the editor compiled The Variorum was revising slightly some annotations from Li Shan and adding some from Copy of The Anthology, annotations by Lu Shanjing and The Anthology with Indications of Pronunciation, so it is called “carrying forward copying and restraining Li’s annotations”. At the age of compiling The Variorum, it originally followed schools of Yuan Dynasty and Southern Song; at the same time it also referred to Chīsana o school on account of the restriction of Southern Song’s background of merging scripture and engraving and refuting other schools in order to promote the dominance of Southern Dynasty School.

Key words: The Variorum to the Anthology, carrying forward copying and restraining Li’s annotations, supplemented by posterity

中图分类号:

I206.2

范志新. 论《文选集注》的编纂原则及其成书年代[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2017, 53(6): 82-89.

FAN Zhi-xin. The Compiling Principle and Formation Age of The Variorum to the Anthology[J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2017, 53(6): 82-89.

参考文献

[1] 斯波六郎.文选索引[M].李庆,译.上海:上海古籍出版社,1997.
[2] 周勋初.唐钞文选集注汇存(一)[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2000.
[3] 丘棨鐊.唐写本文选集注第九十八卷跋[C]//俞绍初,等.中外学者文选学论集.北京:中华书局,1998.
[4] 孔颖达.毛诗注疏[M]//阮元.十三经注疏.北京:中华书局,1980.
[5] 王逸.楚辞章句[M]//上海古籍出版社.四部精要(十六).上海:上海古籍出版社,1993.
[6] 欧阳询.艺文类聚[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
[7] 森野繁夫.关于文选李善注[C]//俞绍初,等.中外学者文选学论集.北京:中华书局,1998.
[8] 冈村繁.二十世纪日本文选研究与课题[C]//中国文选研究会.文选与文选学.北京:学苑出版社,2003.
[9] 俞绍初.新校订六家注文选前言[C]//郑州大学.选学论萃. 2014.
[10] 刘盼遂.文选篇题考误[C]//俞绍初,等.中外学者文选学论集.北京:中华书局,1998.
[11] 丘棨鐊.文选集注所引文选钞研究[C]//俞绍初,等.中外学者文选学论集.北京:中华书局,1998.
[12] 班固.汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1962.
[13] 范志新.文选版本论稿[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2003.
[14] 汪绍楹.阮氏重刻宋本十三经注疏考[M]//文史(第三辑).北京:中华书局,1963.
[15] 阮元.春秋左传注疏校勘记[M]//十三经注疏.北京:中华书局,1980.
[16] 张金吾.爱日精庐藏书志[M]//宋元明清书目题跋丛刊.北京:中华书局,2006.

相关文章 15

[1]	周苇风. 汉乐府《艳歌罗敷行》文体考论[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(5): 96-105.
[2]	齐清仙. 马融《广成颂》之用典及文献价值[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(5): 106-116.
[3]	曲景毅, 王治田. 论《唐诗艳逸品》之版本与文献问题——兼谈其作为晚明商业出版物之特色[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(3): 20-29.
[4]	胡大雷. 文学新动力与建安诗歌兴盛[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(3): 140-146.
[5]	杜海军. 论石刻的文学研究状况与不足[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2019, 55(3): 147-154.
[6]	力之. 襄阳“文选楼”与“高斋学士”所属辨证——关于一不难知的误说流行千年不止之思考及其他[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(6): 100-110.
[7]	刘锋. 李善注《文选》留存旧注综论[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(6): 111-117.
[8]	丁红旗. 论《文选》读习的兴盛在中唐时期[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(6): 118-127.
[9]	王琼. 奎章阁本六臣《文选·海赋》作者注辨证[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(6): 128-131.
[10]	周春艳. 《九辩》乃“汉人的作品”说驳议——兼论“用汉语词汇史鉴定古籍时代”之适用度问题[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(6): 132-137.
[11]	张文东, 李乃龙. 学术述评之我见——读《〈文选〉研究百年述评》之二[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(6): 138-144.
[12]	于景祥,胡佩杰. 论明代中期文学批评中公正对待六朝骈文的倾向——以杨慎、王文禄为中心[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(4): 72-76.
[13]	孟飞. 从“链体”结构看陆贽骈文的功能突破[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(4): 77-85.
[14]	孙丽娜. 论元稹处理骈散关系的方式[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(4): 86-91.
[15]	丁楹. 文人入幕、干谒之风与南宋四六文的繁盛[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(4): 92-99.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed