明李元阳本《论语注疏解经》析论
|
摘要
明嘉靖李元阳本《论语注疏解经》是以元十行本之嘉靖重校修补本为底本加以改造、完善刊刻而成,在经籍史具有重要意义:一是在版式、行款方面作了较大的发展和完善,形成半叶九行,经文单行大字、注文单行中字、疏文双行小字,且领起大"注"字、大"疏"字均黑底白文外加黑圈的格式,经、注、疏区分显明,体例完备;二是对元十行本原版和明正德、嘉靖修补版均作了较为全面的校改,补脱删衍,改正讹误,成绩较为突出;三是此本也出现了不少误刻和误改,其误改往往据文意和文例,不易发觉。李元阳本对此后的北监本、毛本、殿本、库本和阮刻本都产生了重要影响。
Li Yuanyang's edition of Lunyu Zhushu Jiejing 论语注疏解经( Notes and Commentaries on the Analects of Confucius), which was produced in Emperor Jiajing's Rein of the Ming Dynasty, actually derived from the repaired edition of the Yuan Dynasty's ten-line version of the book. It has great significance in the history of Chinese Classics. Firstly, it has made some changes and improvements in typographical format and style, such as the nine-line layout in a half page; big characters for the text itself; middle characters for the notes; and small characters for commentaries which are printed in double rows. That is, three types of writings, i.e. the text, notes of the text and the commentaries of the text are clearly differentiated from each other typographically. Secondly, it has made great achievements in offering comprehensive corrections of the mistakes in its previous editions, including Yuan Dynasty's ten-line version and the editions produced in Emperors Zhengde's and Jiajing's reigns in the Ming Dynasty. However, Li's edition also has some mistakes, and the misguided revisions Li offered were mostly made according to the meaning or structure of the book and thus are not easy to detect. In spite of this, Li Yuanyang's edition has had great impact on the later editions and versions of this traditional Chinese classic, including the Northern Imperial College's edition, Maojin's edition, Wuyingdian's edition, and Sikuquanshu's version.
Li Yuanyang's edition of Lunyu Zhushu Jiejing 论语注疏解经( Notes and Commentaries on the Analects of Confucius), which was produced in Emperor Jiajing's Rein of the Ming Dynasty, actually derived from the repaired edition of the Yuan Dynasty's ten-line version of the book. It has great significance in the history of Chinese Classics. Firstly, it has made some changes and improvements in typographical format and style, such as the nine-line layout in a half page; big characters for the text itself; middle characters for the notes; and small characters for commentaries which are printed in double rows. That is, three types of writings, i.e. the text, notes of the text and the commentaries of the text are clearly differentiated from each other typographically. Secondly, it has made great achievements in offering comprehensive corrections of the mistakes in its previous editions, including Yuan Dynasty's ten-line version and the editions produced in Emperors Zhengde's and Jiajing's reigns in the Ming Dynasty. However, Li's edition also has some mistakes, and the misguided revisions Li offered were mostly made according to the meaning or structure of the book and thus are not easy to detect. In spite of this, Li Yuanyang's edition has had great impact on the later editions and versions of this traditional Chinese classic, including the Northern Imperial College's edition, Maojin's edition, Wuyingdian's edition, and Sikuquanshu's version.
引文
(1)《中国古籍善本书目·经部》仅著录了中国国家图书馆藏本。又美国哈佛大学燕京图书馆藏有台湾“国家图书馆”藏元刻明正德修本的缩微胶卷,由于拍摄时间较早,字迹反较今台湾藏本清晰。
(1)杨按:台湾“国图”藏元刻明修本《论语注疏解经》刷印时间应晚于北京市文物局藏元刻明修《十三经注疏》本,原因有二:一是此本与北京市文物局藏元刻明修《十三经注疏》本补版相同版面的版心无刊刻时间和校人、重校人,补版版心上方大多改作黑口,如此修改版心颇有掩饰递补、冒充初刻之嫌,版心上方补刻时间自正德六年、十二年、十六年、嘉靖三年至嘉靖重校修补一脉相承,而台湾“国图”藏元刻明修本《论语注疏解经》改换版心说明其刷印时间要晚于嘉靖重校修补本;二是此本卷十五第九、十、十一这三叶为后来补刻(元刻明修《十三经注疏》本三叶为元十行原版),顺双黑鱼尾,无刻工,字体近行书,字迹清晰,与元十行原版、明正德补版和嘉靖补版均不一致。
(2)偶有版心上方刻重校人而中间刻校人者,亦偶有将校人和重校人并作小字挤在版心上方者。
(3)杨按:宋八行本用黑底白文(无黑圈)的大“疏”字区分经注和疏文,元十行本《周易兼义》区分经注与疏文的大“疏”字有黑圈阳文和黑底白文(外加黑圈)两种格式,《尔雅注疏》“疏”字多黑底白文(多外加黑圈,偶无黑圈),少黑圈阳文。嘉靖重修补版时盖有见于《尔雅注疏》和《周易兼义》的情况,参考了宋八行本格式,统一改用黑底白文且外加黑圈的“疏”字。
(4)杨按:按此处为引何晏注,何注作“颜”,自当以“颜”为是,蜀大字本、玉海堂本不误。阮元《校勘记》疑此“闻”与下文“颜回任道”之“颜”互易而讹。
(5)杨按:“帱”,闽本、监本、毛本、殿本、库本同,阮元《校勘记》:“十行本‘帱’误‘寿’。”蜀大字本作“焘”,贾公彦《周礼·师氏》疏亦作“焘”,唐宋时焘与帱义通。
(1)杨按:“论”字,闽本作空格,自监本始补“论”字。
(2)程苏东:《“元刻明修本”〈十三经注疏〉修补汇印地点考辨》,《文献》2013年第2期。
(3)李元阳:《默游园记》,《李元阳集·散文》,昆明:云南大学出版社,2008年,第53页。
(1)汪绍楹:《阮氏重刻十三经注疏考》,《文史》第三辑,北京:中华书局,1963年。王锷:《李元阳本〈十三经注疏〉考略》(未刊稿)。
(2)汪绍楹:《阮氏重刻十三经注疏考》,《文史》第三辑。
(3)杨按:闽本根据各经內容分段也不一致,其中《礼记注疏》《孝经注疏》《论语注疏》《孟子注疏》按章分段,《周易兼义》按卦分段,《尚书注疏》按篇分段,《毛诗注疏》按诗分段,《周礼注疏》按职官分段,《仪礼注疏》按篇分段,《左传注疏》《公羊传注疏》《榖梁传注疏》按条分段。
(4)许建平《敦煌本〈左传〉写卷的学术价值》(《第七届中国经学国际学术研讨会论文集》,华中师范大学2017年9月15日-17日)曾指出敦煌本《左传集解》每条首行界栏外有“经”“传”字。
(1)蜀大字本、玉海堂本亦无,然据文意应有,闽本增补。
(2)杨按:此“倡”字,蜀大字本、玉海堂本作“习”,阮元《校勘记》:“《后汉书·包咸传》‘昌’作‘习’。”
(1)汪绍楹:《阮氏重刻十三经注疏考》,《文史》第三辑。
(2)张丽娟:《明李元阳本〈春秋榖梁注疏〉浅探》,《儒家典籍与思想研究》(第九辑),北京:北京大学出版社,2017年,第98-99页。
(3)张丽娟:《明李元阳本〈春秋榖梁注疏〉浅探》,《儒家典籍与思想研究》(第九辑),第98页。
(1)杨按:台湾“国图”藏元刻明修本《论语注疏解经》刷印时间应晚于北京市文物局藏元刻明修《十三经注疏》本,原因有二:一是此本与北京市文物局藏元刻明修《十三经注疏》本补版相同版面的版心无刊刻时间和校人、重校人,补版版心上方大多改作黑口,如此修改版心颇有掩饰递补、冒充初刻之嫌,版心上方补刻时间自正德六年、十二年、十六年、嘉靖三年至嘉靖重校修补一脉相承,而台湾“国图”藏元刻明修本《论语注疏解经》改换版心说明其刷印时间要晚于嘉靖重校修补本;二是此本卷十五第九、十、十一这三叶为后来补刻(元刻明修《十三经注疏》本三叶为元十行原版),顺双黑鱼尾,无刻工,字体近行书,字迹清晰,与元十行原版、明正德补版和嘉靖补版均不一致。
(2)偶有版心上方刻重校人而中间刻校人者,亦偶有将校人和重校人并作小字挤在版心上方者。
(3)杨按:宋八行本用黑底白文(无黑圈)的大“疏”字区分经注和疏文,元十行本《周易兼义》区分经注与疏文的大“疏”字有黑圈阳文和黑底白文(外加黑圈)两种格式,《尔雅注疏》“疏”字多黑底白文(多外加黑圈,偶无黑圈),少黑圈阳文。嘉靖重修补版时盖有见于《尔雅注疏》和《周易兼义》的情况,参考了宋八行本格式,统一改用黑底白文且外加黑圈的“疏”字。
(4)杨按:按此处为引何晏注,何注作“颜”,自当以“颜”为是,蜀大字本、玉海堂本不误。阮元《校勘记》疑此“闻”与下文“颜回任道”之“颜”互易而讹。
(5)杨按:“帱”,闽本、监本、毛本、殿本、库本同,阮元《校勘记》:“十行本‘帱’误‘寿’。”蜀大字本作“焘”,贾公彦《周礼·师氏》疏亦作“焘”,唐宋时焘与帱义通。
(1)杨按:“论”字,闽本作空格,自监本始补“论”字。
(2)程苏东:《“元刻明修本”〈十三经注疏〉修补汇印地点考辨》,《文献》2013年第2期。
(3)李元阳:《默游园记》,《李元阳集·散文》,昆明:云南大学出版社,2008年,第53页。
(1)汪绍楹:《阮氏重刻十三经注疏考》,《文史》第三辑,北京:中华书局,1963年。王锷:《李元阳本〈十三经注疏〉考略》(未刊稿)。
(2)汪绍楹:《阮氏重刻十三经注疏考》,《文史》第三辑。
(3)杨按:闽本根据各经內容分段也不一致,其中《礼记注疏》《孝经注疏》《论语注疏》《孟子注疏》按章分段,《周易兼义》按卦分段,《尚书注疏》按篇分段,《毛诗注疏》按诗分段,《周礼注疏》按职官分段,《仪礼注疏》按篇分段,《左传注疏》《公羊传注疏》《榖梁传注疏》按条分段。
(4)许建平《敦煌本〈左传〉写卷的学术价值》(《第七届中国经学国际学术研讨会论文集》,华中师范大学2017年9月15日-17日)曾指出敦煌本《左传集解》每条首行界栏外有“经”“传”字。
(1)蜀大字本、玉海堂本亦无,然据文意应有,闽本增补。
(2)杨按:此“倡”字,蜀大字本、玉海堂本作“习”,阮元《校勘记》:“《后汉书·包咸传》‘昌’作‘习’。”
(1)汪绍楹:《阮氏重刻十三经注疏考》,《文史》第三辑。
(2)张丽娟:《明李元阳本〈春秋榖梁注疏〉浅探》,《儒家典籍与思想研究》(第九辑),北京:北京大学出版社,2017年,第98-99页。
(3)张丽娟:《明李元阳本〈春秋榖梁注疏〉浅探》,《儒家典籍与思想研究》(第九辑),第98页。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |