摘要
《班马异同评》嘉靖本和万历本所收刘辰翁评语并不相同。万历本新增加的3条评语,并不是刘辰翁本人的评语。这3条评语来自明朱之蕃汇辑、汤宾尹校正的《百大家评注〈史记〉》。结合《班马异同评》万历本的刊刻情况和刻者韩敬的生平,发现韩敬在校定时,无意中将宋濂、王世贞、邹德溥的3条评语误置于刘辰翁评语中,以致以讹传讹。
Liu Chenweng's comments of The Similarities and Diffrences of Ban and Ma were different between Jiajing version and Wanli version in the Ming Dynasty. Three new comments added in Wanli version were not Liu Chenwong's own words. Those three comments came from Bai Da Jia Ping Zhu ‘Shi Ji'that was collected by Zhu Zhifan and edited by Tang Binyin in the Ming Dynasty. Based on publication conditions of The Similarities and Diffrences of Ban and Ma and publisher,Han Jing's life,it's found when Han Jing edited the book,he put Song Lian,Wang Shizhen,and Zou Defu's three comments in Liu Chenweng's comments by accident and caused the mistakes.
引文
[1]王晓鹃.《班马异同评》研究三题[J].陕西师范大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2016(1).
[2]王怀让.《鸿门宴》评析三疑[J].齐鲁学刊,1987(2).
[3]陈金霞.论《史记》“鸿门宴”的真相[J].社科纵横,2012(5).
[4]杨燕起,等.历代名家评《史记》[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1986.
[5]百大家评注《史记》[M].朱之蕃,汇辑;汤宾尹,校正;焦丽波,整理;赵望秦,审定.西安:陕西师范大学出版社,2016.
[6]丁丙.善本书室藏书志[M].清光绪刻本.
[7]明礼部.万历五年进士登科录[M].明万历刻本.
[8]焦竑.献征录[M].上海:上海书店,1987.
[9]张廷玉.明史[M].北京:中华书局,1974.
[10]四库全书研究所.钦定四库全书总目[M].北京:中华书局,1997.
[11]叶德辉.郋园读书志[M].台北:明文书局,1990.
(1)本文所引《班马异同评》系陕西师范大学所藏万历刻本。《史记》本文原书大字书写,今用宋体;凡《史记》无而《汉书》所加者原书以细字书写,今则按原书以楷体和圆括号标注;凡《史记》有而《汉书》所删者原书以墨笔勒字旁,今则以细方括号标注;刘辰翁评语一律用黑方括号外加“眉批”标注。本文引《班马异同评》之文,均出自该本,不一一详注。