也談『史記·禮書』爲後人僞作的問題
Re-discussion on the problem that “Historical Records Ritual Book” is a fake work of later generations
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
首先，本文指出《史記·禮書》中司馬遷對墨子、管仲的評價與《史記》其他篇中司馬遷對墨子、管仲的評價有矛盾。其次，本文指出了《史記·禮書》中司馬遷對對曆朝曆代禮儀製度沿革之事的闡述與整部《史記》其他地方有矛盾。可見現在我們看到的《禮書》的作者編纂整理文獻的水平比較低劣，那麼今本《禮書》絶非出自司馬遷之手。但是筆者認爲也不是漢代的褚少孫所冩，應當是東漢時期的人所偽作的。
Abstract
First of all, this paper points out that there is a contradiction between Sima Qian's evaluation of Mozi and Guan Zhong in Historical Records and other articles of Historical Records. Secondly, this paper points out that Sima Qian's exposition of the evolution of etiquette system in all dynasties in Historical Records of Rites is contradictory to other places in the whole Historical Records. It can be seen that the author of the Book of Rites is inferior in compiling and sorting out documents, so this Book of Rites is by no means written by Sima Qian. However, the author thinks that it was not written by Chu Shaosun in Han Dynasty, but by people in Eastern Han Dynasty.
참고문헌 (27)
- 司馬遷, "史記" (2013), 中華書局
- 班固, "漢書" (1983), 中華書局
- 劉珍, "東觀漢記校注" (2008), 中華書局
- 王充, "論衡校釋" (2018), 中華書局
- 范曄, "後漢書" (1982), 中華書局
- 茅坤, "史記鈔" (2013), 商務印書館
- 凌稚隆, "史記評林" (1998), 天津古籍出版社
- 王鳴盛, "十七史商榷" (2008), 鳳凰出版社
- 崔適, "史記探源" (2005), 中華書局
- 浦起龍, "史通通釋" (2009), 上海古籍出版社
- 十三經注疏編委會, "論語注疏" (2000), 北京大學
- 十三經注疏編委會, "禮記正義" (2000), 北京大學
- 十三經注疏編委會, "儀禮" (2000), 北京大學
- 王先謙, "荀子集解" (1988), 中華書局
- 趙翼, "廿二史札記校證" (2001), 中華書局
- 王先謙, "荀子集解" (1988), 中華書局
- 余嘉錫, "余嘉錫論學雜著" (2007), 中華書局
- 陳桐生, "｢史記｣與今古文經學" (1995), 陝西人民出版社
- 何建章, "戰國策注釋" (2019), 中華書局
- 瀧川龜太郎, "史記會注考證" (1994), 宏業書局
- 吳雲, "賈誼集校注" (2010), 天津古籍出版社
- 張純一, "晏子春秋校注" (2014), 中華書局
- 鄭之洪, "史記文獻研究" (1997), 巴蜀書社
- 陳紀然, "『史記』的禮治思想探析", 學術交流, (11) (2007)
- 梁玉田, "『史記』之｢禮｣｢樂｣二書來源問題論衡", 咸陽師範學院學報, (3) (2023)
- 王衡, "｢禮書｣來源問題論衡", 渭南師範學院學報, (21) (2017)
- 王于飛, "張晏『史記』十篇亡佚說質疑", 東南學術, (2) (2000)