论文部分内容阅读
唐孔穎達修撰《禮記正義》,自稱以皇侃疏爲本,參酌熊安生疏而成。由於皇侃《禮記》疏早佚,孔穎達取捨皇疏的理由何在,後來學者已不得而知。幸好日本尚有皇侃《禮記子本疏義》殘帙傳世,可以從中窺見皇侃義疏的特點。通過比較皇疏與孔疏的不同,可以發現孔穎達有意不採用皇侃對於經文科段的劃分,並且不取皇侃在鄭玄注以外的發揮。然而孔疏雖然反對皇侃的叙述方法,却又依賴皇疏對於經文的基本解釋,故此在改易皇疏之後,又引發了新的問題。考察孔疏與皇疏的不同,可以讓我們看到南北朝至隋唐經學研究取徑的轉變。
Tang Kong Yingda repair essay, “Book of Rites,” claiming to be Huang Kan sparse-based, refer to Xiong Anborn. As Huang Kan “Book of Rites” dredging early lost, Kong Ying Da choice of imperial reason why, later scholars have no idea. Fortunately, there are still Huang Kan in Japan, “Etiquette Book of Rites” residual 帙 handed down, you can glimpse the characteristics of Huang Kan Yi Shu. By comparing the different between Huang Shu and Kong Shu, we can find that Kong Ying Da deliberately does not use Huang Kan’s classification of the liberal arts sections, and does not take Huang Kan’s play outside Zheng Xuan’s notes. However, Kong Shu, while opposed to Huang Kan’s narrative method, relies on the basic explanation of Huang Shu for Scripture. Therefore, after the reform of imperialism and priesthood, Kong Shu provoked new problems. Examining the difference between Kong Shu and Huang Shu, we can see the change of the path of the study of Confucian classics in the Northern and Southern Dynasties to the Sui and Tang Dynasties.