论文部分内容阅读
自唐初始,《老子》经王弼（226—249）、河上公两人的注本被广泛地传播开来。大部分唐代的文献目录内容,象魏徵（580—643）的《群书治要》中包括的,镌刻在石碑上的,用手抄录的,确切地说都是基于河上公的注本,而不是其它对河上公注本的校本。但在唐初以前,一些学者就试图支持王弼的注本及释本。陆德明（556—627）和其他人努力去保护它使其免受河上公注本的竞争而使其扭曲。陆德明认为后者的注本是伪作,他写道:“河上公所著的读本并非是为《老子》所注的。”但纵使有这么多的努力,河上公的老子校注在宋代除了代替王弼的《老子注》以外仍占重要地位。在宋代,陆德明的努力被范应元这样的学者所接受,他发表文章详尽比较了各种注本后表示支持王弼的《老子注》。
Since the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, “Lao Tzu” has been widely spread through Wang Bi (226-249) and both river princes. Most of the bibliographic contents of the Tang Dynasty, as contained in Wei Zheng (580-643), “The Book of Songs,” engraved on stone tablets and copied by hand, are, to be precise, Not the other school-based books on the river. Before the early Tang Dynasty, however, some scholars tried to support Wang Bi’s notes and interpretations. Lu Deming (556-627) and others are trying to distort it by protecting it from the competition on the river. Lu Deming considered the note of the latter to be a fake, and wrote: “The reading by the river is not a reference to” Lao Tzu. “But even with so much effort, Koganeh Ishigaki wrote that in addition to Wang Bi, ”I note“ still occupies an important position. In the Song Dynasty, Lu Deming’s efforts were accepted by such scholars as Fan Ying-yuan. He published an exhaustive comparison of the various kinds of ”Lao Zi" which he expressed his support for Wang Bi.