论文部分内容阅读
清初學者黄虞稷的著作《千頃堂書目》與《明史·藝文志稿》之間的關係是《明史》編纂過程中一個重要問題。自清人杭世駿、盧文弨起以至今日,學者們一直觀點各異,莫衷一是。由於《明史·藝文志稿》的長期失傳,給研究帶來很多不便。我們考察日本京都大學所藏《明史·藝文志》抄本,證明即為失傳的黄虞稷史館上呈稿《明史·藝文志》。又通過對國家圖書館所藏抄本《明史》四一六卷中《藝文志》部分的整理,得知抄本《明史·藝文志》與《明史·藝文志稿》中的明人著述部分基本相同。在梳理這些文獻的基礎上,采用對二書相同内容的不同排列順序進行比較的方法,進而對《千頃堂書目》與《明史·藝文志稿》的關係進行重新的審視,爲《千頃堂書目》是《明史·藝文志稿》底本之説提供了堅實的論證。今本《千頃堂書目》是由黄氏初稿和後人不斷增飾内容組成的,是一個層層積累的作品。這樣前人對《千頃堂書目》與《明史·藝文志稿》相左的觀點都能得到合理的解釋,同時也對近人的研究成果作了進一步的修正。
The relationship between the Qing Huang Yuji beginner’s book, “one thousand ares Church bibliography” and “History of the Ming Dynasty History draft” is an important issue, “Ming Dynasty” codification process. Since the Qing Hang Shijun, Lu Wenqi up to now, scholars have different opinions, implausible. Due to the “long history of arts and manuscripts,” the long-term lost, to the study a lot of inconvenience. We looked at Kyoto University in Japan the possession of “Ming Dynasty History” transcript, proof of that is lost on Huang Yuji Historica draft was “History of the Ming Dynasty History.” Through the collation of “Yi Wen Zhi” in the 116 volumes of “History of the Ming Dynasty” collected by the National Library, we can see that the parts of the Ming Dynasty in Ming Dynasty and Yi Wen Zhi are basically the same as the Ming writings in Ming Zhi Yi Wen Zhi Man. On the basis of these documents on the combing, the method of the same content in different order in the two books are compared, and then the relationship between “one thousand ares Hall Bibliography” and “Ming Dynasty History draft” in the re-examination, the “one thousand ares Church Bibliography ”is“ the history of Mingzhi Yi Zhi, ”the bottom of the story provides a solid argument. The present “Qianshitang bible” is composed of the first draft of Huang’s and the posterity, which is an accumulated work. Such predecessors on the “one thousand ares Church bibliography” and “History of the Ming Dynasty History draft” different view can get a reasonable explanation, but also made a further amendment to the findings of neighbor.