《四库全书总目》武英殿本刊竣年月考实——“浙本翻刻殿本”论批判

An Examination of the Completion Date of Inscribing the Imperial Wuying-Palace Edition of The General Catalogue of Complete Library of Four Treasuries—— Criticism on the viewpoint that the Zhejiang edition is copied from the imperial

殿本《总目》刊竣于乾隆六十年(1795)十一月,校刊负责人曹文埴《奏折》有详确记录。浙本《总目》刊竣于乾隆六十年十月,浙江学政阮元有《跋》为证。浙本的底本是乾隆五十七年的四库馆写本,殿本的底本是乾隆六十年的纪昀修订“完竣”稿本。可见,学界流行的“浙本翻刻殿本”论毫无根据,浙本与殿本一先一后,互有短长。确认殿本刊竣年月,认请浙本早于殿本,可以为《总目》的校勘、探讨《总目》撰著修改全过程以及厘清《总目》传播史上的版本源流提供重要参照。

The Archives of the Edited Complete Library of Four Treasuries, compiled by the China First History Archives Museum and published in July 1997, contains A Memorial to the Throne submitted by Cao Wenzhi, Vice General Editor of the Complete Library and former Minister of Revenue in China. The Memorial states, “Inscribing The General Catalogue of the Complete Library of Four Treasuries has been completed. Printing and binding are kindly requested for his Majesty＇s reading”. It was written in December 1795, or rather, on the 16th day of the 11th month of the 60th year during the reign of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty, which should be deemed the exact date for the end of inscribing the imperial edition of The General Catalogue. However, the truth is that the inscription of the Zhejiang edition of The General Catalogue was completed in November 1795 （the 10th month of the 60th year during the reign of Emperor Qianlong）, which can be proved by the Postscript to the Zhejiang edition written by Ruan Yuan, newly appointed director of the Zhejiang Education Bureau. The copy for duplicating the Zhejiang edition is actually the hand-written copy issued to Wenlan Library in Hangzhou （capital of Zhejiang） from the Palace for the Complete Library of Four Treasuries in the 57th year of the Qianlong period. The copy for the imperial edition is the manuscript whose “corrections were completed” by Ji Yun, the chief editor, in the 60th year of the Qianlong period. The inscription of the Zhejiang edition was finished earlier than that of the imperial edition from the Wuying Palace. Both editions have their own advantages and disadvantages, providing important references for collating The General Catalogue, studying the whole procedure of its compilation and correction, and finding out the full truth about its different historical editions. Given all this, the over-100-year-old viewpoint that “the Zhejiang edition is copied from the imperial edition” is groundless and detrimental, and must be firmly rejected.