四部分类法中别集与总集关系考论

A Criticism on the Relation between Anthology and General Anthology in the Quartered Taxonomy of Bibliography

对于四部分类法中别集与总集之间的关系,今人普遍认为:别集是与总集相对而言。但是,通过对"别集"、"总集"术语的产生、概念内涵的演变的考察,可以发现:无论是从《隋志》对文献类目的最初设置,还是从以后目录学著作中的实际著录与集部类目设置来看,在四部分类法中,"别集"是相对"楚辞"而提出,别集起初得名是从"别聚焉,名之为集"而来,不是与"总集"相对而言。所谓"别集与总集相对"不是对四部分类法中别集的定义,形成这种误解的症结在于:一是对"楚辞"类目设置的认识比较含混,二是没有全面考察《隋志》之后的目录学著作因循旧例的著录实际与类目设置。

When referring to the relation between the anthology and general anthology in the quartered taxonomy of bibliography, the popular idea was that the anthology was the oppo-site of general anthology. In fact, whether the first classification of bibliography in Suizhi（《隋志》） or the actual classification of jibu （集部） in the works of bibliography after Suizhi（《隋志》）, “the anthology” was always opposite to “Chu Ci （楚辞）”, not opposite to “gen-eral anthology” at all. The idea that the anthology was the opposite of general anthology wasn＇t the correct definition of the anthology in the quartered taxonomy of bibliography. The sticking point of the wrong idea is in that they did not classify clearly the attachment of ChuCi （楚辞） and did not review completely the actual classification of jibu （集部） in the works of bibliography after Suizhi （《隋志》）.