《史通》乌丝栏明抄本的宋本特征与学术价值

The Song Version Features and Academic Values of the Wusilan Manuscript Version of Shitong in Ming Dynasty

《史通》无宋本传世,明张之象本虽据宋本刊刻,但改动了宋本文字和版式;清卢文弨据影宋抄本作《史通校正》,仅抄录部分宋本文字。二者都不能完好展示宋本面貌。明代乌丝栏抄本《史通》作者署名刘氏,这是汉唐时期常见的作者署名方式,体现了刘知幾谦逊的著述态度;卷首序言、目录和前五章正文连续抄写,是唐代流行的卷子装;书中保留大量唐代异体字,亦有避唐讳的痕迹;该书避宋讳至宋孝宗赵眘,底本年代为南宋高宗时期,是今存与宋本渊源最近、最接近《史通》文本原貌的版本。清人何焯校勘《史通》,其栏下校勘记有350条,与乌丝栏抄本大多相同,当据宋抄本所作,这是与宋本相关的又一重要资料。作为通行本的清浦起龙《史通通释》大量臆改和美化文本,造成许多重要学术信息的遗漏和误读,违背了刘知幾的原意和古籍整理的学术规范,乌丝栏抄本对校正此类错误提供了可靠的版本依据。

No Song version of Shitong has been handed down to the present world,but there are several well-known materials related to it.One is Zhang Zhixiang’s engraved copy in the Ming Dynasty,which was basically printed and engraved according to Qin Zhonghan’s private home collection of Song version in Liangxi,but the problem is that the textual pattern of the Song version has been changed a lot.The other important one is Lu Wenchao’s book named Shitong Jiaozheng in the Qing Dynasty.He made 748 entries of collations,which was totally based on the reprinted version of the Song Dynasty by Mr.Zhu in Huating.In spite of this,the two above-mentioned materials cannot fully show the general features of the Song version.Furthermore,there are serious errors in the engraved versions of the Ming and Qing Dynasties,which differ from the original version and thus many academic disputes have emerged.Taiwan collection of the Wusilan manuscript version is the one that is closest to the original Song version and also closest to the original features of Shitong.The reasons are as follows:firstly,the author’s signature is Liu(surname only),which is a very popular way of signature in the works of commentary on Confucian classics in the Han and Tang dynasties,demonstrating Liu Zhiji’s humble attitude of academic research and his ideal of developing unique theoretical system or thoughts.Secondly,the preface,the table of the contents and the text of the first five chapters were copied continuously,which was a popular binding pattern legacy in the Tang Dynasty.Thirdly,more than 400 different characters which existed before the Tang and Song dynasties were preserved in this version,and in turn can confirm Liu Zhiji’s original intention of avoiding the Tang taboos.Fourthly,the Wusilan version tried to avoid using the Song taboos,such as Yin(胤),Jing(镜),Wu(戌),Yin(殷),Jing(竟),Jing(敬),Heng(恒),Huan(桓),Gou(构),etc,but not avoiding the Emperor Xiaozong’s taboo,so the time of this version should be Emperor Gaozong’s period in the Southern Song Dynasty.Wusilan version did not avoid the taboo of the Ming and Qing emperors,as the taboos were loose in the Ming Dynasty and were strictly avoided in the Qing Dynasty,therefore Hong Ye’s conclusion that it was a Ming version tends to be correct and credible.The Wusilan version is helpful to sort out the confusions and differences of later literature from the source,which is worthy of the further study.He Zhuo’s collation during the Qing Dynasty was quite influential,and his criticism of Shitong has not been included in his Yimen Reading Notes.He Zhuo collated the original edition,which was engraved by Zhang Zhixiang.He corrected the errors of the text either based on the version of Guo Kongyan,or on the historical original text,or on the context.Most of its 350 collations are the same as those of the Wusilan manuscript version(23 items are different).When it is copied and written according to the Song version,its purpose is not to correct the text errors,but to faithfully preserve the original features of the Song version.This is another important material related to the Song version.But the predecessors did not understand He Zhuo’s collation style and confused his collation with other collation records.Pu Qilong’s Shitong Tongshi is the most widely circulated and influential version,and other scholars in the Qing Dynasty believe that he might have referred to the Song version,which can be regarded as the final version.But in fact,Pu Qilong modified the texts a lot,which mainly showed that he neither knew the style of ancient books,the author’s writing,as well as the habit of quoting ancient books,nor did he know the idioms of annotating ancient books.He also made improper revisions and deletions according to the Confucian classics,which had influenced Ji Yun’s Shitong Xuefan.What’s more,he followed the method of writing parallel prose to beautify the text,deleting or merging the old notes to rectify the text,which had violated Liu Zhiji’s original intention and the academic norms of editing the ancient books,resulting in the missing of a large amount of important academic information.Therefore,the Wusilan manuscript version may provide a reliable version for correcting such errors.