《象山先生全集》校勘二记——“书”卷1至卷17,“语录”卷34与卷35部分

The Second Collating of The Whole Essay of Mr.Xiangshan“book”Volume 1 to 17,“quotes”Volume 34 and part of Volume 35

本文通过《象山先生全集》'书'卷1至卷17,'语录'卷34与卷35两部分的校勘,发现该本保留避宋庙讳之处颇多,不但进一步肯定了家藏本为与荆门州学本有渊源关系的明刊本,同时印证了家藏本《象山先生全集》的文本是上承宋代刻本,与传世其他明刊本属别一系统.其文本价值远远高于其他传世的明刊本.此外,通过'书'卷1至卷17,'语录'卷34与卷35两部分的校勘,得知正德本虽然在明刊本中刊行较早,但并非善本.道光三年本虽小有瑕疵,但所据底本可信,校勘质量颇高.而中华书局刊锺哲点校本不但失校之处甚多,且轻出己意,改易原文.此外,家藏本与中华书局锺哲点校本不同之处,大都以家藏本为可从或可通,可见中华书局锺哲点校本难称善本.本文可为《象山先生全集》'书'卷1至卷17,'语录'卷34与卷35两部分提供一个现阶段最可信的文本。

In this paper,according to the collating of TheWhole Essay of Mr.Xiangshan“book”Volume 1 to 17,“quotes”Volume 34 and part of Volume 35,we can find out that this edition keeps avoiding Song Temple quite a lot,which not only further confirms that the home possession is the Ming edition which has connection with the Jingmen zhou edition,also confirms the home possession come from Song Dynasty carving edition,and the Ming edition handed down included in other system.Its value is much higher than other extantMing editions.What’s more,from the collating of“book”Volume 1 to 17,“quotes”Volume 34 and part of 35,we learn this edition was earlier than Zheng De one which was published earlier than other Ming editions,but it is not the rare one,the third year of Dao Guang had small flaws,but it has high quality and trustworthy,Zhong Zhe edition published by Zhong Hua Book Company had many mistakes and changed the original meanings.In addition,the differences between the home possession and Zhong Hua Zhong Zhe is that the former is more correct,which shows that Zhong Hua Zhong Zhe is not to be called the original one,which can provide the“book”Volume 1 to 17,“quotes”Volume 34 and Volume 35 a stage for the most authentic text.