Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/77345300/24836
Title: <坊記>、<七十二弟子解>稱引論語書題再議
Authors: 林保全
Issue Date: Mar-2008
Publisher: 國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract: 本文旨在重新探討《禮記.坊記》、《孔子家語.七十二弟子解》稱引《論語》書題,是否可信無疑。〈坊記〉與〈七十二弟子解〉本可作為判斷《論語》書題出現時間之重要依據。然武內義雄根據文例、與上下文句之語意,推斷〈坊記〉所引《論語》一段,恐為注文混入正文之中,其說頗為現今學者所依據。〈七十二弟子解〉出自《家語》,先儒舊稱王肅所偽,本不為學者所採。然今簡牘文獻出土以來,皆促使學者重新利用〈坊記〉與《孔子家語》等文獻內容。於是學者多據簡本〈緇衣〉,認定今本〈坊記〉亦屬先秦文獻,遂又據信〈坊記〉中稱引《論語》書題,斷定《論語》書名成於先秦。然據本文考察,即使相關簡牘文獻出土,〈坊記〉、〈七十二弟子解〉稱引《論語》書題,仍有諸多疑慮,未可斷然據信,而論定《論語》書題即成於先秦。
This thesis attempts to re-examine the question of quoting the title of “Lun Yu” in “Fang Ji” (of Li Ji) and “Qi Shi Er De Zi Jie” (of Kong Zi Jia Yu), and to discuss whether the title of “Lun Yu” existed in pre-Qin time, or if it was later added by Confucianists in Han dynasty. “Fang Ji” and “Qi Shi Er De Zi Jie” were to determine when Lun Yu was named. Earlier Japanese scholar Takeuchi Yoshio construed that, according to literary format and context, the quotation of “Lun Yu” in “Fan JI” did not exist in pre-Chin dynasty, and was later added by other Confucianists. Mr. Yishio's idea was generally accepted, and is still the most influential up to present days. “Qi Shi Er De Zi Jie” is from Kong Zi Jia Yu, which was generally believed a pseudo work by Wang Su, and was therefore of no credibility by most scholars. The later excavation, however, gives further proofs that Li Ji and Kong Zi Jia Yu are not pseudo works. Scholars thus start to bring back the contents of “Fang Ji” and Kong Zi Jia Yu as proofs to illustrate the title of “Lun Yu” firstly emerged from pre-Chin dynasties. Due to the excavation of “Zi Yi”, many scholars are convinced that contemporary edition of “Fang Ji” was also existent in pre-Chin time. And these scholars posit that the title of “Lun Yu” quoted in “Fang Ji” is an evidence that the title of Lun Yu was actually named in pre-Chin time. This paper offers comprehensive dimensions to re-examine the quotation of the title of “Lun Yu” in “Fang Ji” and “Qi Shi Er De Zi Jie”. This paper is to argue that, even with the excavation of relevant documents, this question is still speculative, and needs more careful scrutiny.
URI: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw//handle/77345300/24836
Other Identifiers: 70047829-0D3B-3E4D-8CF8-79613580B9AF
Appears in Collections:中國學術年刊

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.