歐陽「修」？抑或歐陽「脩」？
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2007-03-??
Authors
蔡根祥
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract
唐宋古文八大家中，宋代首推歐陽修。歐陽公之文章，不獨為歷代文人必讀之典範，時至今日，仍舊為國文教材之必然選擇。歐陽永叔之名、字、號、諱，為我國人所熟知；然而其「名」之當寫作「修」？抑或當寫作「脩」？，歷來頗有爭議。現今較多人士主張根據歐陽公之親筆墨蹟、石刻之署名作「脩」，復以歐陽公門生蘇軾等所書寫歐陽公所作之〈醉翁亭記〉、〈豐樂亭記〉中，對歐陽公之稱謂亦作「脩」，遂據以強調歐陽公之名當作「脩」，不可作「修」。然亦有主張歐陽公本名「修」，今其署名作「脩」，乃因「脩」之與「修」，為習慣通用之關係；且就書法而言，寫作「脩」自有其歷史根源，並非本作「脩」。本文從「修、脩」字之歷代使用狀況，以見「修」與「脩」通用；並觀察宋代當時「修」字使用情形；復根據歐陽永叔自己運用「修」字之現象，再深入探究歐陽公所遺留之名、號印文究為何字，再結合歐陽公之「名」與「字」之關係，乃典出自《尚書．皋陶謨》「慎厥身修，思永」一句，而唐宋經書官本此句用「修」字；總合以論證歐陽永叔之名，本當作「修」為是，而歐陽公署名皆作「脩」，乃習慣通用及書法之美感要求，遂慣性寫作「脩」而已。
Ouyang Xiu was the champion proser in Song Dynasty. His articles, not only as the model that the past scholars must imitate, even to this day, still must be chosen in Chinese literature textbooks. His name, ‘Xiu’ (修), known very well by people of our country in the past, now being a little bit confused. Many people argue that, according to his handwriting ink marks and signatures of the stone engraving, his name should be another ‘Xiu’ (脩), not to mention that this another ‘Xiu’ was also used in some famous proses composed by Sou DongPo, one of his brightest students. But some people think it is just a calligraphic preference to write ‘Xiu’ (脩) rather than ‘Xiu’ (修), taking these two characters are semantically interchangeable. This paper aims to support this latter argument not only through reviewing the usages of ‘Xiu’ in the dynasties including Song and in Master Ouyang's habit, but also through checking Master Ouyang's signatures of seals that prove his names.
Ouyang Xiu was the champion proser in Song Dynasty. His articles, not only as the model that the past scholars must imitate, even to this day, still must be chosen in Chinese literature textbooks. His name, ‘Xiu’ (修), known very well by people of our country in the past, now being a little bit confused. Many people argue that, according to his handwriting ink marks and signatures of the stone engraving, his name should be another ‘Xiu’ (脩), not to mention that this another ‘Xiu’ was also used in some famous proses composed by Sou DongPo, one of his brightest students. But some people think it is just a calligraphic preference to write ‘Xiu’ (脩) rather than ‘Xiu’ (修), taking these two characters are semantically interchangeable. This paper aims to support this latter argument not only through reviewing the usages of ‘Xiu’ in the dynasties including Song and in Master Ouyang's habit, but also through checking Master Ouyang's signatures of seals that prove his names.