论文部分内容阅读
近來有人認爲《劉子》作者是劉勰,這種結論的得出,體現了作者曲解材料的不良學風,本文爲之做正本清源的駁斥。認爲《劉子》是劉勰所作者的文獻根據就是兩《唐志》的著録,本文考辨了兩《唐志》致誤的緣起,從目録學上,否定了某些人據以爲劉勰著《劉子》的可信性。從《劉子》基本思想傾向、人格思想素質以及語言風格諸方面與《文心雕龍》相對照,所呈現之差異,可徹底否定所謂《劉子》爲劉勰所作之謬論。一切基於違背實事求是原則而作的所謂學術研究,根本是站不住脚的。
Recently, some people think that the author of Liu is Liu Xie. The conclusion drawn from this conclusion reflects the author’s bad learning style of material misunderstanding. The author thinks that “Liu Zi” is the author of Liu Xie’s literature based on the records of two “Tang Zhi”. This paper examines the origins of the two Tang Zhi errors and denies from the bibliography that some people think that Liu Xie The “Liu” credibility. From the “Liu Zi” basic ideological tendency, personality ideological quality and language style and “Wen Xin Diao Long” contrast, the differences presented by, can completely negate the so-called “Liu Zi” as Liu Mi’s fallacy. All so-called academic research based on the principle of seeking truth from facts is simply untenable.