论文部分内容阅读
大、小戴《礼记》是由西汉礼学家戴德、戴圣分别编选的礼学文献汇编。东汉以后二戴所传《礼记》之命运却判若霄壤。小戴《礼记》研习者众多,而《大戴礼记》却乏人问津,日渐式微,至南宋韩元吉刊刻时已亡佚大半。清代学者戴震认为韩元吉刻十三卷本即《隋书.经籍志》著录本,由此得出错误结论。通过分析隋、唐时期正史目录对《大戴礼记》的著录和唐代学者著作征引《大戴礼记》的情况,可以证知戴说有误。这个发现一方面启示我们必须重新审视大、小戴《礼记》的关系,另一方面也有助于我们理解雕版印刷术广泛使用以后,书籍由写本形态发展到刻本形态所带来的复杂变化。
Dai, Dai Dai “Book of Rites” by the Western Han Dynasty scholar Dade, Dai Saint separately compiled ceremony literature compilation. After the Eastern Han Dynasty, two worn by the “Book of Rites,” the fate of the sentence is Xiao Xiao soil. Small Dai “Book of Rites” a large number of learners, and “Dai Dai rites,” but lack of people care about, less and less, to the South Song Dynasty South Korean Won Kyrgyzstan engraved when most of the lost. In the Qing dynasty, Dai Zhen believed that the Han and Yuan Jijin’s thirteen volumes, the book entitled Sui Shu. Jingji Zhi, led to the wrong conclusion. By analyzing the records of “Da Dai Li Ji” in the Catalog of Official History in the Sui and Tang Dynasties and the “Dai Da Li Ji” cited in the books of scholars in the Tang Dynasty, we can prove that Dai was wrong. This discovery shows that on the one hand, we must re-examine the relationship between Dai and Dai’s Book of Rites and on the other hand, it helps us to understand the complicated changes brought by the development of the book from script form to script form after the widespread use of engraving and printing.