English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 67783/67783 (100%)
Visitors : 23089994      Online Users : 618
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/4370


    Title: 沈濤《說文古本考》研究 The Research of Shen, Tao;Shou Wen Gu Ben Kao
    Authors: 鍾哲宇;Che-yu Chung
    Contributors: 中國文學研究所
    Keywords: 王筠;鈕樹玉;桂馥;嚴可均;清代學術;校勘;文字學;沈濤;說文古本考;段玉裁;說文解字;Ching Dynasty Academic;Revision;Philology
    Date: 2009-06-02
    Issue Date: 2009-09-22 09:17:40 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 國立中央大學圖書館
    Abstract: 段玉裁(1735-1815)生前已極富盛名,從遊者眾,其《說文解字注》為清代《說文》研究的代表作。然考段氏弟子關於《說文》之專著,獨沈濤(1792-1861)有之,因此沈濤《說文古本考》對於《段注說文》,具有縱向傳承的學術史意義。《說文古本考》在沈濤生前並未付刻。陶方琦《漢孳室文鈔》嘗言及:「其稿經七易,尚未寫定。」因此流傳未廣,《說文解字詁林》即謂其書「傳本甚稀,最不易覓。」故沈濤《說文古本考》,不若同時王筠(1784-1854)《說文釋例》、《說文句讀》流傳之廣。再者,就筆者所知,至今尚無專研沈濤《說文古本考》之專著。凡此種種,不論當時或現在,都形成了清代《說文》學史研究的一段空白,故而筆者以「沈濤《說文古本考》」為研究題目,冀能填補此一空缺。 沈濤《說文古本考》撰述之目的,乃鑑於今本《說文》,經二徐刊削,頗多誤謬,當此之時,他書所引《說文》異本的考校、及《說文》義例的建立,已有一定的成績,而沈濤《說文古本考》有別於一般《說文》校勘著述,以「古本考」為名,藉由唐以前所引《說文》,比較與今本之差異,論其得失。且沈氏撰《古本考》,有別於前輩學者如嚴可均、鈕樹玉諸人,僅臚列資料而不下結論。沈氏勇於論斷,欲藉由他書所引《說文》及《說文》義例,嘗試下一定論,試圖還原出更清楚的古本《說文》面貌。 本文嘗試藉由比較性質的研究,將沈濤對《說文》的研究,放入學術史脈絡中來檢視,期能看出沈濤《說文》校勘的得失,及與其他清代《說文》研究者學說之異同。在清代眾家《說文》研究者中,擬以段玉裁、王筠、桂馥、嚴可均、鈕樹玉諸家為參照對象。沈濤學術有承於段玉裁者,與段氏作比較研究,具有縱向的學術傳承意義。王筠則與沈濤約略同時,為清代《說文》四大家之一,王筠《說文句讀》為校勘《說文》之專著,世稱善本,其書凡例明言參考段玉裁、桂馥、嚴可均之說而成。沈濤《說文古本考》亦頗引用當時學者之說,可見兩人均能吸收前賢研究成果。因而,以沈濤與王筠作比較,有學術橫向對照之意義。另外桂馥、嚴可均、鈕樹玉諸家皆有清《說文》名家,參互比較,可使沈濤《說文古本考》校勘之得失更具體的呈現,由此而對《說文古本考》的學術價值與地位有較客觀的評價。 Duan, Yu-Cai (1735-1815) was really famous and had a lot of followers and his Shuo Wen Jie Zi Zhu was the representative work of Shuo Wen research in Ching dynasty. However, searching for the works about Shuo Wen of Duan’s followers, there was only Shen, Tao (1792-1861). Therefore, Shen, Tao Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao has the academic historic meaning to longitudinally hand down Duan Zhu Shuo Wen. Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao was not published before his death. Tao, Fang-Chi Hna Zi Shi Wen Chao said: “The drafts had been revised for seven times and never been finalized.”, and as a result, it was not spread widely. Shuo Wen Jie Zi Gu Lin also mentioned its spreading works were so few and hard to find. Hence, Shen, Tao Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao was not as widespread as Wang, Yun (1784-1854) Shuo Wen Shi Li and Shuo Wen Ju Du. Furthermore, as the researcher knows, there are no particular work discusses about Shen, Tao Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao so far. Owing to what mentioned above, whether in then or now, it has caused a period of blank of academic history research of Shuo Wen in Ching dynasty. The researcher chose Shen, Tao Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao as researching subject and hopes to make up the blank. The purpose Shen, Tao wrote Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao was because the present version of Shuo Wen was revised by Xu, Xuan and Xu, Kai and there’s a lot of mistakes. At the time, the revisions of other version of Shuo Wen and the examples set up about Shuo Wen had reached a certain standard. The Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao of Shen, Tao was different from other revised works of Shuo Wen; it named Gu Ben Kao and was through quoting Shuo Wen before Tang dynasty to compare the difference with present work and discussed its advantages and disadvantages. Besides, Shen’s Gu Ben Kao was different from previous scholars, such as Yan, Ke-Jun and Niu, Shu-Yu, who only listed out the data and didn’t conclude. Shen tried to make a conclusion through other works discussing about Shuo Wen and examples of Shuo Wen, and to restore a more clear feature of original version of Shuo Wen. In this research, the researcher tries to use comparative study and reviews Shen, Tao research about Shuo Wen in the thread of history of academic, and hopes to see the advantages and disadvantages of Shen, Tao revision about Shuo Wen and the difference between other Ching dynasty researchers’ theories of Shuo Wen. Among the researchers of Shuo Wen in Ching dynasty, the researcher chose Duan, Yu-Cai, Wang, Yun, Gui, Fu, Yan, Ke-Jun and Niu, Shu-Yu as reference. Shen, Tao academic works passed down from Duan, Yu-Cai were compared with Duan which provided longitudinally handed-down meaning of academic history. Wang, Yun, who was about the same period with Shen, Tao, was one of the four masters of Shuo Wen in Ching dynasty. Wang, Yun Shuo Wen Ju Du was the specialized revised work of Shuo Wen and was admired of the best one. The work mentioned clearly that it could be established up because it referred to the works of Duan, Yu-Cai, Gui, Fu and Yan, Ke-Jun. Shen, Tao Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao also quoted much from those scholars’ work at that time which revealed that both of them could imbibe the researching result of former scholars. Therefore, comparing Shen, Tao with Wang, Yun has horizontal and contrasted meaning in academic meaning. In addition, Gui, Fu, Yan, Ke-Jun and Niu, Shu-Yu were also the masters of Shuo Wen in Ching dynasty and comparing with their works interactively would concretely present the advantages and disadvantages of the revision of Shen, Tao Shuo Wen Gu Ben Kao; from this, there will be a more objective judgment aboutShuo Wen Gu Ben Kao in academic value and position.
    Appears in Collections:[中國文學研究所] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    0KbUnknown850View/Open


    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback  - 隱私權政策聲明