《孔子家语》成书时代和性质问题的再研究

【作者】 邬可晶；

【导师】 裘锡圭；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 中国古典文献学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 今傅《孔子家语》一害,據害末所谓孔安国《序》、後《序》及所錄署名孔衍(孔安国之孫)的奏害,像是流傅有绪的先秦古籍而经孔安国整理“撰次”。但是,從與为《孔子家语》作注的王肅同時代的马昭阴始,就不断有人懷疑此害的真寅性。二十世纪“疑古思潮”興起以後,《孔子家藉》为王肅(或王肅之徒)伪造之害似乎已成定输。二十世纪七十年代以来,陸續出土了相常数量的戟国西漢畴代抄寫的筒帛古害,其中有些内容舆《孔子家捂》有阴(但同時也见於其他古害)。这使我们在研究《孔子家语》成害時代和性质的问题上具俻了比前人更豐富、更可靠的比较材料。同時,由於这些材料的出土,不少曾被懷疑的傅世古书的年代重新得到了確認,先秦古害的體例也被韶识得更加清楚了。现在再来審视前人研究《孔子家捂》與其他傅世古害關保的成果,可以擺脱“疑古派”阴於古害辨伪的某些错误看法的束缚,相封客觀地分析前人研究的得失。利用新出土材料,全面吸收已有成果,把關於《孔子家语》成害時代和性质问题的研究向前推造,封於正確评僵中国古典学第一次重建的功遇也具有一定的意羲。由於封可與《孔子家语》比较的出土文獻的内容没有研究透(这包括出土文獻與《孔子家语》相關内容的封比還较为粗浅、可舆《孔子家语》封讀的出土材料搜集得還不夠完整雨個方面),封《孔子家语》的每篇每章也研究得不夠深入细緻,目前学者们利用新出土材料封输《孔子家捂》的畴代和性质问题,彼此所得出的结输仍存较大分歧。宋代以来、特别是清代学者辨《孔子家藉》真伪的见解,前人研究《孔子家语》成害時代的得失,在富代学者研究这一问题时也缺乏很好的總结。本文盡可能全面地搜集與《孔子家语》有關的出土、傅世文献中的材料,以章为单位(跟出土文献的比较则深入到以文句为罩位),充分吸收古今学者封《孔子家语》與其他古害(包括出土舆傅世)關保的看法,並新发掘出些《孔子家语》襲用其他傅世古害的例证,作为推测《孔子家语》成害時代和性质的依據。本文绪论部分介绍了值得我们借鉴的前人研究《孔子家语》成害時代和性质问题的两個重要方法和思路：比较《孔子家语》與其他古害中重複出现的相同或類似的内容,注意匾分不同時代的《孔子家语》的本子。前者也是本文进行研究的最主要的方法。近年来,有学者封通遇不同古害的相同或颊似内容的比较来研究古书年代和性质的可行性提出了质疑,绪论还從方法论的角度封此作了辨析。在與《孔子家语》相關的出土文獻中,既有如定縣八角廊漢筒《儒家者言》、《哀公问五羲》、阜陽漢墓所出一號木牘章题、“说”颊殘筒、上海博物馆藏戟国楚竹害《民之父母》等那檬整章整段可與之封讀的,也有如信阳畏台關楚簡、郭店楚墓竹害、上海博物馆藏戰国楚竹书、嶽麓害院藏秦筒、马王堆漢墓帛害等材料中個别捂句與之相同或類似的。本文第一章封上述材料與《孔子家语》的相關内容作了祥细的比较。此外,英藏敦煌寫卷S.1891、俄藏敦煌寫卷ДХ.10464錄有《孔子家捂》某些篇章的内容,可以纠正今本《孔子家语》的一些訛误,第一章附錄封此作了校注和介绍,並封论了寫卷所反映的有關问题。本文第二章分舆多种古害互见、只與一种古害互见和不典其他古害互见三种颊型,全面考察《孔子家捂》與其他傅世古书之间的源流關保。《孔子家藉》害後有所謂孔安国《序》、後《序》和王肅《序》,其中所謂孔安国《序》、後《序》及其所錄孔衍奏书,在孔氏世系、“孔氏三世出妻”、孔安国献书等方面,舆其他史料存在矛盾之處。本文第三章封古今学者的懷疑、驳議作了總结和考辨,並发现了一些新的疑点。基於以上内容的考察,本文结藉部分提出我们關於《孔子家语》成害時代和性质的倾向性意见：今本《孔子家语》乃魏晉時人(王肅之徒、孔子二十二世孫孔猛的嫌疑较大)雜採古害、参以己意编纂而成的一部晚出之害(但不能完全排斥其中保存了部分古本《孔子家捂》内容的可能性),跟《漢书·藝文志》著錄的古本《孔子家语》並非一事；前人韶为《孔子家语》保“伪害”的看法,似不容轻易否定。中国古典学第一次重建時的“疑古学派”,雕然“封古书搞了不少冤假错案”,需要加以纠正；但他们封今本《孔子家语》性质的判断,主要繼承了前人辨伪的意见,现在看来是得多於失的。更多还原

【Abstract】 According to the so-called Kong An-guo’s preface, the second preface and the memorial to throne signed for Kong Yan (Kong An-guo’s grandson), Kong-Zi Jia Yu spreaded so far seemed to be Pre-Qin classic which was arranged by Kong An-guo, however, it had been suspected from Ma Zhao contemporary with Wang Su who annotated Kong-Zi Jia Yu. It had been judged by a book forged by Wang Su or Wang Su’s student Since Doubt Thought rising in 20th century. A considerable number of bamboo and silk books written in Warring States and Western Han Dynasty has been excavated successively since seventies of 20th century, some of which not only are found in Kong-Zi Jia Yu, but also are found in other books handed down from ancient times. That is why we have richer and more reliable materials to compare when researching on book compiled time and nature of Kong-Zi Jia Yu. At the same time, because of excavation of these materials, the time of some classic which were suspected is confirmed, and styles of classic in Pre-Qin are recognized more clearly. We could get rid of some misconceptions of Doubt School on identfying counterfeit ancient books and analysis previous studies objectively when we review the research on relationship with Kong-Zi Jia Yu and other ancient books by senior scholars. It also has some significance for correct evaluation of Reconstruction of Chinese Classics’s merits and demerits since Modern times.As excavated classics compared with Kong-Zi Jia Yu has not been studied thoroughly, including in comparing with some excavated classics and Kong-Zi Jia Yu superficially and collecting excavated classics could be compared with Kong-Zi Jia Yu incompletely, and each chapter in Kong-Zi Jia Yu has not been studied intensively, there is a big difference on the conlusions of scholars who study in book compiled time and nature of Kong-Zi Jia Yu currently. It is also short of ideal summary on views and experiences of scholars since Song Dynasty, especially in Qing Dynasty, who studied this subject. In this paper, we collected comprehensively materials in excavated and handed down from ancient classics about Kong-Zi Jia Yu, one chapter as a unit (the part of comparing with excavated classics dept into one sentence as a unit), fully absorbed other scholars’opinions on relationship with Kong-Zi Jia Yu and other ancient books, and discovered some illustrations on other ancient books being plagiarized by Kong-Zi Jia Yu, which was used as basis for speculating book compiled time and nature of Kong-Zi Jia Yu.In the introduction of this paper, there are two valuable methods and ideas on scholars’research of book compiled time and nature of Kong-Zi Jia Yu, that is, comparing with the content which could be found in Kong-Zi Jia Yu and other ancient books, and noting on distinguish different editions of Kong-Zi Jia Yu belonging to different times. The former also is most important method in this paper. Recently, a scholar questioned the feasibility of researching on book compiled time and nature of classics by comparison of the same and similar content in different classics, which was analyzed in the introduction from the point of view of methodology. In the excavated materials associated with Kong-Zi Jia Yu, there are not only entire chapters but also individual sentences. The examples of former are RuJiaZheYan and AiGongWenWuYi excavated in a tomb of Ding County Eastern Han Dynasty, some chapters’titles in a wooden slip and Shuo Lei incomplete bamboo slips excavated in a tomb of FuYang Eastern Han Dynasty, Min Zhi Fu Mu on Chu bamboo slips of Warring States collected by ShangHai museum, while the examples of latter are Chu bamboo slips of Warring States excavated in XinYang, GuoDian, collected by ShangHai museum, bamboo slips of Qin Dynasty collected by YueLu academy, silk book of Eastern Han Dynasty excavated in MaWangDui, and so on. In the first chapter, these materials were comparied with Kong-Zi Jia Yu in detail. In addition, two DunHuang manuscripts copied some chapters of Kong-Zi Jia Yu collected by England and Russia, S.1891 andДX.10464, could correct some corruptions in extant edition of Kong-Zi Jia Yu.In the second chapter, it was comprehensive studied the original relationship on Kong-Zi Jia Yu and other ancient books by three types of the content repeating in some books, only being found in one another book, and only being found in Kong-Zi Jia Yu.There are some inconsistencies with other historical datas on Kong’s genealogy, Kong’s three generals divorcing their wives and KongAn-guo offering books,etc. We summarized and analyzed ancient and modern scholars’suspicions and disputations, and found some new doubts in the third chapter.Based on the investigation of the above, it was proposed that our tendentious comments on book compiled time and nature of Kong-Zi Jia Yu in the conclusion, that is, the extant edition of Kong-Zi Jia Yu was a book appearing in late which was compiled by some one in WeiJin Dynasty (it was most likely KongMeng who was WangSu’s student and twenty-second generation descendant of Confucius) in extensively collecting other ancient books and adding his or their own comments and ideas, which was not the same as Kong-Zi Jia Yu recorded in Hanshu Yiwenzhi. It seemed not to be denied the opinion of ancient scholars that the extant edition of Kong-Zi Jia Yu was a counterfeit book. It now appears that it was more gains than loss that Doubt School in the first reconstruction of Chinese Classics inherited ancient scholars’opinion of identfy counterfeit ancient books on Kong-Zi Jia Yu.更多还原