摘要
今本《汉书·儒林传》叙梁丘易之授受,于五鹿充宗之师承未作说明,致使梁丘易之传承不能链接。过去,有学者认为《汉书》"(梁丘)临代五鹿充宗君孟为少府"之"代"当作"授"字,或以为"传"字之讹。本文从事理、文理、语例、史实及书证等方面进行细致剖析,进一步确认梁丘临与五鹿充宗为师徒关系而非前后任的替代关系,否定此处"代"为"授"字或"传"字之讹,更不可能是后人误改,考定此处并非字误而实为脱文,过去令人置疑的"代"字原是五鹿充宗之籍贯,"代"上当据《经典释文》及《儒林传》文例增补"授"字。如此,梁丘易之师法传承始环环相扣,明白无疑。
Hanshu. RulLinzhuan describes the generations of the scholars who studied in Liangqiu-Yi very well but neglects the master-apprentice relation of Wulu-Chongzong. Studies had been made to announce that the word Dai (代) should be correct as Shou (授) or Chuan (传) in the sentence 'Liangqiu Lin Dai Wulu-chongzong and became the Shaofu'. This article analyzes the logic, the unity and coherence in writing, the samples of the usage of the words, the facts in history and written evidence in classical books, affirms that Liangqiu-Lin and Wulu-Chongzong were master-apprentice relation other than substitute of the official position, that is, Shaofu, denies the word Dai should be correct with Shou or Chuan and which couldn't be edtited by later generations. The word Dai was right but there was a word missed. Dai is the native place of Wulu-Chongzong. The missed word was Shou which can be affirm by Jingdianshiwen and the usage of the words Dai and Shou in Hanshu. Rulinzhuan. So the generations of the studying of the Liangqiu-Yi is clear now.
出处
《古籍整理研究学刊》
2004年第6期37-41,共5页
Journal of Ancient Books Collation and Studies
关键词
《汉书·儒林传》
梁丘易
五鹿充宗
传承
祛疑
Hanshu.Rulinzhuan
Liangqiu-Yi
Wulu-Chongzong
master-apprentice relation
correting
