摘要
《古文孝经孔传》为伪几成学界共识,本文另以"新证"说明这一共识是可以成立的。此"新证"即指《孔传》阴袭《管子》以解《孝经》之内容占《孔传》篇幅达50%,而国内学界对此竟茫然不察。据此可为《孔传》非孔安国所作而是魏晋时人伪托之说定案。由于《孔传》多引《管子》以释《孝经》,故其诠释未免带有法家化及糅合儒法之色彩。将《孔传》与《管子》的援引关系揭示出来,对于我们重新审视《孔传》在《孝经》学中的地位问题具有重要的学术意义。
It is already a verdict that Kong's Commentary on Guwen Xiaojing is a pseudograph. This paper tries to provide some new evidence to confirm this verdict. The evidence is that 50 percent of the content in Kong's Commentary on Guwen Xiaojing quoted Guanzi to interpret Xiaojing,but the domestic scholars are absolutely ignorant of this fact. With the new evidence,the paper concludes that this book was written by someone who lived in the Wei and Jin Dynasties rather than by Kong Anguo who lived in the Western Han Dynasty. Because of quoting Guanzi to interpret Xiaojing,Kong's Commentary on Guwen Xiaojing is a mixture of some elements of Confucianism and Legalism. In some sense,this was a product of interpreting Xiaojing with Legalism. Understanding this close relationship between Kong's Commentary on Guwen Xiaojing and Guanzi would have great significance for reexamining the former's role in the studies on Xiaojing.
出处
《云南大学学报（社会科学版）》
北大核心
2014年第1期34-44,111,共11页
The Journal of Yunnan University:Social Sciences Edition
基金
教育部人文社会科学青年基金"明代<孝经>诠释的转折与演进"(项目号:13YJC720026)暨第52批中国博士后科学基金(项目号:2012M520836)资助
