著者

李 弘喆

出版者

東洋文庫

雑誌

東洋学報 = The Toyo Gakuho (ISSN:03869067)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.103, no.1, pp.1-29, 2021-06-30

---

This article analyzes the role of the Book of Origins (Shiben 世本), a lost work, in the three of the commentary collection Correct Meaning of the Five Classics (Wujing Zhengyi 五經正義), that is to say, the Zhengyi commentaries on the Book of Changes (Zhouyi 周易), the Book of Songs (Maoshi 毛詩) and the Book of History (Shangshu 尚書), keeping in mind the influence of commentaries predating the Wujing Zhengyi and focusing on the diverse receptions of Shiben over time. Beginning with the Zhouyi Zhengyi, the author notes the absence of any Shiben citations there, due to the fact that the compilers of the 7th century Wujing Zhengyi emphasized the correspondence between the existing commentaries (zhuwen 注文) they adopted and the sub-commentaries (shuwen 疏文) they also adopted or wrote anew themselves. The Zhouyi Zhengyi accepted Wang Bi’s 王弼 commentary of the 3rd century which did not quote any of the Shiben text. Next, the author notices that since the Shiben citations in the Maoshi and Shangshu Zhengyi are limited to the content of the canon (jing 經) relevant to those works, they concentrate chronologically on the Three Dynasties Period (Sandai 三代) and before, and in the latter, Shiben information on Antiquity (Shanggu 上古) is treated as one particular hypothesis that should be refuted. In both, Shiben genealogical information about the Yin and Zhou Dynasties is used together with citations from the Shiji 史記, but is often prioritized. That is because, the author points out, it had become the general consensus at the time of the Wujing Zhengyi compilation that Sima Qian 司馬遷 did consult the Shiben during the compilation of the Shiji. The author additionally notes that from an analysis of the fragmented evidence, the cited Shiben genealogical narrative lacks regularity in form, and the so-called “unique” descriptive style of the citations is in fact no different from the general narrative style of the sub-commentaries in the Wujing Zhengyi. The views offered in this article will hopefully contribute not only to the further study of Shiben itself, but also to the research regarding the restoration and reconstruction of lost and fragmentary texts in general. Since the historiographical research to date has long been focused on the task of restoring lost fragments of texts, perceptions towards restoration have remained at the level of Qing Dynasty textual criticism (Qingchao Kaozhengxue 淸朝考證學). What scholars should be collecting in the restoration process is not fragments of the original, but rather a “consciousness” regarding the original, for it is impossible to “restore” the original text. What is possible, however, is to clarify the perceptions towards and the substance of the fragments by returning to where they have been cited. This article is an attempt to answer the fundamental historiographical question of what sources the restored text was based on and to present that how inseparable the historiographic research on restored texts is from investigating in what way the original work was received and adopted over time.

著者

李 弘喆

出版者

駿台史学会

雑誌

駿台史學 = Sundai historical review : the journal of the Historico-Geographical Association of Meiji University (ISSN:05625955)

巻号頁・発行日

no.173, pp.27-47, 2021-09