論《詩傳大全》與《詩傳通釋》的差異

本文的目的是對顧炎武（1613－1682）《日知錄》、朱彝尊（1629－1709）《經義考》、紀昀（1724－1805）等《四庫全書總目》等書，批評明成祖朱棣（1360－1424）在永樂年間，命胡廣（1370－1418）等人修成的《詩傳大全》僅「完全鈔襲」、「剽竊」元人劉瑾的《詩傳通釋》一事，重新檢證，以確定顧炎武等的批評是否沒有問題？根據實際「比對」兩書的結果：《詩傳大全》和《詩傳通釋》有一一三五處不同，包括：增入條文、刪除條文、改動原文、移動解說位置、更換排列次序等。其中最特殊的是《詩傳大全》增補入一九六條朱善（1314－1385）《解頤》的說解，這是劉瑾書中不可能有的事情；另外增入六十一條羅復的說解，也是《通釋》所沒有的。從〈凡例〉所言也知道，《詩傳大全》的確是以《詩傳通釋》為底本，再加入其他成書或刪除《通釋》某些條文而成，可見顧炎武等批評《詩傳大全》僅「全襲」「剽竊」劉瑾一書的說法，並不完全正確。從《日知錄》刊刻後已三百年（1695－1996），但學者依然全盤引用而不再加以詳細辨明；筆者以為這是學者過分盲信權威，缺乏實際研究的努力，所以纔會失去更進一步瞭解真相的動機。因此建議研究者應重視張以仁老師「學術只認真理，不盲從、不迷信權威」的道理。

關鍵字

詩傳大全；詩傳通釋；四庫全書總目；胡廣；劉瑾；顧炎武；朱彝尊

並列摘要

This paper basically compares ”Shizhuan daquan (The Complete Collection of the Annotations of Shijing)” edited Hu Guang (胡廣, 1370-1418) of Ming with ”Shizhuan tongshi (The General Explanation of the Annotations of Shijing)” by Liu Jin 劉瑾 of Yuan. While these two books are same in many aspects, they are still quite different in 1135 items, a special phenomeon in which is ”Shizhuan daquan”'s quoting 196 items from Zhu Shan's (朱善, 1314-1385) interpretation in his ”Shi Jing jieyi 詩經解頤”. I therefore propose that ”Shizhuan daquan” is edited on the basis of ”Shizhuan tongshi”. The statement made by Gu Yanwu's (顧炎武, 1613-1682) ”Ri zhi lu 日知錄”, Zhu Yizun's (朱彝尊, 1629-1709) ”Jing Yi kao 經義考” and ”Siku quanshu zongmu 四庫全書總目” edited by Ji Yun (紀昀, 1724-1805) etc. that ”Shizhuan daquan” totally copies or plagiarizes Liu Jing's book is absolutely wrong. It is surprising that ”Ri zhi lu” has been published for three hundred years (1695-1996), but many scholars still quote the cliches of people such as Gu Yanwu etc. Therefore I suggest that researchers should respect appeal like, ”Scholarship should only admit truth, never blindly believing authority,” proposed by Professor Zhang Yiren 張以仁.