- 期刊
- OpenAccess
《孔叢子》引《尚書》相關材料的分析
The Analysis of the Quotations from Shang-Shu by Kong-Cong-Zi
摘要
《孔叢子》之真偽及著成時間，歷來爭議頗多。清代以來，學者多認定此書乃王肅或王肅之徒為羽翼《偽孔經傳》而偽造之書。此說直到黃懷信、李學勤等指出《孔叢子》之成書時間應當提早，且可能是「孔氏家學」，非王肅等人偽造，此書的價值才又重新為人所注意。本文認為，無論是清儒之說，或是黃懷信、李學勤的主張，皆無法避免《偽孔經傳》與《孔叢子》關係的釐清問題。而這正是諸學者未能完善處理的部分。本文分析《孔叢子》引《尚書》之相關材料，發現《孔叢子》所引的《尚書》來源不一。而且亦無意將所引的《尚書》版本統一。其中，引《尚書》相關材料與《偽孔經傳》不相違背的部分，並無明確的證據可以證明一定引自《偽孔經傳》，而不是出自其它來源。就整體的引用情況而言，《孔叢子》比較重視與《今文尚書》相關的篇章。少數可能與「《偽孔本》多出《今文尚書》諸篇」相關內容，往往不明言出自《尚書》，且文字多與《偽孔本》不同。可見《孔叢子》作者所身處的時代，《偽孔本》的地位可能不太高，或者尚在形成的過程。從文字最後著成的時間來考慮，學者指出書中的材料有較早的來源，只能證明《孔叢子》的內容非憑空捏造而成，卻無法證明這部書文字的寫定時間一定可以跟著地提早。《孔叢子》有些條文的寫定時間，可能較晚。本文所找到的例證有二：一是「數四」一詞的出現時間在後漢，普遍使用的時間則在魏晉。《孔叢子》既用了「數四」一詞，著成時間自然在東漢之後。二是〈陳士義篇〉引《周書》切玉刀、火浣布的文字與《列子》張湛注關係密切，而且很可能成於《列子》張湛注之後。根據上述情況，本文認為清儒以王肅或王肅之徒偽造《孔叢子》，顯然證據不足。今人黃懷信、李學勤將《孔叢子》的成書時間提前，並認為《偽孔本》的出現時間亦應隨之提前。依《孔叢子》引《尚書》相關材料的實際情況來說，在沒有提出更明確的證據之前，亦不能成為定論。
並列摘要
There are lots of discussion on the truthfulness and the writing-day of Kong-Cong-Zi Since the Qing dynasty. By Wong-Su or his disciples, the book was thought to be counterfeited to support the False Kong Shang-Shu. The contemporary scholars, Huang Huai-Xing and Li Xue-Qing, however, pointed out that the writing-day of Kong-Cong-Zi should be earlier; thus the value of the book was reconsidered. The treatise is of the opinion that since the Qing dynasty the relation between Kong-Cong-Zi and the False Kong Shang-Shu is not clarified yet, which is still not well solved by the scholars above. By analyzing the quotations from Shang-Shu by Kong-Cong-Zi, the treatise found that there were many sources in the quotation, and the author of Kong-Cong-Zi had no intent to unify the quotations from various versions of Shang-Shu. Besides, the quotation without inconsistency to the False Kong Shang-Shu couldn't necessarily prove the source. As to the whole quotations, Kong-Cong-Zi put more emphasis on the chapters related to the Jinwen ShangShu. Few chapters of the False Kong Shang-Shu exceeding the Jinwen ShangShu were always not clearly indicated to be related to Shang-Shu. Hence in the days of Kong-Cong-Zi's author, the False Kong Shang-Shu could be just taking shape, at least not in a high academic position. According to the reasons above, I think there is not enough evidence to prove that Wong-Su or his disciples counterfeited Kong-Cong-Zi. Besides, the opinion of the contemporary scholars that the writing-day of Kong-Cong-Zi should be earlier could not be an accepted statement without further evidence.