查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 讀《資暇錄》兼論《文選》李善注與五臣注異同=A Discussion of the Tzu-Hsia-Lu in Regard to its Comparison of the Wenhsuan Commentaries by Li Shan and the Five Officials |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 曹道衡; | 書刊名 | 國家圖書館館刊 |
卷期 | 87:1 1998.06[民87.06] |
頁次 | 頁73-88 |
分類號 | 830.1 |
關鍵詞 | 文選; 李善注; 五臣注; 李匡乂; 資暇錄; Wenhsuan; Li shan's commentary; The five scholars' commentary; Li kuang-yi; Tzu-hsia-lu; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 《文選》好善注與五臣注並為唐代最重的《文選》集注,而兩種注本讀者對象不同,體例也過然有別。五臣注比李善注晚出,但在唐宋時頗為流行,影響超過李善注。宋代以後,五臣注漸為世人所輕,幾至失傳。佳人輕忽五臣注是受到唐宋以來一些學者論評的影響,其中以李匡乂的《資暇錄》為最旱,而且最具體,他表彰李善注而貶抑五臣注卓有見識,但是仍有其片面性,如他指五臣注原文任意竄改李善本,五臣本注釋完全依賴李書注等等。本文論語並檢討《資暇錄》有不盡合乎事實之處,並指出一些情說下五臣注有頗可補李書注的缺失或更正其錯誤。 |
英文摘要 | The commentaries on the Wenhsiian by Li Shan and the Five Officials are the most important of such commentaries written during the Tang Dynasty. While the Five Officials? commentary was written later than that of Li Shan, it was quite popular during the Tang and Sung dynasties, and enjoyed greater influence than Li Shan's. After the Sung, however, the Five Offcials' Wenhsiian commentary gradually diminished in popularity and became . lost to later generations. This decline . was due mainly. to the influence of criticisms made by scholars during and after the Tang dynasiy. The earliest and most concrete example is Li Kuang-yi's Tzuhsia-lu, in which he praises Li Shan's commentary and criticizes the Five Officials' commentary as being knowledgeable yet one-sided. He, also' asserts that the Five Scholars made indiscriminate changes to Li Shan's commentary, and depended entirely on Li Shan's work in writing their own annotations. The present paper examines aspects of the Tzu-hsia-lu which are not entirely true to fact, and points out areas in which the Five Scholars' commentary makes up for deficiencies and corrects mistakes made in Li Shan'S commentary, and depended entirely on Li Shan's work in writing their own annotations. The present paper examines aspects of the Tzu-hsia-lu which are not entirely true to fact, and points out areas in which the Five Scholars' commentary makes up for deficiencies and corrects mistakes made in Li Shan's commentary. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。