《汉书·儒林传》“梁丘易”传承祛疑

今本《汉书·儒林传》叙梁丘易之授受,于五鹿充宗之师承未作说明,致使梁丘易之传承不能链接。过去,有学者认为《汉书》"(梁丘)临代五鹿充宗君孟为少府"之"代"当作"授"字,或以为"传"字之讹。本文从事理、文理、语例、史实及书证等方面进行细致剖析,进一步确认梁丘临与五鹿充宗为师徒关系而非前后任的替代关系,否定此处"代"为"授"字或"传"字之讹,更不可能是后人误改,考定此处并非字误而实为脱文,过去令人置疑的"代"字原是五鹿充宗之籍贯,"代"上当据《经典释文》及《儒林传》文例增补"授"字。如此,梁丘易之师法传承始环环相扣,明白无疑。     

学术之宗 明道之要——论《汉书·艺文志》的目录学价值

<汉书@艺文志>是我国现存的最早的一部综合性国家书目,奠定了"辨章学术,考镜源流"的传统,在中国目录学史上具有重要的理论价值.本文比较全面地论述了<汉书@艺文志>的著录体例及其中的总序、小序、大序所体现的学术思想.     

《曾子》源流与《大戴礼记》“曾子十篇”

曾子作为一代儒学大师,身后留下著作并传诸于世.西汉戴德将<曾子>书整理成至少十篇后编入<大戴礼记>;刘向将<曾子>书整理为"十八篇",并记入<别录>,亦即<汉书·艺文志>著录的"<曾子>十八篇"."<曾子>十八篇"至迟在南朝、隋之际就亡佚了.保存在<大戴礼记>中的"曾子十篇"具有非常宝贵的学术价值,是曾子研究的重要资料.     

二十年来颜师古《汉书注》研究述略

八十年代以来,对颜师古《汉书注》的研究突破了前人仅注重刊谬补缺的局限,从语言字角度对颜注的音韵、训诂等方面都作了探讨,取得了一定的成绩。     

《史》《汉》之际史书编撰形式的发展

《史》、《汉》之际史学的发展表现有二:一是思想上正统化观念不断加强,前人已多有论述;二是史学自身的发展更多体现在史家对史书编撰形式的探索上。纪传体体例逐渐"整齐",起居注著录渐成常例,地方史的撰述得到提倡,学术史、人物专史、杂史、制度史等都以专书的形式出现,"史氏流别,殊途并骛",史书编撰出现多途发展趋势。     

颜游秦《汉书决疑》佚文与颜师古《汉书注》比义

颜师古撰《汉书注》曾取义于颜游秦《汉书决疑》。然而,颜师古却没有将《汉书决疑》列入参考书目,撰书中亦未称引。其学术失范行为受到了清代学者的严厉批评,但迄今学者未曾就《汉书决疑》佚文与《汉书注》进行全面的比义研究。在借鉴前人成果的基础上,就《汉书决疑》的19条佚文与《汉书注》的相关注文作逐条比义,可以发现颜游秦的15条注文被颜师古完全采纳或基本采纳,占今所能见颜游秦佚文的近80%,故后人谓师古注尝窃采游秦义为不诬。但瑕不掩瑜,师古注比游秦《决疑》丰富得多,是一部较为系统、全面的《汉书》注本。     

Fan Ye's (398–446) Depiction of the Gengshi Years (23–25 CE)

The Gengshi emperor’s two-year-long reign (23–25) has posed a problem to historians of the Later Han dynasty (25–220). As the member of the Liu family who defeated Wang Mang (r. 9–23) became emperor and was, for some time, the superior of the later dynastic founder Guangwu (r. 25–57), Gengshi and his role in the transferal of the Mandate of Heaven needed to be explained. The official history of the Later Han, the Dongguan Hanji, painted a picture of an illegitimate puppet emperor who never possessed the Mandate of Heaven. However, the establishment of a state-sanctioned narrative did not completely stop the controversy surrounding Gengshi’s legitimacy. Our sources indicate that the discussion was not settled until the Tang dynasty and that the controversy only vanished with the rise to prominence of Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu, which closely followed the Dongguan Hanji version and portrayed Gengshi as an illegitimate ruler and a puppet of his generals. This article is an attempt to retrace the reception of the Gengshi emperor and to analyse Fan Ye’s narrative.     

No Comment

This article compares the solar eclipse records in Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu “Benji” 本紀to those in the Dongguan Hanji (225 CE), Sima Biao’s Xu Hanshu “Wuxing zhi” 五行志, Yuan Hong’s Hou Hanji, as well as Espenak and Meeus’ Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses to comment upon the source, selection, reliability, and function of the eclipse records included in his imperial annals of the Eastern Han (25–220 CE). It finds that while Fan Ye stuck faithfully to the reliable observational record in the Xu Hanshu he at once replaced its interpretative apparatus of omenology with one of politico-ritual action for simple reasons of genre.