论文部分内容阅读
关于《刘子》作者,主要有刘勰与刘昼两说。直至南宋初年史籍记载为刘勰撰,其后始有刘昼说,继而愈演愈烈。今人林其锬、陈凤金指出:刘昼说源于对宋人题署的错误解读:原是仍沿旧题以存疑之意,并举《宋志》近万部书目加“题”字者16部无不如此。但后人断章取义,变成对作者的确认,却无人深究,由疑变是,几成定局。又针对刘昼说的主要两条证据指出:其一是袁孝政的《刘子注》序,通过对照版本体例证实该书乃是南宋人伪造!且来历不明,所说有乖事理。其二是唐人张鷟《朝野佥载》所载:《刘子》为刘昼撰,因无位故窃刘勰之名,世人莫知。但这条材料是后人根据刘克庄文集的记载补辑的,此外别无他证。而且该书是唐人小说,不应视为信史引录。再者,我国隋唐文献和流传日本的《刘子》已有明确记载,以及从刘勰、刘昼与佛家关系,均可证刘勰说。林、陈此举在学术界掀起轩然大波,反对者阵容鼎盛,支持者不乏其人。笔者赞成刘勰说,并对这场争论作一评述。
About “Liu” author, there are two main Liu and Liu day two. Until the early years of the Southern Song Dynasty records of history recorded as Liu Yong, followed by Liu day said, and then intensified. Today, Lin Qixiao and Chen Fengjin pointed out that Liu Day was due to a misinterpretation of the title of the Song Dynasty: the original question was still based on the old question, 16 are all so. However, the descendants get out of context and become the author’s confirmation, but no one study, from doubt is, a matter of course. The two main pieces of evidence for Liu Day also pointed out: First, the order of “Liu Zizhu” by Yuan Xiaozheng shows that the book was forged by the Southern Song Dynasty through a comparative version of the system. The second is the Chinese Zhang Xun, “Ascension” contains: “Liu” for Liu day essay, no reason to steal the name of Liu Xie, the world knows. However, this material is descendants based on Liu Ke Zhuang anthology of the record complement, in addition there is no other evidence. And the book is a Chinese novel, should not be cited as a letter history. Furthermore, the documents of the Sui and Tang dynasties and the “Liuzi” circulating in Japan have been clearly documented, and Liu 勰 said from Liu 勰 and the relationship between Liu Day and the Buddha. Lin, Chen move in the academic set off an uproar, opponents lineup peak, there is no shortage of supporters. I agree with Liu Yong and comment on this debate.