【摘要】 上海博物馆藏战国竹书“孔子诗论”一篇是大家认识这批竹书的开始，也是这批竹书中学者讨论最多的一篇，为研究先秦解诗传统提供了不可多得的材料。但这篇文献并不完整，也不像之前大家所认为的那样是一篇结构和逻辑都很严密的论文，而是论诗材料的汇编。这批材料不同于《毛诗》序，缺失类似于《毛诗》序中关于诗歌分类以及解诗历史框架之类的信息，反映的是一种不见于传世文献的“今文”解诗模式：“孔子诗论”之于《毛诗故训传》和《毛诗》序，类似于《春秋公羊传》或《春秋穀梁传》与《春秋左氏传》的关系，是通过单个字词构成的语义链条，来探求诗背后所隐藏的圣人思想和微言大义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Among the many newly discovered texts in the Shanghai Museum collection of Warring States writings on bamboo strips, the piece called “Kongzi shilun, ” or Confucius’ s discussion on the Odes, is so far the most discussed text that potentially could play a significant role for us to understand early traditions in interpreting the Odes. Nevertheless, this text is fragmentary, and its nature also reveals that it is more likely a collection of short pieces of materials on the interpretation of the Odes rather than an article tightly knit and well written by Confucius or his disciples. It reflects a method of interpreting the Odes differently from what is seen in the “Preface(or Postface) to the Maoshi” or the Maoshi Guxun Zhuan, a method missed in the corpus of transmitted Early Chinese texts. This method, dubbed in this article as the Current-Script tradition in interpreting the Odes as shown in the “Kongzi shilun”, does not follow the “Preface(or Postface) to the Maoshi”to construct a historical framework to organize and interpret the Odes. Rather, it focuses on the building of sematic chains to elicit the hidden meanings supposedly encoded in the ode lines by Confucius himself. In other words, similar to the difference between the Current-and Archaic-Script traditions, the relationship of the “Kongzi shilun” and the “Preface(or Postface) to the Maoshi” or the Maoshi Guxun Zhuan resembles that between the Gongyang or Guliang Commentary and the Zuo Commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals.更多还原