【作者】 苏晓威；

【导师】 力之；

【作者基本信息】 广西师范大学 ， 中国古典文献学， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 论文第一章是对仲长统其人其作的介绍。认为“仲长”虽非复姓,但其使用由来已久,而仲长统的著书地点或是东緍县,或是黉堂岭,两地都有可能。如果所言的黉堂岭为真,那么归有光命仲氏其作为《黉山子》,还是可以理解的,至于命名为《昌言》的原因,则体现了仲长统对自己学说价值的期盼,希望论说的内容能够成为之于统治者的挽世风于日下,扶泰山于将颓的善言和美言。第二章是对仲长统《昌言》的版本研究。由于流传过程中,《昌言》存在着散佚情况,这使得其版本情况变的复杂起来,不过通过比较,可以发现《昌言》可分两大版本系统,一是本传所载系统,二是引书辑佚系统。第三章是仲长统作品的目录学述略。历来相关的目录书的分类大致不外是将其归入儒家类和杂家类,出现这种归类差异的原因在于:归类的因袭习惯、目录学著作中类目的自身问题、书篇的散佚。在笔者看来,对《昌言》的分类要兼顾思想和文体两个标准,从思想上讲,入杂家类、法家类、儒家类,都有可能,而从文体的角度来讲,对《昌言》的分类颇不为人注意。但是笔者认为无论归于何家何类,这都无可非议,关键要在书目的解题中对归类的原因及对其文体特点给予说明,实属必要。第四章是对仲长统《昌言》的校勘研究。根据对现存有关引用《昌言》部分的引文的对比,笔者认为引文有两重价值,一是在古典文献学中的辑佚价值,二是在古代文学研究中的文学批评作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Chapter one of thesis is to the introduction done of Zhongchang-Tong and his works. In my opinion, “Zhongchong”is not a multiple syllabic name, but it is used for a long time. He wrote works either in the DongHun county or the HongTang mountain range. Two places have possibility. If we think the HongTang mountain range is true, we may understand why Gui-youguang regarded Zhongchang-Tong as “Hong mountain son”.As to name for the reason of “changyan”, had been reflected the expectation of Zhongchang-Tong theory value ——Zhongchang-Tong expected that the contend of exposition and argument can be a word for the ruler, which can hold back public moral from declining day by day, and support Mount Tai on. Chapter two Zhongchang-Tong’s“changyan”edition is researched. In the procession of dissemination, there were scatters and loses in varying degrees for “changyan”existence, which made its edition condition change complex. But through comparisons, we can divide “changyan”edition into two big one of this system:one is carried by biography, the other is carried by quoted passages. Chapter three bibliography of Zhongchang-Tong works is roughly stated. The classification of relevant catalogue books is roughly not beyond the scope of both the Confucianists and the Eclectics, this kind of reason for sorting out differently appears to lie in: following different Habit of classifying, categories itself problem in bibliography books, scatters and loses of book pages. In my view, we should give consideration to the classification of “changyan”by the standard of the thought and type of writing. Speaking from the thought, there are great possibilities of classifying it into the Eclectics, the Legalists, the Confucianists; it is all-possible, and from the angles of type of writing, the classification to “changyan”is not quite paid attention to. But no matter what kind, I think, no matter where does it belong to, this blameless. It is important that we should give explain to the reason of classification to“changyan”and the character of type of writing in the bibliography works. It is studied chapter four the collation of “changyan”, I think there are double value in the quoted passage, that is to say, one the value of searching lost text in the classical document study, the other the literary criticism function in the classical literature study.更多还原