论文部分内容阅读
近读金开城、董洪利、高路明新著《屈原集校注》 (中华书局1996年8月版),颇多感想。特为此文,献其谬说,以求教于金先生及屈学界之同好者。综观本著之作,颇具“总结”金氏长年研习《楚辞》文献的性质,盖亦与其《屈原辞研究》 (江苏古籍出版社1992年版)相鼓吹也。本著侧重于屈原赋的文献解读,而《屈原辞研究》为其文史专论之合集也。则金氏屈子之学于此集其大成。然屈原辞赋文献的解读,无非是“校”、“注”、“章句”三事。就此三端言,本著自有其可取之处。
Recent Jincheng, Dong Hongli, high Lu Ming new book “Qu Yuan set school notes” (Zhonghua Book Company August 1996 version), a lot of thoughts. Especially for this article, offer its fallacy, in order to learn from Mr. King and the scholars in the field of scholarship. Looking at the book, quite “summary ” Kim’s long study of the nature of the “Chu” literature, cover also with its “Qu Yuan” (Jiangsu ancient books publishing house 1992 edition) phase advocate also. With the emphasis on the interpretation of Qu Yuan Fu literature, and “Qu Yuan ci study” for its collection of monographs also. Then the theory of Qu Jin Zi set in this Dacheng. However, the interpretation of Qu Yuan Fu Fu literature is nothing more than “school ”, “note ”, “chapter sentence ” three things. This three-pronged statement, in its own desirable place.