WEKO3
アイテム
元〜清の『尚書』研究と十八世紀日本儒者の『尚書』原典批判 : 中井履軒『七經雕題畧（書）』、同収「雕題附言（書）」を題材に
https://doi.org/10.15083/00026823
https://doi.org/10.15083/00026823595671e6-098f-4349-aad7-fe354069a5fe
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
ioc167002.pdf (1.0 MB)
|
|
| Item type | 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2015-04-08 | |||||
| タイトル | ||||||
| タイトル | 元〜清の『尚書』研究と十八世紀日本儒者の『尚書』原典批判 : 中井履軒『七經雕題畧（書）』、同収「雕題附言（書）」を題材に | |||||
| 言語 | ||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||
| 資源 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||
| タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||
| ID登録 | ||||||
| ID登録 | 10.15083/00026823 | |||||
| ID登録タイプ | JaLC | |||||
| その他のタイトル | ||||||
| その他のタイトル | Nakai Riken (1732-1817)’s study of Shangshu and the Sung-Qing scholarship on the subject : A comparative study | |||||
| 著者 |
竹村, 英二
× 竹村, 英二 |
|||||
| 著者別名 | ||||||
| 識別子Scheme | WEKO | |||||
| 識別子 | 59100 | |||||
| 姓名 | Takemura, Eiji | |||||
| 抄録 | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||
| 内容記述 | Nakai Riken was a well-known eighteenth-century Japanese Confucian belonging to the Kaitokudō, and is usually considered a ‘shushigakusha’. However, inadequate attention has so far been paid by intellectual historians to his scholarly excellence in evidential and exegetical elements. His study of Shangshu in particular exhibits expertise in textual criticism, and, despite the fact that his access to Chinese Shu studies was limited in his time to the ones up to the Yuan period, Riken demonstrates a notable quality and originality. Riken’s work shows both striking parallels with the views of Qing evidential scholars on Shangshu that were unknown to Riken, and elements that are quite original to the scholarship of his age in East Asia. He deals not only with the problems concerning its Old and New Texts, but also with discrepancies among the variants of the Old Texts, and with the distinction between the ‘original’ and ‘forged’ chapters and the evidential grounds that support the argument. He denounces the so-called ‘Great Introduction’ (大序 or 孔序) as a text that was ‘added’ deliberately after the Eastern Jin (東晉) era by Mei Ze (梅賾). He also denies the claims that the text of Shangshu was unreadable when it was found in the wall of Confucius’s residence, and survived only in oral tradition. Most importantly, he denounced Liu Xin (劉歆) of the Former Han as the ‘fabricator’ of these forged stories, and of Ban Gu (班固)’s erroneous and careless quoting of these Liu Xin’s stories (「夫恭王懐宅之事。創見於劉歆移書。而班史取之又載之藝 文」). As Riken points out, it was this「劉歆移書」that started these false stories concerning the transmission of the Shu texts at its early stage, that resulted in the spread of the incorrect message that the text was transmitted only orally. | |||||
| 書誌情報 |
東洋文化研究所紀要 巻 167, p. 63-104, 発行日 2015-03 |
|||||
| ISSN | ||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | ISSN | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | 05638089 | |||||
| 書誌レコードID | ||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||
| 収録物識別子 | AN00170926 | |||||
| 出版者 | ||||||
| 出版者 | 東京大学東洋文化研究所 | |||||
| 出版者別名 | ||||||
| Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, The University of Tokyo | ||||||
