阮元校刻《十三经注疏》本《礼记注疏》，以元代翻刻宋十行本为底本，用闽本、监本、毛本《十三经注疏》为对校本，进行汇校整理，功绩卓著，堪称善本。然阮元所撰《礼记注疏校勘记》多言及“阙文”，或言十行本阙，或言闽本、监本、毛本阙，《礼运》篇之阙文，尤为突出，令人疑惑。将“中华再造善本”影印的元十行本《礼记注疏》，与阮刻本《礼记注疏》对校，发现阮元所言“阙文”，元十行本或作墨钉，或残阙一页，直接导致闽本、监本、毛本残阙。元十行本《礼记注疏》之墨钉及其阙页，盖因依据翻刻之宋十行本，可能是一部残阙不全之版本。%Ruan Yuan’s Li Ji Zhu Shu which is based on the Yuan Shi Hang version in Southern Song Dynasty and regarded the Min version, the Imperial College version and the Ji Gu Ge version as the version reference, is known as a well-emended ver-sion in the academic circle. However, one of the perplexing issues in Ruan Yuan’s emendation is“Que Wen”, which are clear-ly reflected in the part of Li Yun. When both“Zhong Hua Zai Zao Shan Ben” and Ruan Yuan’s Shi Hang version of Li Ji Zhu Shu are collated , discrepancies are found that the“Que Wen” takes the form of“inkblots” or“default pages” , which results in the incompletion of the Min version, the Imperial College version and the Ji Gu Ge version correspondingly. Therefore, as the original edition of Yuan Shi Hang’ version, the Song Shi Hang’ version turns out to be a fragmentary version of Li Ji Zhu Shu accordingly.
展开▼
