“《大衍》写《九执》”公案再解读  

A Reinvestigation of the Calendrical Debate on Dayan Li and Jiuzhi Li

作　　者：钮卫星[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学科学史与科学哲学系,上海200030

出　　处：《中国科技史杂志》2009年第1期16-26,共11页The Chinese Journal for the History of Science and Technology

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究2005年度规划基金(项目编号:05JAZH015)

摘　　要：在征引大量有关文献记载的基础上,从分析"《大衍》写《九执》"一案发生时的天文历算"人际关系现场"和"学术现场"出发,论证了中唐时期印度天文学在官方天文学机构中的重要影响和《九执历》在当时历算学界的强势地位,阐明了瞿昙譔等提出指控的真正原因在于《大衍历》没有完整地"抄袭"《九执历》。最后指出瞿昙譔等提出指控的目的是维护印度天文学在唐代官方天文学中的地位,而朝廷对该公案的判决结果在某种程度上阻碍了其后中国传统历法对印度历法中先进成份的吸收;同时指出该项指控还反映了南宫说、陈玄景等一些职业天文历算学家设法维护他们所代表的官方天文历算机构之正统地位的意图。The calendrical debate on Dayan Li and Jiuzhi Li is reinvestigated by means of rebuilding the astronomical-calendrical context both human-relationally and academically when the debate occurred. It is consequently elucidated that Indian astronomy had an important influence on the Chinese official astronomy in the Mid-Tang Dynasty, and the Jiuzhi Li held actually a powerful position in the imperial astronomical organization of that time. It is pointed out further that the real reason why Qutan Zhuan made an accusation against Dayan Li is that the Jiuzhi Li was incompletely copied by the Dayan Li. It is finally indicated that the purpose of Qutan Zhuan＇s accusation was to protect the high position of status of Indian astronomy in the official astronomical organization of Tang Dynasty, however the judgment made by the Tang government in some ways blocked the advanced component in the Indian astronomy to be assimilated by Chinese astronomy thenceforth. It is also pointed out that the accusation in a way reflected an intention to protect the legitimate status of the professional astronomers such as Nangong Yue and Chen Xuanjing who represented the official astronomical bureau.

关 键 词：《大衍历》 《九执历》 南宫说 瞿昙譔 印度天文学 

分 类 号：N092[自然科学总论—科学技术哲学]