《天中记》版本源流考略  

Review of the Editions of the Tian Zhong Ji

作　　者：朱仙林[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京大学文学院

出　　处：《图书馆杂志》2014年第7期98-107,共10页Library Journal

基　　金：中国博士后科学基金第53批面上资助"陈耀文文献学研究"(编号:2013M531306)的研究成果之一

摘　　要：《天中记》曾多次刊刻,据记载有五十卷本及六十卷本两种。五十卷本被认为刊刻于隆庆三年,这其实是一种误解。六十卷本先后有陈龙光校刻本及屠隆校刻本两种。屠隆校本因在陈耀文去世后的万历三十七年被翻刻,又因四库馆臣将其作为底本校勘后收入《四库全书》,以及道光间林则徐等人据其校刻,光绪间又据道光本翻刻,故为人熟知。但实际情况是,陈龙光校本不仅比屠隆校本早,且文字错讹更少,版本价值更高,更值得重视。The Tian Zhong di was frequently printed. According to the historical records, there were two versions of the Tian Zhong Ji： one was the Fifty Volumes; the other was the Sixty Volumes. It was commonly believed that the Fifty Volumes was printed in the third year of Long Qing, though this was actually a misunderstanding. There were two editions of the Sixty Volumes. The earlier edition was the one edited by Chen Longguang; the later was the Tu Long edition. The Tu Long edition was reprinted after Chen Yaowen passed away in the thirty-seventh year of Wan Li. It became the well-known version because of several reasons. First, the Tu Long edition was used as the master copy of the Tian Zhong Ji by the editors of the Siku Quanshu, and was included in the Siku Quanshu after revision. Second, Lin Zexu reprinted this book based on the Tu Long edition during the Daoguang era. Third, the reprinting of the Tian Zhong di during the Guangxu era was based on the Daoguang edition. Whereas, the factor was that the Chen Longguang edition was not only earlier than the Tu Long, but also had less misprints. This paper argues that the Chen Guanlong edition has more value than the Tu Long edition, and thus it should gain more recognition.

关 键 词：《天中记》 陈耀文 陈龙光 屠隆 五十卷本 六十卷本 

分 类 号：G256.2[文化科学—图书馆学]