清代学统中的《山海经》序文与“神话历史”观之学术逻辑  

The Research about the Preface of the Shan Hai Jing in Qing Dynasty and Academic Logic of Myth-history Concept

作　　者：柳倩月 

机构地区：[1]湖北民族学院文学与传媒学院

出　　处：《中原文化研究》2017年第6期92-97,共6页The Central Plains Culture Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金西部项目"中国民间文学批评史研究"(11XZW003)阶段性成果

摘　　要：《山海经》自问世以来,一直被视为一部荒诞不经的"奇书"。虽然司马迁奠定了"不敢言之"的传统,但后世仍然有诸多文人学者对它的各种刊本、注本进行评价。这种现象在清代尤其突出,以吴任臣广注、毕沅新校正、郝懿行笺疏、吴承志地理今释最具代表性。除了注家自序外,还有不少人围绕四家注作序文,他们的论述总体上显示出不以其为"怪"的倾向,与《四库全书总目提要》中视《山海经》为"小说""语怪"大异其趣。这种认识差异体现出清代朴学的崇实倾向,也可以视为当今"神话历史"观之先声,由此引发的神话真实性问题,尤其需要用"神话历史"观来阐释。Since its inception, Shan Hai Jing has been regarded as a fantastic book. In the history of China, SimaQian laid a dare to criticize the tradition of Shan Hai Jing, there are still many later scholars of various editions of it,the notes were evaluated. This phenomenon is particularly prominent in the Qing Dynasty. The representative worksinclude Wu Renchu's Wide Notes, Bi Yuan's New Interpretation, Hao Yixing's Annotation and Commentary, WuChengzhi's Geographical Interpretation. In addition to the preface notes, there are many people who write the prefacefor this four notes preface. They show a tendency to think that Shan Hai Jing is not grotesque. This is different fromthe view of 'novel' or 'strange words' in Si ku quanshu zongmu tiyao. This difference reflects the tendency ofacademic research in the Qing Dynasty, can also be regarded as the first sign of myth-history view. This led to thetrue or not of myth, more need to use myth-history view to explain.

关 键 词：清代 《山海经》序文 神话历史观 学术逻辑 

分 类 号：I209[文学—中国文学]