《史记》之《礼》《乐》二书来源问题论衡  

A Discussion of the Sources of Rites and Music in The Records of the Grand Historian

作　　者：梁玉田 李红岩[1] LIANG Yutian;LI Hongyan(College of Literature,Xi’an Technological University,Xi’an 710021,Shaanxi,China)

机构地区：[1]西安工业大学文学院,陕西西安710021

出　　处：《咸阳师范学院学报》2023年第3期35-40,共6页Journal of Xianyang Normal University

摘　　要：学界关于《史记》中《礼书》与《乐书》的来源有三种主流观点:一是认为两书有录无书;二是认为两书皆书亡序存,今文是后人补作;三是认为两书皆为司马迁草创未就之文。在梳理相关研究和文献资料的基础上,认为:《礼书》与《乐书》在司马迁草创之时皆已成书,两书的序文皆是司马迁原笔;结合褚少孙的学术背景及补书风格,可知两书绝非褚少孙所补;今存的《礼》《乐》两书之正文应为同一人所补,且内容或许是根据司马迁整理的文献资料残稿摘抄而来,而这位补书之人有可能是后世任职于国家秘藏图籍场所的人员。There are three mainstream views on the origin of The Book of Rites and The Book of Music in The Records of the Grand Historian:one is that the two books have been recorded without a source;the other is that the two books have disappeared and the preface exists,and the present text is a later addition;and the third is that the two books were written by Sima Qian before their creation.In combing the relevant research and literature on the basis of information,it is thought that The Book of Rites and The Book of Music by Sima Qian were in the form of books when in draft;two books of preface are Sima Qian’s original writing;combined with Chu Shaosun’s academic background and continuation writing style,we can know the two books are definitely not Chu Shaosun’s continuation writing;today’s existing the body of the two books should be completed by the same person,and the content may be based on Sima Qian’s collation of documentary material scraps excerpted.It is possible that the person who made up the books was a person who worked in the secret collection of books owned by the state in later times.

关 键 词：《史记·礼书》 《史记·乐书》 来源 

分 类 号：K204.2[历史地理—历史学]