目录分类中的伪史与霸史——兼论刘知幾的目录分类思想  

Pseudo-History and Hegemonic History in Traditional Catalog Classifications:Reflections on Liu Zhiji's Thoughts of Catalog Classifications

作　　者：秦丽[1] Qin Li

机构地区：[1]南开大学历史学院,300350

出　　处：《史学理论研究》2025年第1期81-93,159,共14页Historiography Bimonthly

摘　　要：自阮孝绪《七录》和《隋书·经籍志》以来,伪史、霸史成为目录分类中的重要子目。此后,历隋唐五代至于宋元,各代书目或取伪史,或列霸史,类目名称的差异与各朝政治形势、正统观念、学者学术主张息息相关,亦多受制于书目间的相互因袭。自唐代刘知幾《史通·因习》篇始,即对《隋书·经籍志》霸史类的收录标准等问题提出批评。细审之,可发现刘知幾在评述《隋书·经籍志》等目录著作时,往往按照个人标准衡量古书,忽视了古书修撰的实际条件与体例,特别是未注意到目录书“记藏书”与“记著述”的差异,这在考察刘知幾目录分类思想和相关问题时应予注意。Since Ruan Xiaoxu's Qiluand theJingji Zhiin theBook of Sui, pseudo-history and hegemonic history have become important subcategories in catalog classifications. From the Sui and Tang dynasties, through the Five Dynasties, to the Song and Yuan periods, the bibliographies of each dynasty established pseudohistory or listd hegemonic history as a category. On the one hand, the differences in naming these categories were closely related to the political contexts, orthodox ideologies, and academic stances of each dynasty;on the other hand, they were also subject to intertextual borrowing among bibliographies. Starting with theYinxiinShitongin the Tang Dynasty, Liu Zhiji criticized the inclusion standards for the hegemonic history category in theJingji Zhiof theBook of Suiand other issues. A close examination reveals that when Liu Zhiji often measured these ancient books according to his personal standards and overlooked the actual conditions and styles of text compilation. In particular, he failed to distinguish between “recording actual collection of books” and “recording the writings of the dynasty” in the catalogs. This distinction is essential when we examine Liu Zhiji's thoughts on catalog classification and related issues.

关 键 词：伪史 霸史 刘知 《隋书·经籍志》 《旧唐书·经籍志》 

分 类 号：G257[文化科学—图书馆学]