敦煌永隆本《文選》〈西京賦〉抄寫底本問題新證──兼論李善作注的底本問題

New Arguments on the Transcription of“Western Metropolis Rhapsody”in Selections of Refined Literature of the Dunhuang Yonglong Manuscripts: With Discussions on the Source Text for Li Shan’s Annotations

敦煌P. 2528永隆本〈西京賦〉殘卷，向被認定為李善《文選注》的寫本，反映了李善注的早期面貌。然自傅剛提出「合成本」之新說後，有關永隆本的抄寫底本問題即訟不休，至今仍未定讞；又因〈西京賦〉涉及薛綜舊注，李善為此類「舊注」篇章作注時，其正文是採舊注本抑或《文選》原帙為底本，遂亦成為探討永隆本抄寫底本問題時不得不處理的疑團。在既有研究的基礎上，本文試圖提出新的論據，先從寫卷的一處倒乙之誤證明永隆本必據李善《文選注》迻寫，繼而廣泛考察李善的出校體例，確認其在面對存有舊注的篇章時，正文一律採擇舊注本為底本，亦即李善為《文選》〈西京賦〉作注時的底本即屬薛綜舊注本。最後，針對傅剛指出的永隆本正文用字多同於薛綜注而異於李善注的現象，本文分從「引文用字」和「非引文用字」兩個層面來討論，一方面與《文選集注》相比對，證實李善注的「引文用字」本不求與正文相符；另一方面則推斷「非引文用字」之所以與正文不同，乃因李善（或其生徒）將其《文選音義》的內容迻錄至《文選注》所致。經由以上數個面向的考索，本文冀能澄清學界對永隆本所持之疑義，同時為李善注與舊注本之關係再進一解。

The remnants of Zhang Heng’s 張衡 (78-139) “Xi jing fu” 西京賦 (“Western Metropolis Rhapsody”), preserved among the Dunhuang manuscripts (P. 2528), had historically been considered to have been transcribed from Li Shan’s 李善 (?-690?) Wenxuan zhu 文選注 (Annotations of Selections of Refined Literature), thereby reflecting the early state of Li Shan’s annotations. However, since researcher Fu Gang 傅剛 proposed the new theory of a “composite text,” scholars have been debating the source text of the Yonglong manuscripts 永隆本, and to date, have not reached a definitive conclusion. Further complicating matters, seeing that “Western Metropolis Rhapsody” had previously been annotated by Xue Zong 薛綜 (?-243), the question also persists whether Li Shan’s annotations were on the annotated text by Xue Zong or on the original text of Selections of Refined Literature. Based on existing research, the present paper proposes several new arguments: first, one transposition provides evidence to support the argument that the Yonglong manuscripts must have been copied from Li Shan’s Annotations of Selections of Refined Literature. Second, broader examinations of Li Shan’s proofing style confirm that when previously annotated versions of texts existed, he always used the annotated versions as source texts; therefore, the source text of Li Shan’s annotated “Western Metropolis Rhapsody” must have been the annotated version by Xue Zong. Finally, this paper discusses the phenomenon that the wording of the main texts in the Yonglong manuscripts agrees with Xue Zong’s annotations but fails to concerning Li Shan’s annotations, as pointed out by Fu Gang, on two levels, “wording in quotations” and “wording in non-quotations.” In one aspect, a comparison with Wenxuan ji zhu 文選集注 (Annotated Edition of Selections of Refined Literature) shows that the “wording in quotations” in Li Shan’s annotations does not necessarily agree with the main texts; and in another, the “wording in non-quotations” differs from the main texts due to Li Shan (or his disciples) transcribing the content of the Wenxuan yin yi 文選音義 (Pronunciation and Meaning of Selections of Refined Literature) into the Annotations of Selections of Refined Literature. Based on these discussions, this paper aims to respond to the above questions concerning the Yonglong manuscripts and further clarify the relationship between Li Shan’s and previous annotations.