《春秋公羊傳注疏》合刻例考

A Study of the Combined Printings of the Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Classic with Notes and Explanations

《公羊》經傳注疏之合刻，今日所見，有宋十行本一系、明九行本一系、清武英殿本一系。十行本據余本與單疏本合刻，而余本則以經注本與《釋文》合并。九行本乃據十行本重刻，然於疏文之分附有所更改。殿本主據明北監本，但重新分附《釋文》、疏文，體例與十行本、九行本全異。案注疏合刻，當以何休注本為先，何氏合經傳為之注，釋傳為主，釋經為次，且釋經之注常置於釋傳之注下，故宜先明何氏注例，注疏合并方有理可據。殿本以釋經之注附於經下，不附於傳注下，破經注不分之理，是不依何休注本，故其分附之法最不可從。至於十行本、九行本，經注雖不分，然其分附疏文之例，前後相違者時見。知乎各本合并之例，則底本之選擇、校勘之去取即可心中了然，不為時俗所誤矣。 Combined printings of the Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Classic with its annotations and supplemental notes exist in three versions: the Song edition, featuring ten lines per half-page, the Ming edition of nine lines per half-page, and the Qing Wuying Palace edition. The ten-line edition is a combination of the Yu Renzhong (fl. ca. 1180-1200) edition, which put the text and notes together with the “glosses on words” (shiwen) commentary, with a separately issued edition of the explanations. The nine-line edition is a reprint of the ten-line version, but with the placement of the explanations somewhat modified. The palace edition is based mainly on an edition produced at the Northern Directorate of Education in the Ming dynasty, but with its own arrangement of the “glosses” and explanations. Its arrangement is completely different from that of the ten- and nine-line editions. The common basis of all these combined editions is the commentary of He Xiu (129-182), which was made on the text of the Spring and Autumn classic together with the Gongyang commentary. The focus of He's commentary is on the Gongyang, not the Spring and Autumn text, and his comments on the classic frequently appear below those on the commentary. Thus, to clarify the combined editions it is first necessary to understand the structure of He Xiu's edition. In the palace edition, notes pertaining to the Spring and Autumn classic have been appended directly to the classic, instead of after the notes on the commentary. This is at odds with He Xiu's arrangement, so the arrangement of the palace edition is the least reliable among the combined editions. As to the ten- and nine-line versions, although they do not separate the classic and its annotations, the arrangement of the explanations frequently shows discrepancies. When we are clear about the differences between the three editions, we can know clearly how to choose the master text, and make lucid decisions on what to keep and reject when we edit, while avoiding being misled by the customs of our times.