《授經圖》抑或《授經圖義例》？──文淵、文津二閣一本經學源流考的傳抄差異

Shoujingtu or Shoujingtuyili: Transcription Differences in the Research on the Origins of Confucian Classics in Wenyuange and Wenjinge versions of the Siku Quanshu

《四庫全書》史部目錄類經籍之屬，收有明朱睦㮮（1552-1587）所撰《授經圖》二十卷。此書作者雖標示朱睦㮮，然而曾經黃虞稷（1629-1691）、龔翔麟（1658-1733）大量增補，內容已非朱著之舊。由於對五經傳承源流的釐析具開創意義，四庫館臣仍對此書相當肯定。但書籍內容與「授經圖」之名未盡吻合，又因手抄數份，是以同此一書，前後閣本編纂者認知有異，今見此書的文淵閣本、文津閣本，書名不同，各卷內容也錯綜不一。本文重點不在比較兩閣本是非優劣，而是思考編纂傳抄過程為何產生「同書異貌」的瑕疵？進而反思：為何作者不計較著作的命名？為何改動甚鉅的著作，標示原作者舊書名而不以為怪？另外，抄本未經精校，訛誤難免，《授經圖》中的焦點「傳授圖」，兩閣本正誤參差，除批評其謄錄品質外，還可如何正向看待？諸多問題，本文認為「讀者本位」的讀書態度實為關鍵，那存在於手抄傳播年代的習慣，視勘誤增補為讀者參與書籍的完成。如今倘能理解，並以此態度面對訛誤未淨的《四庫》抄本，則即使只利用複製影本，也能提供美好的閱讀經驗。

There are 20 volumes of Shoujingtu (授經圖) written by Zhu Mujie (朱睦㮮, 1552-1587, Ming Dynasty) in the Shi (history) section of the Siku Quanshu (四庫全書). Although the authorship of this book is credited to Zhu Mujie, Huang Yuji (黃虞稷, 1629-1691) and Gong Xianglin (龔翔麟, 1658-1733) also made significant additions to it. As a result, the contents are no longer the same as the original work authored by Zhu. Because Shoujingtu has groundbreaking meaning on the analysis of the evolution of the Five Classics, the compilers of the Siku Quanshu affirms this value of this book；however, the book’s contents do not exactly match with the book named Shoujingtu. This is in part because it has been copied several times by hand；moreover, the editors had different perceptions towards the same book. Hence, the title of the book as well as the content of each volume are inconsistent in the Wenyuange (文淵閣) and Wenjinge (文津閣) versions in existence today. The focus of this article is not to compare the merits and flaws of these two versions, but to consider why the process of compilation and copying resulted in the error of creating multiple books that appear different but have the same contents. Furthermore, it aims to investigate the apparent lack of importance given to maintaining the original name of the work. Why was it not considered strange to greatly alter the contents of a book and yet maintain its original title and attributed author? Additionally, errors are inevitably present due to the lack of meticulous oversight of the copying process. Accordingly, the Chuanshoutu (傳授圖) section, which is the focus of the Shoujingtu, contains different transcription errors in the two versions of the Siku Quanshu. Apart from criticizing the quality of the transcription, can this be considered positively? It is the opinion of this article that adopting a reader-oriented attitude is key；thus, correction and supplementation in the transcription process can be regarded as the contributions of individual readers participating in the completion of the book in the era of hand-copying and dissemination. If readers today can adopt this attitude in understanding and accepting the transcription errors present in the Siku Quanshu, an enjoyable reading experience can be had, even if one is reading a photocopied version.