北大漢簡《周馴》訛字及相關問題檢討

Textual Research of Erroneous Characters in Zhou Xun of the Peking University Han Bamboo Slips

本論文共討論三組《周馴》訛字，所得結論如下：（一）簡1、26、32、42、65、76、92、100、123、134、145、148、166、190、194、199、205「」字，原整理者釋作「貳」，並將「貳」看作「貣」的異體，筆者認為此處「」應是「貣」的訛寫。（二）簡69「」字，原整理者釋作「（衛）」，將該字看作「衛」訛寫成「」，筆者認為此字應逕釋為「衛」，不存在訛寫問題。（三）簡46「鼎」字作「」形，其構形悖離先秦文字傳統，是一種訛錯寫法，且此類寫法散見於多批西漢出土文獻，可看成西漢時期的新興俗體。在考釋《周馴》訛字的過程中，還隨文討論幾個相關問題，所得結論如下：（一）張家山漢簡《奏讞書》簡168「」字，整理小組2001年原釋作「（衛）」，2006年改釋作「衛」，筆者認為此字當逕釋作「衛」。（二）張家山漢簡《算數書》簡76「」字，整理小組釋作「（率）」，筆者認為此字應是「」的訛錯形體。（三）原整理者主張《周馴》簡46後面「當缺一簡」，筆者認為此處所缺不只一簡。（四）原整理者主張《周馴》簡212「似可置於簡46、47之間」，筆者認為簡212當與簡128綴合，且此簡仍應置於簡127和簡129之間。

This study discusses the issue of erroneous characters in Zhou xun 周馴 (Instructions of the Zhou) from the Han bamboo slips acquired by Peking University, with focus placed on the following three points: (1) in slip nos. 1, 26, 32, 42, 65, 76, 92, 100, 123, 134, 145, 148, 166, 190, 194, 199, and 205, the author argues that previous scholarship has incorrectly interpreted the Chinese character “ ” as er 貳, viewing it as a variant of te 貣, and instead maintains the character is an erroneous character of te; (2) in slip no. 69, earlier translations of the character “” have likewise mistaken it as shuai 𧗵, believing it to be an erroneous character of wei 衛, whereas the character here is wei, not an erroneous form; (3) and in slip no. 46, the character “” is an erroneous character of ding 鼎, which departs from the traditional written form of ding found in pre-Qin script creating a new popular form in the Western Han dynasty. While investigating the above, the present article also extends its analysis to other related issues: first, the character “” within slip no. 168 in Zou yan shu 奏讞書 of the Zhangjiashan Han bamboo slips, which was first interpreted as shuai in 2001 and then later believed to be wei in 2006, is discussed; second, the author indicates that the character “” within slip no. 76 in Suanshu shu 算數書 (Book on Numbers and Computation) of the Zhangjiashan slips is an erroneous form of shuai 𧗿, not shuai 𧗵 (or 率) as maintained by others; and finally, problems in the collocation and ordering of the bamboo slips concerning Zhou xun, such as two slips—not one—missing between slips no. 46 and 47 as well as slip no. 212 being able to be combined with slip no. 128 to form a complete one, are highlighted.