揭開《樂記》神秘的面紗—天下文章一大抄

Unveiling "Yue-Ji" (樂記)

10.29873/GMJ.201012.0002

陳萬鼐(Wan-Nai Chen)

樂記 ； 樂記依托研究 ； 揭開《樂記》神秘面紗 ； Yue-Ji ； the Book of Music ； Unveiling the Book of Music

關渡音樂學刊

13期（2010 / 12 / 01）

7 - 26

繁體中文

漢代經秦火之後，典籍散佚極多，故每有古籍發現，則學者彼此相互傳抄。《樂記》載於《禮記注疏》第十九之中，一向被視為中國古代音樂美學寶典。近六十年來學者對其研究，致力勤劬，發表高論，闡述卓識。其實，我以為《樂記》是一部大抄而特抄之書，本文將先秦以來許多書籍中，與其相同的文字，併排在一起，故稱本文為〈天下文章一大抄〉。漢代書籍相互抄襲，是時代使然，但沒有那一部書像《樂記》依托如此之甚，從而可以看出《樂記》真實的面貌。

Many ancient and Qin dynasty documents were destroyed and were lost to the Han dynasty. Accordingly, whenever ancient documents were discovered, scholars have copied them and circulated the copies among themselves. ”The Book of Music” was collected ”in the Commentaries on the Book of Rites”, vol. 19. It has been considered as a valuable book of Chinese ancient aesthetics. During the past six decades many scholars have done research on the Book and proposed many different interpretations.As a matter of fact, I consider that the contents of ”the Book of Music” were copied from many other works. In this paper I juxtapose overlapping paragraphs extracted from documents since the pre-Qin era. It is understandable that owing to the background of the times, many books were copied and circulated among scholars in the Han dynasty. However, there are no books or manuscripts which have plagiarized other sources as much as ”the Book of Music”. This fact reveals the true face of ”the Book of Music”.

1. （清）洪頤煊，1811，《經典集林》，臨海問經堂原刻本。
2. （清）馬國翰，1874，《玉函山房輯佚書》，濟南：皇華館書局補刻本。
3. （清）嚴可均，1887，《全漢文》，湖北：黃岡王氏刻本。
4. （清）陳立，《白虎通義疏證》，惜分軒刻本。
5. （清）王先謙，1900，《漢書藝文志補注》，湖南：長沙王氏虛受堂刊本
6. 清朱世彬(1975)。禮記訓纂。北京:學部圖書局。
7. 清阮元(1965)。十三經注疏。台北:文化圖書公司。
8. 清紀昀(1969)。四庫全書總目。藝文印書館。
9. 清張心徵。偽書通考。明倫出版社。
10. 人民音樂出版社編輯部編(1983)。樂記論辯。北京:人民音樂出版社。
11. 任因(1984)。願古代音樂美學遺產究竟更進一步─樂記論辯出版有感。人民音樂月刊，4，51。
12. 吉聯抗(1982)。春秋戰國秦漢音樂史料譯注。台灣:遠流出版社。
13. 吉聯抗(1978)。呂氏春秋中音樂史料。上海:文藝出版社。
14. 吉聯抗譯注、陰法魯校訂(1958)。樂記譯注。北京:音樂出版社。
15. 陳飛龍(2009)。孔孟荀禮學之研究。台北:文史哲出版社。
16. 陳萬鼐(1995)。輯補樂記佚文八篇。音樂研究學報，4，109-136。
17. 蔡德予(1998)。樂記美學思想五題。中國音樂學季刊，2，24-30。