本文選題：《水滸傳》 + 袁無涯本��； 參考：《福建師范大學學報(哲學社會科學版)》2017年03期

【摘要】：在《水滸傳》研究中,一般認為容與堂本刊刻于袁無涯本之前。最早對此提出疑議的是章培恒先生,并對此給出一些旁證。美國哥倫比亞大學藏本《讀升庵集》扉頁之出版告白是解決這一問題的重要線索,但向來未受重視。以《讀升庵集》扉頁之告白結合相關文獻進行研究,可知袁無涯原刊本的刊刻時間早于容與堂本,大約刊刻于萬歷三十七年(1609)至萬歷三十八年(1610)之間,并且可以確定容與堂本是葉晝偽托李贄的評點本。同時,通過現(xiàn)存多種版本的�？�,可知現(xiàn)存袁無涯本并非原刻本,其中評點已非完全的李卓吾評點原貌;現(xiàn)存大滌余人序本保留了李卓吾評本的原貌,而大滌余人序本的祖本是袁無涯刊刻的李卓吾評點《水滸傳》之原刊本。
[Abstract]:In the study of Outlaws of the Marsh, it is generally believed that Rong and Tang Ben were engraved before Yuan's boundless book. Mr. Zhang Peiheng was the first to raise doubts about this, and gave some circumstantial evidence. The publication of the title page of Columbia University's Collection, "Reading an album", is an important clue to solve this problem, but it has never been paid much attention to. Through the study of the confession on the title page of "Reading the Collection of Sheng'an" and the relevant documents, it can be seen that the original edition of Yuan Wuya was printed earlier than Rong and Tang, and was about printed between 1609 (37 years of Wanli) and 1610 (38 years of Wanli). And it can be determined that Rong-Heisang is the comment book of Ye-day-pseudo-Toto-Li Zhi. At the same time, through the current collation of various versions, we can see that the existing Yuan Wu-Ya Ben is not the original engraved version, in which Li Zhuowu's comments on the original appearance are not complete, and that the extant Da Li Yu's preface has preserved the original appearance of Li Zhuo-wu 's commentary. And the ancestor of the preface of Da-Li Yu is the original edition of Li Zhuowu's comment on Water margin.
，

本文編號：1929984