再论李贽《答耿司寇》的文献问题
|
摘要
《答耿司寇》是李贽与耿定向进行思想论争的重要书信,李贽对它作过两次修改。第一次修改,将七封信合并为一封信,刊于初刻《焚书》。第二次修改,删去此信约三分之一文字,刊于后来重刻的《焚书》。关于第一次修改及其原因,我已有专文探讨。本文在此基础上探讨第二次修改的原因。李贽作第二次修改的背景,是他与耿定向的紧张关系出现了缓和。这次修改,保留了《答耿司寇》根本的思想内涵,删掉了措辞最为激烈、涉及耿定向个人品格及其家族人事的第六封信,体现了李贽既基本保持自己一贯思想,又认可与耿定向和解的意愿。《答耿司寇》之外,《焚书》其他某些篇幅也有复杂的修改情况,《答耿司寇》的修改,恰可用作考察《焚书》文本变动之参考。
Reply to Geng Sikou,a collection of important letters written by Li Zhi to Geng Ding-xiang for ideological debate,was revised twice by Li Zhi.The first revision was made into one lengthy letter by combining the seven letters together and collected into his monograph Fen Shu(the 1st Edition).The second revision,after a deletion of one third of contents,was collected into the second edition of the Feng Shu.As the study of the first revision including the reasons behind it was published in the author's another article,here the reasons of revision for the second revision are explored.The second revision took place in the background when the strained relationship between Li and Geng relaxed.Therefore,the fundamental ideas in the first revision were still kept while the sixth letter which was the harshest one and criticized Geng's personal integrity and his family affairs was deleted.The second revision reflects Li's tendency of adhering to his own ideas and his willingness to reconciliate with Geng.Asother articles in Fen Shu also witnessed complicated modifications,the study of the revision of the Reply to Geng Sikou can work as an important reference for the research of the revision of Fen Shu as a whole.
Reply to Geng Sikou,a collection of important letters written by Li Zhi to Geng Ding-xiang for ideological debate,was revised twice by Li Zhi.The first revision was made into one lengthy letter by combining the seven letters together and collected into his monograph Fen Shu(the 1st Edition).The second revision,after a deletion of one third of contents,was collected into the second edition of the Feng Shu.As the study of the first revision including the reasons behind it was published in the author's another article,here the reasons of revision for the second revision are explored.The second revision took place in the background when the strained relationship between Li and Geng relaxed.Therefore,the fundamental ideas in the first revision were still kept while the sixth letter which was the harshest one and criticized Geng's personal integrity and his family affairs was deleted.The second revision reflects Li's tendency of adhering to his own ideas and his willingness to reconciliate with Geng.Asother articles in Fen Shu also witnessed complicated modifications,the study of the revision of the Reply to Geng Sikou can work as an important reference for the research of the revision of Fen Shu as a whole.
引文
[1]李贽.焚书[M].北京:中华书局,1961.
[2]李贽.焚书续焚书[M].北京:中华书局,1975.
[3]李贽.焚书续焚书[M]//张建业,刘幼生.李贽文集:第1卷.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000:27.
[4]李贽.李温陵集[M].明刻本.
[5]李贽.李氏续焚书[M].万历四十六年新安汪氏刊本.
[6]李贽.李氏焚书[M].明刻本.
[7]耿定向.耿天台先生全书[M].民国十四年武昌正信印务馆铅印本.
[8]耿定向.耿天台先生文集[M].明万历二十六年刘元卿刻本.
(1)管玉林先生《点校说明》云:“校勘方面,曾用《李温陵集》以及几种单行的《焚书》的刻本和排印本来校正底本(《国粹丛书》本)的误字。《李温陵集》比单行本《焚书》多出的字句,只选择较有参考意义的作了校记,会列在卷一之末。”(中华书局1961年版《焚书·点校说明》第2页)其校记共11条,包括《答周若庄》4条,《答焦漪园》2条,《复周南士》2条,《复京中友朋》1条,《复周柳塘》2条。这些校勘最主要的内容,是根据《李温陵集》补上被删掉的一些句子。而《答耿司寇》被删掉的约三分之一文字,却作为《增补二》置于全书最末,同一书而校勘体例不一致。又按,以上11条校记,在1975年中华书局出版的《焚书续焚书》合订本中,均已吸收为正文,然而对此未作具体标记和说明。
(1)李贽与耿定向在一定程度上归好,以周友山所起之作用最为重要,《李氏续焚书·答梅琼宇》说:“乃今以友山故,幸得与天台(引者按,耿定向)合并。”
[2]李贽.焚书续焚书[M].北京:中华书局,1975.
[3]李贽.焚书续焚书[M]//张建业,刘幼生.李贽文集:第1卷.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000:27.
[4]李贽.李温陵集[M].明刻本.
[5]李贽.李氏续焚书[M].万历四十六年新安汪氏刊本.
[6]李贽.李氏焚书[M].明刻本.
[7]耿定向.耿天台先生全书[M].民国十四年武昌正信印务馆铅印本.
[8]耿定向.耿天台先生文集[M].明万历二十六年刘元卿刻本.
(1)管玉林先生《点校说明》云:“校勘方面,曾用《李温陵集》以及几种单行的《焚书》的刻本和排印本来校正底本(《国粹丛书》本)的误字。《李温陵集》比单行本《焚书》多出的字句,只选择较有参考意义的作了校记,会列在卷一之末。”(中华书局1961年版《焚书·点校说明》第2页)其校记共11条,包括《答周若庄》4条,《答焦漪园》2条,《复周南士》2条,《复京中友朋》1条,《复周柳塘》2条。这些校勘最主要的内容,是根据《李温陵集》补上被删掉的一些句子。而《答耿司寇》被删掉的约三分之一文字,却作为《增补二》置于全书最末,同一书而校勘体例不一致。又按,以上11条校记,在1975年中华书局出版的《焚书续焚书》合订本中,均已吸收为正文,然而对此未作具体标记和说明。
(1)李贽与耿定向在一定程度上归好,以周友山所起之作用最为重要,《李氏续焚书·答梅琼宇》说:“乃今以友山故,幸得与天台(引者按,耿定向)合并。”