中央研究院歷史語言研究所藏《高郵王氏父子手稿》所收〈光祿觀察公段氏說文簽記〉抄本十五葉五百廿九條，系統反映了王念孫校治《說文》的思想。本文通過〈簽記〉與《說文解字注》的對讀，提出段王分歧這一重要現象。段王分歧主要涉及四個大的方面。其一為文字分析的不同，主要包括段王六書理論的差異，對《說文》篆體分析的差別等，其中最主要的是二氏對形聲、會意二書交涉部分理解與處理的不同。其二為古音學的分歧，包括上古韻部系統的異構及古聲母研究的差別，同時亦涉及一批不涉系統而歸部不同的個別字。其三為訓詁的差異，涉及《說文》訓釋、破讀假借、確定本字、運用書證、虛詞分析等方面。其四為校勘學的分歧，主要包括版本取用的不同傾向（王氏更多地取用小徐），參校他書的不同程度，《說文》文本來源的不同指認，及《說文》校勘具體方法的差別等。段王多方面的理論分歧決定了他們大量具體研究結論的衝突。本文在試圖理解並比較段王各自學術體系的基礎上，運用語文學、文獻學、語言學的新舊方法，基於傳世文獻和出土文獻的雙重證據對〈簽記〉所涉段王異說加以按斷，進一步廓清《說文》學和上古文獻的相關問題。
The Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, possesses a set of manuscripts titled “Guanglu guancha gong Duan shi Shuowen qianji” 光祿觀察公段氏說文簽記 that contains Wang Niansun’s 王念孫 (1744–1832) thoughts on Shuowen 說文. Contrasting Wang’s manuscripts with Duan Yucai’s 段玉裁 (1735–1815) Shuowen jiezi zhu 說文解字注, the present article points out the broad disagreements between these two leading Qing 清 (1644–1912) philologists in four sub-fields of Chinese philology. First, Wang and Duan disagreed on paleography. They had different theories about the six categories of Chinese characters, particularly about the overlap between semantic and phonetic compounds. Second, their reconstructions of the Old Chinese rhymes and initials are different. Third, they disagreed on historical semantics, including the original semantic analyses of characters by Xu Shen 許慎 (ca. 54–ca. 125), loan graphs, the dialects’ original characters, the use of philological evidence, and the semantics of function words. Fourth, they took different approaches to textual criticism, valuing different editions and using different sources and methodologies in collating Shuowen. This article compares Wang and Duan’s methodologies and provides insights into dozens of controversial philological cases with the help of excavated materials and linguistic tools.
〈段氏說文簽記〉 《說文解字注》 王念孫 段玉裁
“Duan shi Shuowen qianji”; Shuowen jiezi zhu; Wang Niansun; Duan Yucai
