《淮南子》、《呂氏春秋》、《戰國策》三書高《注》互異集證

A comparative study of the commentaries on the Huainanzi 淮南子，the Lushichunqiu 呂氏春秋, and the Zhanguoce 戰國策

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.

東漢高誘為《淮南子》、《呂氏春秋》、《戰國策》三書作《注》，當中有一事而兩見者，高誘訓解多同。因此，後人每參照高誘前後注語互相校讎，以本證法校正今本三書高《注》訛誤。然而本文作者比勘三書高《注》，發現高誘有訓解同一事而前後不同者，或則高誘依據不同，或則注語詳略不同，或則高誘更訂前説而立論有異。此蓋高誘注解三書非在同一時也，故説義不盡相同。因輯錄之，分類羅列，以説明三書《注》雖有同出於高誘者，亦自有別，並略述其互異之因由。

Gaoyao 高誘, a scholar of the Han dynasty, was the author of commentaries on the Huainanzi 淮南子, the Lushichunqiu 呂氏春秋, and the Zhanguoce 戰國策. As comments as well as glosses, appearing in these works, are similar in wording, they are useful for collation purposes.

Perhaps, Gaoyou wrote his commentary on three works at different periods, as there are cases of discrepancies in otherwise similar wording. These fall into three categories. Firstly, there are cases where the authorities cited by Gaoyou are different. Secondly, there are cases where in one work Gaoyou's commentaries is in greater detail than in another. Thirdly, there are cases where Gaoyou made a mistake in an earlier work which is corrected in a later work.

This article attempts to compare Gaoyou’s commentaries and to offer an explanation for the discrepancies.