今本《大唐新语》非伪书辨--与吴冠文女士商榷

吴冠文《关于今本"<大唐新语>"的真伪问题》一文提出了今本《大唐新语》是明人伪造的观点,这一观点值得商榷。《澹生堂书目》将《大唐新语》与《唐世说新语》分别著录在两个不同的类目,是因为采用了互著法,与真伪问题无涉;《玄赏斋书目》是伪书目,不足为证。宋代类书《太平广记》、《太平御览》等所征引的《大唐新语》在今本中几乎都保存下来了,并没有有意删削的痕迹;今本《大唐新语》与《何氏语林》中所引《大唐新语》不一致,是因为何良俊在引书过程中的删改和失误所形成的。今本《大唐新语》中有与刘肃之后所出书《唐书新语》相同的文字内容,应当是《唐书新语》采用了《大唐新语》,或二者同出一源。没有任何证据表明今本《大唐新语》是伪书。

The Extant Edition of New Anecdotes of the Tang Dynasty Is not a Pseudograph--Challenging Ms Wu Guanwen's Viewpoint

In " On the Authenticity of the Extant Edition of New Anecdotes of the Tang Dynasty (NATO) " , Wu Guanwen hopes to prove that the extant edition of NATD is a pseudograph appearing in the Ming Dynasty. This conclusion entails further discussion. Firstly, it is true that NATD and Tang Shi Shuo Xin Yu are recorded under different subtiles in Danshengtang bibliography. In compiling encyclopedia during the Ming Dynasty, however, the cross-referring bibliography method was widely used, which has nothing to do with authenticity. Besides, the fact that Xuanshangzhai Bibliography is a pseudography can not be counted as a valid support. Secondly, the quotations from NATD in such encyclopedias of the Song Dynasty as Tai Ping Guang Ji and Tai Ping Yu Lan can mostly be found intact in the extant edition of NATD . It might be He Liangjun's misquoting from NATD that led to the differences in quotations from the same texts appearing in He Shi Yu Lin and the extant edition of NATD . Thirdly, there are some exact texts in both NATD and a later book Tang Shu Xin Yu. It is safe to reason that the latter quoted from the former, or both quoted from a same source. Therefore, no evidence goes to the fact that the extant edition of NATD is a pseudograph.