?????????????

by Lee, Kar-shui

(Uncorrected OCR) ABSTRACT of a thesis entitled rrShih-hsu and Shih Chi-chluan of Kuo-~ng: A Comparative studyrr submitted by Lee Kar-shui for

the degree of Naster of Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong

in August 1976.

l-h I

scholars before the Sung Dynasty ( if. q 0 0 - /2J 19 )

leaned heavily on the Nao commentary (}lao Shih-hsll ~ l~ &. ) when they studied the Book of Songs (Shih-ching 1 ?}~~). During

the Sung period, new interpretations of the Shih-ching encouraged

them to free themselves from following the traditional annotations and, after the appearance of Chu Hsi I S ( ~ j, ' 13 0 - '~(T1) ) Shih Chi-ch luan ( ~~ n ... ~t ) t a number of 11 terati advocated that

the Shih-hsu should be abandoned.

Many believe that Chu Hsi

adopted the idea of Ch~ng?Chiao ( ~?~},f ..... ) who first attacked

the Hao commentary overtly in the Sung time. However, a careful

examination of the Shih Chi-chluan indicates that Chu, though on the same line of Cheng, does not ignore the Shih-hsu completely and his Shih-hst' pien-shuo ( t! 8, ~~ ~ '_I ) also evidences

that he does not criticise the Shih-hsu in every Case. Scholars

of the following generations are alwaYs at a lost to understand

why Chu disagreed with the'Mao commentary and they undertake little

investigation into the fact how and to what extent that Chu

criticised the Shih-hsu.

( ~!5 .:t.,. :'$t

Lung Ch I i-t I aO n L K...~ . ;;'J

) of the Chting Dynasty

(

~ A, I fJ

If:> J b - I q H ) laid out the annotations of the Shih-hsu

and the Shih Chi-chluan side by side in his Mao-shih ~-cheng

) but gave no comment on them. It seems to

me that a comparison between the Shih-hsll and the Shih Chi-chluan

is well worth a study because such a research may let us have a

better understanding of Chu Hsi.

This thesis is mainly a comparison between the Shih-hsu

and the Shih Chi-chluan of their different interpretations on the Book of Songs, based primarily on the 160 pieces of the ~-f~ng in the Shih-ching. An attempt is made to analyse to what extent that the Shih Chi-chluan criticise the Shih-hsu. In addition, I try to trace the original sources on which the Shih-hsu and the

Shih Chi-chluan are based.

To this end, an examination of various

interpretations of the Shih-ching in connection with the Shih-hsll

and the Shih Chi-chluan is provided. It is hoped that readers

could have an insight why Chu Hsi criticised the MaD commentary

after reading this thesis.

This thesis contains 16 chapters. Following the arrange-

ments of the Mao-shih pu-cheng, a comParison is made between the Shih-hsu and the Shih Chi-ch'uanon the Kuo-~ng in the first 15

chapters. Special emphasis is on tracing the sources and sorting

out the discrepancies. At the end of each chapter, a brief summary

is given.

The last chapter, being the conclusion, illustrates

with figures Chu Hsi's points of view on the Shih-hsu and proves that what people believe Chu dispelled the MaD commentary is merely

a hearsay.