摘要：郑玄易学为汉易之翘楚，惜其《易注》早亡。南宋王应麟首辑郑玄《易注》（下称郑《易》）辑本，清儒又加补辑批注，前后无虑数十家。本文选择清代《易注》各辑本作为研究对象，搜集现存清儒辑郑氏《易注》的各传本、批注本，以及各刊本之底本，以实证方式论证各辑本间的关系，总结清儒郑《易》研究得失，以有助于易学史的研究。

第一章、郑玄精通今、古文易学，郑注有本自马融者，然在训诂和对《易》所持基本观点上，二者还存在不小差异。郑玄承费氏易以传解经的治《易》方式，合《彖》、《象》于经。何休推赞《易注》。服虔注《春秋》本所用“互体”二例本郑注独特的“五爻”易例。

第二章、郑玄《易注》至于北宋仅存《文言》以下一卷四篇，晁说之、朱震据此增辑佚文。王应麟首辑郑《易》，然辑文无出处且多疏漏。王氏对郑注异文也缺乏研究。明胡震亨《秘册汇函》，刊王应麟辑本入《李氏易解》之《附录》，然删去引自《李氏易解》的条注。胡刊本后附姚士粦《易解附录后语》，续补二十五条。

第三章、清儒惠栋据王应麟辑本补辑，又参考明姚士粦续补条文。惠栋辑本特点在于：一、作《郑氏周易爻辰图》；二、改易郑《易》用字。然所引《干凿度》注与其爻辰图不相应。朱震撰《爻辰图》的依据与惠栋并不同，惠栋驳朱震撰图失误之说不确。惠栋喜改引文用字，又因袭王辑本误辑条文。清儒孙堂续补惠辑本，侧重考订郑注之“古今字”，界定“古今字”根据经注实际用字，以疏通古书字义。孙氏考证多精审可从，然也有考证未确者。

第四章、陈鳣批跋惠辑本实为“丁杰初定本”。此本经卢文弨、丁杰、孙志祖、陈鳣递相校补，后由丁杰汇辑以成。陈鳣删定此本，另录定本与丁杰。丁杰复据陈氏删定本，又考订十余年，是为“丁杰后定本”。嘉庆三年张惠言订正“丁杰后定本”，多删各家考订条注，且略陈鳣之名，遂隐没各家考订之功。张氏仅删录条注，旧题张订丁辑本虽本“丁杰后定本”，然当称作“丁杰汇辑本”。袁均辑本暗袭陈鳣所藏“丁杰初辑本”，袁均又误辑《九家易》引三礼注《易》的条文。又袁氏未晓郑《易》“互体”易例。第五章、张订丁辑本有陈扶雅钞本、阮元刊三卷本和陈春湖海楼刊十二卷本，二种刊本有删略原辑本之序跋。今湖海楼刊十二卷本编次本自张惠言，然编次混乱，出于张氏之臆断。张订丁辑本广收异文且考证详备，然而出自众手，在辑考方面也存在不少疏漏，特别是未归纳群经疏文引郑注的用例。卷末《正误》篇及附录考证王、惠辑本误辑条文，因未辨《易注》与《易纬》注关系密切，考证有误。

第六章、孔广林于嘉庆二年参与“丁杰后定本”的补订工作，孔广林辑本的考订成果也为“丁杰后定本”所吸收。今张补丁辑本下附臧庸、丁杰注文与孔氏考订相同或暗合者，皆本自孔氏。黄锡元校跋惠辑本实为清儒黄奭辑本之底本。黄奭批评惠辑本“十大”疏失，言过其实。又误辑宋元易书署“郑注”条文，失之舛滥。更暗袭或改写辑本条注考证而不言，故黄奭辑本尤不足取。

第七章，朱氏批注王应麟辑本，续补《释文》所录郑注，以比较郑玄和王弼本用字的差异。阮元取王应麟辑本复校惠栋辑本，以确定惠栋补辑条目和改易的用字，又补惠氏《周易古义》相关考证。许克勤批注孙堂辑本则最有价值，许氏补《玉烛宝典》和慧琳《一切经音义》所引郑玄音训二条，又以为《礼记》孔疏多本郑注为说。考订《否》卦郑注“苞，植也”，许氏考证“值”字为“稹”字之讹，精审可从。

清儒对郑玄《易注》条文的搜讨、考辨与研究紧密结合，各辑本多互有依傍，可见清儒非常重视对旧辑本辑佚成果的吸收和利用。丁杰汇集各家辑补，其考订辑本长达二十余年，唯以学术传信为旨归，丁杰无疑是清儒辑佚郑《易》之巨擘。

关键词：郑玄《易注》  辑本  清儒补订  辨伪考证

Abstract: In this paper, the collection of Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan in Qing Dynasty has been discussed, emphasizing on the process of collection by scholars of Qing. Various editions mainly collected by scholars in Qing Dynasty, including two editions of Song Dynasty, have been discussed here, in order to summarize academic achievements for the study on the collection of Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan in Qing Dynasty.

Zheng Xuan studied Yi-ology of Contemporary Chinese from Diwu Yuanxian. Then, he learned Yi-ology of Ancient Chinese from Ma Rong. There were many differences between them. Zheng Xuan and Ma Rong inherited Fei Zhi's Yi-ology. However, it is hardly to confirm the characters of Fei Zhi's Yi-ology. We could only make sure his interpreting method on Yi-ology. There were different theory views between He Xiu and Zheng Xuan. However, He Xiu admired Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan for his wonderful commentaries. Fu Qian's two commentaries in the reference to "Hu Ti" analyzing I Ching were originated from Zheng Xuan's Yi-ology.

Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan has not been appreciated since it failed to become a part of Five Annotation to Confucian Classics in Tang Dynasty. It is has been nearly lost before Song Dynasty. There existed only a volume of four chapters in imperial library. Scholars Chao Yuezhi and Zhu Zhen cited variants and elaboration of Zheng Xuan from four chapters of Annotation of Zhou Yi, rather than the entire book. Wang Yingling is the primary scholar to collect lost essays of Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan. But there are two aspects of deficiencies, a lack of sources and omissions of annotation. Wang Yingling did not take efforts to research variants of Annotation of Zhou Yi. Mice Huihan Series published by Hu Zhengheng in Qing Dynasty, included annotations of Annotation of Zhou collected by Wang Yingling at the end of Lishi Yizhuan, canceling these annotations the same as Lishi Yizhuan. Twenty-five additional annotations were only added in a postscript of Lishi Yizhuan by Yao Shiling.

Hui Dong, a famous scholar in Qing Dynasty increased annotations basing upon Wang Yingling's collection and taking Yao Shiling's additions as a reference. There are two features of Hui Dong's collection. Charts referring to "Yao Chen" on Yi-ology of Zheng Xuan were made by Hui Dong. Characters of annotations were modified in order to approach to previous archaic characters of I Ching. There still existed mistakes in explanations for "Yao Chen" charts. It is not convinced that Hui Dong criticized the errors of charts which Zhu Zhen drew. In fact, charts of Zhu Zhen were according to Tai Xuan, wrote by Yang Xiong in Han Dynasty. In contrast, charts of Hui Dong were based on commentary of Zhou Li, annotated by Zheng Xuan. When discussing the issue of characters modified by Hui Dong, Zhouyi Guyi and Zhouyi Benyi Bianzheng wrote by Hui Dong need to be taken into consideration, in which Hui Dong provided reasons why he modified those characters. Mistaken annotations wrote by others were not distinguished from Hui Dong's collection. For an example, a scholar surnamed Zheng interpreting the Han Shu is not Zheng Xuan. Then, Sun Tang collated and published another edition basing on Hui Dong's collection and adding some materials inside. The main distinguishing feature of his collection was exploring the issue of contemporary and ancient characters on Yi-ology. Contemporary characters are defined by authors’ times relatively. While characters of Han Dynasty are defined as contemporary characters, the characters of Qing Dynasty are defined as ancient characters. Contemporary and ancient characters are grounded on usage of characters at that time, rather than Chinese philology. They are interchangeable words with relation to ancient books'collation. Sun Tang made efforts to do research in order to make it easier to understand the meaning of Annotation of Zhou Yi.

The collection of Chen Zhan was emended by many scholars. In fact, Ding Jie cooperated with many scholars to gather annotations of Annotation of Zhou Yi, including Chen Zhan, Lu Wenchao, and Sun Zhizu. Therefore, The collection of Chen Zhan could be named Ding Jie’s collection. Ding Jie's collection was plagiarized by Yuan Jun. It is valueless for Yuan Jun's collecton since many false annotations were added by Yuan Jun.

The collection of Ding Jie was adjusted by Zhang Huiyan then. However, it is convinced that this collection was arranged by Ding Jie mainly, while criticisms of many scholars have been deleted by Zhang Huiyan.It was still the best collecton in Qing Dynasty, though many wrong judgments were made for a lack of synthetical research. In a word, Ding jie made great contributions to collecton of Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan.

Kong Guangling participated in collection organized by Ding Jie. Therefore, Kong Guangling's collection was based on Ding Jie's. Many excellent judgments in Ding Jie's collection were stemmed from Kong Guangling. It is not appropriate that Huang Shi criticized Hui Dong's collection. Many unrelated materials were added by Huang Shi. It is serous defects that many criticisms of scholars were plagiarized by Huang Shi.

There were three important annotated editions in Qing Dynasty. Zhu Yizun's annotated edition focused on comparing words of Annotation of Zhou Yi of Zheng Xuan with Wang Bi's. Ruan Yuan's annotated edition paid much attention to added annotation made by Hui Dong. Xu Keqing made efforts to modifications.Two annotations were added and many errors were corrected in his annotated edition.

Key Words: Annotation of Zhou Yi of zheng Xuan   collection   scholars in Qing Dynasty   emendation

导师：安平秋教授