论文部分内容阅读
通行本《唐會要》卷九四突厥、吐谷渾的記載錯訛甚夥,而且紀年與其他唐代文獻相互衝突。對照江蘇書局本與文淵閣本《唐會要》本卷内容,并將《唐會要》與《資治通鑑綱目》相關記載對勘,可以發現《唐會要》突厥、吐谷渾卷兩種版本分目不一,内容與《資治通鑑綱目》高度一致且未超出《綱目》的範圍。通過對《唐會要》紀年、文字及編纂等方面的錯訛進行分析,同時將傳世文獻中殘留的《唐會要》突厥、吐谷渾的佚文與通行本《唐會要》卷九四的記載相比對,可以確認《唐會要》突厥、吐谷渾卷并非原帙,而是後人根據《資治通鑑綱目》補撰。
The passage of this “Tang will be” Volume 94 Turks, Tuyuhun records erroneous false partners, but also records and other Tang documents conflicting. The comparison between Jiangsu Bookstore and Wenyuan Pavilion and the related contents of “Tang Hui Yao” and “Zhi Hui Tong Jie Gang” can find out that “Tang Hui Yao” Turks, Tuyu Hu Volume Two There are different types of sub-categories, which are highly consistent with the Outline of the Guideline for General Principles of the Government and do not exceed the scope of the “Outline”. Through the analysis of the mistakes in the annals, writing and compilation of “Tang will be”, at the same time will be handed down from the literature “Tang will be” Turkic, Tuyu muddy Lost text and this “Tang will be” Volume 94 records Comparison, you can confirm the “Tang will be” Turkic, Tuyu muddy volume is not the original Yao, but descendants based on “Guidelines for the Guideline” Supplement.