Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1972. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.) -- Guo li zheng zhi da xue, 1978. / Cover title. On double leaves. Bibliography: p. 261-273.

Thesis (M.A.)--Guo li zheng zhi da xue, 1970. / Reproduced from ms. copy. Includes bibliographical references (p. 415-418).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2004. / Zhi dao jiao shi: Jin Shenghua, Wang Hongzhi. 880-05 Includes bibliographical references (p. 219-238)

Texte remanié de: Doctoral dissertation--Duke University. / Bibliogr. p. 271-282.

Thesis (M.A.): Guo li Taiwan shi fan da xue guo wen yan jiu suo. / Cover title. Reproduced from typescript. Includes bibliographical references (p. 168-174).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of History, August 2000. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong. / Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1971. / Title of Chinese:. Also available in print.

《荀子》一書嚮稱難讀，殆至中唐，楊倞始為之注。迄至民國，梁啟雄挾以增補清人王先謙《荀子集解》。梁氏秉持普及《荀書》之旨，以《集解》為底本，再揀選《集解》未及取錄之晚清學者、民國學者、日本漢學家之解說，編成《荀子簡釋》（舊版則稱作《荀子柬釋》）。此書注解簡明扼要，誘掖初學，嘉惠學林。民國學者楊樹達稱許《簡釋》「其引誘後學之意，可謂至哉」，高亨亦讚揚此書「固學之所棘求，亦鴻彥之所必取」，可見此書當時享負盛名。前賢研究《簡釋》者鮮矣，亦多從其校勘、注解未周之處入手，用力尤深，然猶有未逮。本文以《簡釋》為本，比對《荀子》歷代重要注解，以見《簡釋》卓然有成，風行一時之原委。 / 首先，本文將回顧前賢對《簡釋》之評價及研究概況。學者或從整體印象入手，極力讚揚此書；或從校勘、注釋等方面，進行仔細之個案研究，考訂《簡釋》未周之處。前賢對《簡釋》之評騭，或褒或貶，誠為卓識；惟仍有未備，時有偏頗。本章基於前賢研究成果，釐訂研究範圍及方法，藉此建立全文之架構。 / 其二，本文將簡述梁啟雄生平及《簡釋》成書緣由。關於梁氏生平，多是零散扼要。惟《燕京大學人物志》所收錄之梁氏生平介紹，乃出自其兒女梁思萃、梁思美及梁思瑩之手筆，至為詳盡，殊具參考價值。本章即據此為本，再仔細覆檢梁啟超家書提及梁啟雄之言行，述說梁氏生平。前賢鮮有引錄梁啟超書札作為依據，本章藉此補充及佐證前人所述未周之處。 / 其三，本文將析論《簡釋》注釋之體例。梁氏於《簡釋》撰有〈述例〉、〈自敍〉及〈重印敍言〉，先後提及編撰此書之法及其具體情況。本章欲就此歸納，並深入探討梁氏注解之特點。其中有繼承前人注解方式，亦有基於前賢之法而略作變通。梁氏嘗援白話翻譯荀文，串講句意，實為當時劃時代之注解模式。又細究梁釋內容，實有助窺探其取捨前賢注解之準則。 / 其四，再就《簡釋》徵引前賢注解情況仔細研究。本部分從四種個案入手，深入探討《簡釋》取捨前賢注解之準則及其對後世荀學研究之價值： / 首先，論及《簡釋》徵引楊倞注之情況。傳世注解《荀子》至為完備者，始見於唐代楊倞。楊氏極力訓釋字詞，串講文句，殆為首本全面校釋《荀子》之著作。相較唐代以後專以條辨札記方式斠釋荀文之學者，楊注仍為後世學者研習、校注《荀書》所必然參考之作。梁啟雄編撰《簡釋》之時，亦非例外。本部分一則可以窺探梁釋取捨楊注之準則及特點，一則亦可以揭示《簡釋》對楊注之重視。 / 第二，論及《簡釋》參用日儒與清儒考證成果之情況。藤川正數《荀子解釋史上における邦儒の活動》認為荻生徂徠以來日本對《荀子》之考證及注解作業，已領先清儒之考證，並論證日本德川學者（物雙松、冢田虎、久保愛、桃井白鹿、豬飼彥博）先發表之考證內容與清儒之見解符合，其實僅僅出於當時兩地學者之考證方法論及考證材料一致而來之暗合，並補充謂清儒幾乎無可能參考過日本學者考證之結果。其說誠為卓識。本部分即欲比較日儒與清儒考證暗合之見解，揭示異同，進而考辨《簡釋》對上述注解之取捨方法及其原委，為日儒與清儒荀學考證成果暗合之課題上，提供另一思考方向。 / 第三，論及《簡釋》迻錄梁啟超解說荀文之見解。梁啟雄嘗謂其兄梁啟超「鑽揅之暇，治業有閒，輒以《荀子》口授啟雄，逾年而業畢」，可見梁啟超對梁啟雄研治荀學之啟蒙，影響甚深。現今傳世有關梁啟超校釋荀文之見解而較為有系統者，主要載於《簡釋》之中。本部分將梳理梁啟超之解說，加以述評，以見其荀學研究之特點，並揭示《簡釋》保留其說，為荀學研究提供重要參考，有助補足前輩學者關於荀學研究未及注意之實。 / 第四，論及《簡釋》引用楊樹達〈讀荀子小箋〉及高亨〈荀子眉箋〉兩種稿本之情況。楊、高二文其後有所增删修改，或發表於學報，或輯錄於其個人學術著作之中。本部分將分別比較楊、高二文各種版本之異同，以見二人於荀學研究成果前後有所改變之實；進而揭示《簡釋》保留兩種稿本，實對楊、高二人最早期之荀學研究成果提供重要參考，有助補足前輩學者關於荀學研究未及注意之處。 / 其五，詳細比較《簡釋》新、舊版本注解改動之實。民國之時，「誘掖初學、普及古籍」之風漸見熾熱；《柬釋》之出，蓋亦此由。書成以後，梁氏未敢怠慢，屢為《柬釋》補苴罅漏，力臻完善；終編成新版《簡釋》。本部分通過比勘兩種版本，一則探究《荀子簡釋》誘掖初學、普及《荀書》之法；二則揭示兩本對讀可為後學研究《荀子》所帶來之啟示。本部分冀能就現有書證，進一步論述梁啟雄治學之法，補充民國《荀子》學史之一隅，以及完足前賢對《簡釋》評騭未周之處。 / Xunzi 荀子 is well known for its abstruseness. In the Mid-Tang Dynasty, there appeared its commentaries authored by Yang Liang 楊倞. Later in the Republican Era, Liang Qihong 梁啟雄 augmented Xunzi Jijie 荀子集解, which had been composed by Wang Xianqian 王先謙 in the Qing Dynasty. Liang intended that Xunzi appeal to a wider audience, and based on Xunzi Jijie, he further selected the explanatory notes made by the scholars of the Late Qing Dynasty and the Republican Era, and those by the Japanese sinologists. The edited work became Xunzi Jianshi 荀子簡釋／荀子柬釋. As concise as they are precise, the annotations in the book are evident in their contributions to the academia through stimulating the beginners to further inquiry. Xunzi Jianshi was highly regarded as a contribution to enlighten novices on the studies of Xunzi by Yang Shudai 楊樹達 and Gao Heng 高亨. Scholars have set great store by fixing the shortcomings of the collations and annotations in Xunzi Jianshi, however their investigations always leave much to be desired. This thesis is aimed at accounting for the prominence and popularity of Xunzi Jianshi by comparing it with those significant commentaries made on Xunzi over the past dynasties. / Chapter One reviews the evaluation and previous studies on Xunzi Jianshi. Scholars either declared strong approval of this book with their general impression, or carried out detailed case studies on the collations and annotations to examine its deficiencies. Both the positive and negative comments made by the predecessors on Xunzi Jianshi are valued as profound views. Nonetheless, they still fall short of thoroughness and often impartiality. Built on these research outcomes, this chapter sets the scope and methodology of the current research upon which the framework of this thesis is constructed. / Chapter Two briefly introduces Liang Qixiong’s biography and explains the emergence of Xunzi Jianshi. Liang’s life was mostly recorded in concise, fragmentary way. An exception is a biography collected in Yanjing Daxue Renwuzhi 燕京大學人物志 and composed by his children Liang Sicui 梁思萃, Liang Simei 梁思美 and Liang Siying 梁思瑩. Detailed and of high research value, it forms the foundation of this chapter, which further addresses the details of Liang Qixiong’s life and his words and deeds as mentioned in Liang Qichao Jiashu 梁啟超家書 (Liang Qichao’s letters to home). Previous scholars rarely included Liang Qichao’s correspondence in their research. Thus, this chapter supplements the incomprehensive coverage of the previous literature. / Chapter Three analyzes and discusses the stylistic rules of Xunzi Jianshi. Liang in his shuli 述例, foreword and reprinted preface mentioned his approach to compiling this book and gave a detailed account of them. This chapter sheds light on the features of Xunzi Jianshi commentaries. These include the continuation of the annotation methods adopted by his predecessors as well as the slight adaptation of the previous methods. Liang translated Xunzi into vernacular Chinese and offered a precise and coherent explanation of its meaning, breaking new grounds in the mode of annotations. Careful investigation into his explanatory notes gives us a glimpse into his criteria to select the annotations previously made by his forerunners. / Chapter Four illustrates the citations and quotations from the previous commentaries of Xunzi in Xunzi Jianshi. This chapter divides into four case studies investigating the way Liang cited, as well as their contribution to the studies of Xunzi. / Firstly, this section discusses the citations and quotations from Yang Liang’s Xunzi Zhu 荀子注. Amongst the existing works, Yang Liang of the Tang Dynasty made the earliest attempt to offer one of the most comprehensive annotations on Xunzi. Yang provided a detailed explanation of words and coherent elaboration of the textual meaning, so much so that his work became the first work that fully collated and annotated Xunzi. Compared with other scholars after the Tang Dynasty who explained the book in a piecemeal manner with reading notes, Yang’s annotations remains the work which later scholars studying and annotating Xunzi must consult. Liang Qixiong was no exception in his compilation of Xunzi Jianshi. This section does not only look into Liang’s criteria and features of selecting Yang’s annotations, but also reveals the emphasis laid upon Yang’s annotations as shown in Xunzi Jianshi. / Secondly, this chapter explores the citations and quotations from the textual criticism done by Japanese Sinologists and the Chinese scholars in the Qing Dynasty. In Junshi Chūshakushijō ni okeru Hōju no Katsudō 荀子注釋史上におけ る邦儒の活動, Fujikawa Masakazu 藤川正數 indicates that the textual research and annotations produced in Japan since Ogyū Sorai 荻生徂徠 has outperformed those made by the Chinese scholars of the Qing Dynasty. He also raises an idea that the Japanese scholars of the Tokugawa period 德川時代 (1603-1867), including Mono Sōshō 物雙松, Tsukada Tora 冢田虎, Kubo Ai 久保愛, Momonoi Hakuroku 桃井白鹿 and Igai Hikohiro 豬飼彥博, preceded the Qing scholars in conveying similar views on certain areas of textual criticism. This is in fact because of the coincidence arisen from the use of the same methodology and materials for textual criticism. It was almost unlikely that the Qing scholars had referred to the research outcomes of the Japanese scholars. In light of this sophisticated view, this section compares the views between the Japanese and Qing scholars which coincidentally agree to one another, and reveals their differences and similarities. In turn, it probes into the selection criteria for adopting the above annotations in Xunzi Jianshi, and the reasons behind them. This paves a new way for the research on the coincidental agreement between the outcomes of Japanese and Qing scholars regarding the studies of Xunzi. / Thirdly, this section inspects the citations and quotations from Liang Qichao’s 梁啟超 explanatory texts on Xunzi in Xunzi Jianshi. Liang Qixiong once mentioned that his brother Liang Qichao "verbally taught me (Liang Qixiong) Xunzi in the leisure of his research or business, which last over years." It can be seen that Liang Qichao had a deep enlightening effect on Liang Qixiong regarding his research on Xunzi. The remaining work by Liang Qichao on Xunzi was recorded in Xunzi Jianshi in a fairly systematic manner. This section clarifies and comments on the explanation made by Liang Qichao in order that one can glance through the features he had in studying Xunzi and that it reveals his words retained in Xunzi Jianshi. This offers an important reference to the studies of Xunzi and complements the areas previously unnoticed in the Xunzi research. / Fourthly, this section examines Du Xunzi Xiaojian 讀荀子小箋 of Yang Shuda and Xunzi Meijian 荀子眉箋 of Gao Heng (reading notes on Xunzi studies) in manuscripts cited and quoted by Xunzi Jianshi. Later on, Yang and Gao made amendments in their manuscripts and then published in a journal paper or a monograph. This section compares and contrasts the manuscripts used in Xunzi Jianshi and the published versions, showing the changes on Xunzi Studies made by Yang and Gao separately. The initial notions of Yang and Gao retained in Xunzi Jianshi do provide a significant reference for Xunzi Studies in the Republican era. This section tries to add supplementary notes to this topic neglected by the previous research. / Chapter Five compares and contrasts the former and latter editions of the Xunzi Jianshi to show that Liang modified the commentaries in various ways. During the Republican era, it has become more of a trend to popularize ancient Chinese texts for the interests of new learners, hence the publication of Xunzi Jianshi. Since the coming of its first edition in 1936, Liang had endeavored to make amendments on the commentaries to perfection, which eventually gave rise to the critical edition in 1956. This chapter examines how these modifications enlighten novices on the studies of Xunzi. Furthermore, there is a discussion on Liang’s scholarly research methods, and also a supplement to the history of Xunzi studies in the Republican era and the incomprehensive comments on Xunzi Jianshi made by the previous scholars. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 伍亭因. / Parallel title from English abstract. / Thesis (M.Phil.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2014. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 544-553). / Abstracts in Chinese and English. / Wu Tingyin.