论文部分内容阅读
在近十年来的编辑学研究中,许多有关编辑概念、编辑学研究对象、任务和有关编辑史的论著,都提到孔子是编辑家这一论断,还有一些专题论文认为孔子是中国最早的编辑家,中国编辑的祖师爷;孔子作为编辑家的贡献远远超过了他本人在著作方面的贡献。也有一些论著提出,把编纂与编辑混为一谈,断定孔子为编辑家,是缺乏说服力的,按照古代精神生产方式的特点来分析问题,即使孔子参与了古代文献的整理,也只能说孔子作为当时的思想家、教育家参与了某些古代的著作活动,与作为编辑学研究对象的编辑活动无关。这就形成了在孔子是否编辑家这个问题上出现的肯定论与否定论的分歧。鉴于分歧的实质并不是对孔子这个历史人物的评价,而是有关编辑学学科建设中一些基本理论的争议,特将双方的观点作一简要的综述,以期引起进一步的学术讨论。
In the editorial study of the past decade, many of the editors on editing concepts, editorial objects, tasks and editorial history refer to the assertion that Confucius was an editor. Some monographs also claim that Confucius was the oldest in China Editor, founder of the Chinese editor; Confucius as a contribution to the editor far more than his contribution in the writings. There are also some treatises that confound editors and editors and conclude that Confucius is an editor. It is not convincing. According to the characteristics of the ancient mode of spiritual production, even if Confucius participated in the collation of ancient documents, he can only say that Confucius, as the then Thinkers and educators have participated in some ancient writings and have nothing to do with editorial activities as editors. This led to the disagreement between affirmative and negative theories on the question of whether Confucius was an editor or not. In view of the fact that the disagreement is not an evaluation of the historical figure of Confucius, but a controversy over some basic theories in the discipline construction of editorial science, we should give a brief overview of the two sides’ opinions in order to arouse further academic discussion.