---
title: "洛陽伽藍記合校本 · 城北"
description: "北魏杨衒之撰写的洛阳伽蓝记是一部记述北魏都城洛阳佛教寺院兴衰的地方志著作。张宗祥先生的合校本综合历代版本精校而成具有很高学术价值。该书以北魏洛阳城佛寺为纲目详述了孝文帝迁都后洛阳佛教的鼎盛景象包括永宁寺等名刹的规模与盛况同时穿插了政治历史社会风俗和人物轶事。它不仅是研究北魏历史佛教史和中古城市建筑的重要文献更被誉为中国佛教地理志的开山之作为了解南北朝佛教艺术与社会变迁提供了珍贵的一手资料。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgmyl9e80ipol104kkofen74"
---

### 城北

> North of the City

禪虚寺在大夏門御道西寺前有閱武場凝玄寺閹官濟州刺史賈粲所立也在廣莫門外一里御道東所謂永平里也注即漢太上王廣處宗祥案此處注字幸存即漢太上王廣處六字明係注文不得誤入正文洛陽城東北有上高里殷之頑民所居處也高祖名聞義里聞義里有敦煌人宋雲宅雲與惠生俱使西域也京師東西二十里南北十五里戶十萬九千餘廟社宮室府曹以外方三百歩為一里里開四門門置里正二人吏四人門士八人合有二百二十里寺有一千三百六十七所天平元年遷都鄴城洛陽餘寺四百二十一所北芒山上有馮王寺齊獻武王寺京東石關有元領軍寺劉長秋寺嵩高中有閒居寺栖禪寺嵩陽寺道場寺上有中頂寺東有昇道寺京南闕口有石窟寺靈巖寺京西瀍澗有白馬寺照樂寺如此之寺既郭外不在數限亦詳載之

> 禅虚寺位于大夏门御道西侧，寺前有阅武场。凝玄寺由宦官、济州刺史贾粲所建，在广莫门外一里处御道东侧，即所谓的永平里。（注：此处注文幸存，即“汉太上王广处”六字，明显是注文，不应误入正文。）洛阳城东北有上高里，是殷商顽民居住的地方。高祖将其命名为闻义里。闻义里有敦煌人宋云的宅邸，宋云曾与惠生一同出使西域。京城东西二十里，南北十五里，有十万九千余户。除庙宇、社稷、宫室、府署之外，方圆三百步为一里，每里开四门，每门设里正二人、官吏四人、门士八人，共有二百二十里。寺庙有一千三百六十七所。天平元年迁都邺城后，洛阳剩余寺庙四百二十一所。北芒山上有冯王寺、齐献武王寺；京东石关有元领军寺、刘长秋寺；嵩高中有闲居寺、栖禅寺、嵩阳寺、道场寺；山顶有中顶寺，东有昇道寺；京南阙口有石窟寺、灵岩寺；京西瀍涧有白马寺、照乐寺。这些寺庙既在城郭之外，不在上述数目之内，亦详细记载。

張宗祥曰昔顧澗蘋先生欲仿全民治水經注之例分別此書注文而未果吳氏聞斯言於其舅朱氏集證本遂起而分之然極簡略恐非楊氏之舊如楊氏舊文果如吳氏所述則記文寥寥注文繁重作注而非作記矣楊氏具史才當不如此唐氏復因吳氏之簡鉤沉本又起而正之然第五卷原本注文且誤入正文則亦未為盡合也葢此書子注之難分實非水經注之比水經經注出自兩人文筆絕異此書則自撰自注文筆相同一也全民所見水經注自大典本出故經注混淆其實宋刊本分經注明刊亦然明初且有單刊經文無注本此書則如隱以前未見他刊如隱而後注盡不分但憑想象一無取證二也故苟無如隱以前之古本可以勘正實不必泥顧氏之說强為分析致蹈明人竄改古籍之覆轍也第吳唐二家用心甚勤且僅提寫本文並未顛倒原書故亦錄其所定為本文者以備參考

> Mr. Zhang Zongxiang once remarked: "In times past, Mr. Gu Jianpin sought to emulate the method used in annotating the \*Commentary on the Water Classic\* (\*Shuijing Zhu\*), intending to distinguish the commentary text of this work from its annotations, but he never succeeded. Mr. Wu, having heard this from his uncle’s \*Jizheng\* (Collected Annotations) edition, proceeded to undertake the separation. However, his approach was exceedingly simplistic and likely does not reflect the original structure intended by Mr. Yang — indeed, if Mr. Yang’s original text were truly as Mr. Wu described, the narrative portion would be scant while the annotations heavy, making it an annotation rather than a true narrative. Mr. Yang possessed true historical insight, so this seems improbable. Later, Mr. Tang, dissatisfied with Mr. Wu’s oversimplification, produced the \*Gouchenben\* (Recovered Text edition) to correct it. Yet even then, in the fifth volume, annotations were mistakenly incorporated into the main text — thus his work was also not entirely accurate. The difficulty in separating the sub-commentary from the main text in this book is actually not comparable to that of the \*Commentary on the Water Classic\*. In the \*Water Classic\* case, the classic and its commentary were written by two different individuals, resulting in markedly distinct writing styles. Here, however, the same author wrote both the main text and its annotations, making their literary style inseparable — this is the first point of difference. As for the \*Water Classic\*, Gu Jianpin’s edition derived from the \*Yongle Dadian\* manuscript, where classic and commentary were indeed conflated. Nevertheless, Song dynasty editions clearly distinguished them, as did Ming editions. In fact, during the early Ming dynasty, there even existed editions containing only the classic text without any commentary. In contrast, for this work, no alternative edition predating the \*Yin\* (unpublished) version has survived. After the \*Yin\* edition, the commentary remained undivided — one could only rely on conjecture, with no external evidence to draw upon — this is the second point of difference. Therefore, without access to a pre-\*Yin\* ancient edition for verification, it is truly unnecessary to insist on Gu Jianpin’s method and forcibly separate the texts, lest one repeat the mistake of Ming dynasty scholars who recklessly altered ancient texts. However, both Mr. Wu and Mr. Tang exerted genuine diligence — they merely extracted and rearranged the main text without inverting the original book’s order. Hence, I have also recorded the main texts they identified, for the purpose of reference."

庚午元宵記

> \*\*Record of the Lantern Festival in the Year Gengwu\*\*