白鸟库吉与顾颉刚对《禹贡》的辨析研究

发布时间：2018-04-24 16:30

本文选题：白鸟库吉 + 顾颉刚　；参考：《东北师范大学》2015年博士论文

【摘要】：白鸟库吉与顾颉刚,前者是近代日本东洋学派的创立者,后者是民国时期“古史辨”派的创始人；前者提出“尧舜禹抹杀论”,后者提出“层累说”,均在当时中日学界引起轩然大波,讨论与争鸣持续不断。在当前的中日史学界,对比白鸟库吉和顾颉刚中国古史研究的相关研究已经出现,然而,已有的研究成果主要从二者的学术背景和学术渊源入手找寻二者的学术是否存在承继关系,罕有针对二者学术中的某个具体课题、具体观点的对比,也未出现专门围绕白鸟库吉和顾颉刚对《禹贡》的辨析方法、内容与结论的比较研究。本文以对《禹贡》的辨析为核心,通过对比二者对《禹贡》的成书年代、传说价值、地理学价值、《禹贡》“九州说”、“五服制”等具体问题的辨析,对比二者在中国古史研究中的研究视角、方法、水平、深度上的异同,从而映射出近代日本学界和中国民国学界对待中国古史的不同倾向。本文主要从四个方面展开研究。第一章剖析白鸟库吉与顾颉刚“疑古”思想的学术渊源。白鸟库吉和顾颉刚的“疑古”思想都是对传统学术中占主导地位的“信古”思维的挑战。然而,白鸟库吉从西方史学方法和理念出发,彻底推翻明治之前“将传说视为信史”的观念,揭示出中国古史的传说性质,这是对中国古代史的彻底解构。顾颉刚在整体研读中国传统经史学者的疑古辨伪学术的基础上,重视《尚书》今古文之争和宋代、清代考据学敢于质疑与辨伪的学术成就,结合考古学、金石学成果,对中国古史展开学术研究,在考辨伪书、伪史的同时,完成重建中国古史的工作。这是在传统“朴学考据”学基础上对中国古史的解构与重新建构。本文的第二章主要辨析二者关于《禹贡》成书年代与价值的视角、观点与方法的异同。关于《禹贡》的成书年代,白鸟库吉认为“尧舜禹三王”传说是同时产生的,因此《禹贡》的成书年代也应与上述时间完全一致,即春秋时代,孔子之前；顾颉刚则认为禹的传说应当出现在尧舜的传说之前,而《禹贡》的成书年代又晚于传说产生的时期,即战国时代后期,秦统一之前。二者对于《禹贡》的地理学价值存在截然相反的观点。白鸟库吉不仅彻底否定《禹贡》的地理学价值,更彻底抹杀《尚书》中夏书部分的地理学和史料学价值；顾颉刚则视《禹贡》为“我国地理学的宝典”。这种完全对立的观点体现出二者在对待《禹贡》的基本立场上是完全相异的。本文的第三章围绕二者对《禹贡》“九州说”的辨析展开。与白鸟库吉并未对《禹贡》“九州”名称的产生时间问题作专门考证相对,顾颉刚对此问题作了专门考证；白鸟库吉从中国传统思想观念入手质疑“九州说”的真实性,顾颉刚从中原王朝不同历史时期的疆域变迁入手考证“九州说”的出现时间与演化过程；白鸟库吉以强调传统信仰的传说性质作为立论前提,主张彻底的“抹杀”；顾颉刚从中国传统史学的朴学考据出发,以证实《禹贡》“九州说”的真实性作为前提,主张谨慎地“辩证”；白鸟库吉认为《禹贡》“九州”并非真实存在,顾颉刚则认为《禹贡》“九州”是对战国时代地理疆域的实际划分。本文的第四章围绕二者对《禹贡》“五服制”与五岳的辨析展开。白鸟库吉和顾颉刚都认为在《禹贡》“五服说”中存在幻想成分。然而,白鸟库吉认为“五服”制度本不是对实际地理疆域的测量,顾颉刚则认为“五服”制在中国古代是实际存在的,只不过由于《禹贡》中对于“五服”相距里数的细致记述,使得其带上了幻想的色彩。白鸟库吉与顾颉刚也都对《禹贡》“五岳”展开研究,白鸟库吉忽视《禹贡》中出现的丰富的山川地理信息,而是仅仅围绕天之五宫思想展开论证。顾颉刚则致力于考证《禹贡》“五岳”名称的由来与演变,进而梳理中国古史中山岳观念的形成过程。从《禹贡》“五服”和“五岳”制度出发,二者还对中国古代疆域形状特征作了概括：白鸟库吉认为“南北长、东西短”；顾颉刚则认为“窄于南北而宽于东西”。关于华夷体系,与白鸟库吉主张“华夷峻别”不同,顾颉刚突出民族融合在中华民族早期形成中的作用,主张“华夷一体”。从白鸟库吉与顾颉刚对《禹贡》辨析结论的具体差异中,我们看到两种完全不同的学术体系：以白鸟库吉为代表的日本学者从西方的实证主义史学研究理论出发,在主张严格区分亚洲历史上诸多民族建立的地方政权的基础上,彻底推翻中国传统古史系统,从而得出以“抹杀论”为代表的崭新研究结论。这种研究结论与近代日本社会文化中正经历着的对中国古代文化由崇敬到贬低的认识上的转型相适应,并成为这种认识转型的助推剂。顾颉刚以中国传统史学的辨伪、考据为主要研究目标与方法,充分借鉴同时代学界在考古学、金石学以及地理历史学上的考证性研究成果,提出“层累说”,力求在推翻中国传统古史系统的同时,建立起新的中国古史体系。顾颉刚展开地理沿革史的研究时,曾经指出中国社会面临“强邻”抹煞事实,“国人亦多数典忘祖,随声附和”的现状,由此可以判定,在这样的现实背景下,顾颉刚的地理沿革史研究也肩负着时代的使命。
[Abstract]:Shiratori Cuyoshi and Gu Jie Gang, the former founder of the modern Japanese Eastern school, the founder of the "ancient history discrimination" school in the period of the Republic of China, the former put forward "Yao Shunyu erastist theory", the latter put forward "tiring theory", which all caused great waves in the Chinese and Japanese academics at that time, and the debate and controversy continued. The research on the ancient Chinese history of bird cungi and Gu Jie gang has appeared. However, the existing research results are mainly from the academic background and academic origin of the two to find out whether there is an inheriting relationship between the academic and academic origin of the two. It is rare for a specific subject in the two academics and the contrast of specific views, and there is no special focus on Shiratori Cuyoshi. And Gu Jie Gang's comparative study of Yu Gong's analysis and analysis method, and the comparative study of its content and conclusion. This article is based on the discrimination and analysis of Yu Gong. By comparing the two aspects of Yu Gong's book age, the value of legend, the value of geography, the "Yu Gong > Jiuzhou theory", "five serving" and so on, compare the perspective of the study between the two in the study of ancient Chinese history. The different similarities and differences between the methods, the level and the depth, thus reflecting the different tendencies of the modern Japanese academic circles and the academic circles of the Republic of China on the Chinese ancient history. This article mainly studies from four aspects. The first chapter analyzes the academic origin of Shiratori Cuyoshi and Gu Jiegang's thought of "doubting the ancient". Both Shiratori Cuyoshi and Gu Jiegang 's "suspicion of the ancient" thought are both traditional. However, from the western historiography methods and ideas, Shiratori Cuyoshi completely overthrew the idea of "seeing the legend as a letter of history" before Meiji, revealing the legendary nature of Chinese ancient history, which was a thorough deconstruction of ancient Chinese history. Gu Jie Gang studied Chinese traditional historical scholars as a whole. On the basis of questioning the ancient and false scholarship, we attach great importance to the academic achievements of the dispute between the Shang Dynasty and the ancient and the ancient Chinese and the Song Dynasty, the textual research in the Qing Dynasty, the academic achievements of the archaeology and the gold stone studies, and the study of the ancient history of China, and the completion of the reconstruction of the ancient history of China on the basis of the traditional "simple textual research" on the basis of the examination of the false books and the pseudo history. For the deconstruction and reconstruction of the ancient history of China, the second chapter of this article analyzes the similarities and differences between the views and methods of the age and value of Yu Gong, the age and the method of Yu Gong. On the age of Yu Gong, Shiratori Cuyoshi thought that the legend of "Yao Shunyu three kings" was produced at the same time, so the age of the book of Yu Gong should be complete with the time mentioned above. In the spring and Autumn period, before Confucius, Gu Jie Gang thought that Yu's legends should appear before the legend of Yao and Shun, and that the age of Yu Gong was later than the legendary period, that is, before the period of the Warring States period, and before the reunification of the Qin Dynasty. The two parties had an opposite view of the geography value of Yu Gong. Shiratori Cuyoshi not only completely denied < Yu. The geographical value of Gong > completely obliterated the geography and historical value of the book in the book of Shang Xia and Xia Shu, and Gu Jie Gang regarded Yu Gong as the "treasure of geography of our country". This totally opposite view reflected that the two parties were totally different in the basic position of Yu Gong. The third chapter of this article revolves around the two parties to "Yu Gong >" Jiuzhou. In contrast to Shiratori Cuyoshi's special textual research on the time problem of the name of "Yu Gong > Jiuzhou", Gu Jie Gang made a special examination of this problem; Shiratori Cuyoshi questioned the authenticity of the "Jiuzhou theory" from the traditional Chinese ideas, and Gu Jie Gang started from the change of the territory in the different historical periods of the Chinese original Dynasty. To examine the time and evolution process of the emergence of the "Jiuzhou theory", Shiratori Cuyoshi, taking the legendary nature of the traditional beliefs as the premise of the argument, advocated the thorough "obliteration"; Gu Jie Gang, starting from the textual research of the traditional Chinese history, confirmed the authenticity of Yu Gong as a prerequisite, and advocated the prudent "dialectical" and the white bird library. Ji thought that Yu Gong and Jiuzhou were not true. Gu Jie Gang thought that Yu Gong was the actual division of the geographical territory of the Warring States period. The fourth chapters of this article revolve around the discrimination and analysis of the two parties to the "Yu Gong > five serving" and the five Yue. Both Shiratori Cuyoshi and Gu Jie Gang all thought that there was a fantasy in the "Yu Gong > five costume theory". Shiratori Cuyoshi thought that the "five clothes" system was not a measurement of the actual geographical territory. Gu Jie Gang thought that the "five Costume" system existed in ancient China, but only because of the detailed description of the number of "five clothes" in Yu Gong, which made it colorful. Shiratori Cuyoshi and Gu Jie gang were both "Yu Gong". In the study of the five mountains, Shiratori Cuyoshi ignored the rich mountain geographical information in Yu Gong, but only revolves around the thought of the five palace of heaven. Gu Jie Gang is devoted to the origin and evolution of the name of Yu Gong and Wu Yue, and then combs the formation process of the concept of mountains in ancient Chinese history. From Yu Gong, "five clothes" and "five Yue" On the basis of the system, the two also generalizes the shape features of the ancient territory in China: Shiratori Cuyoshi believes that "the north and the south are long, the things are short", and Gu Jiegang thinks that "it is narrower than the north and the South and wider than the East and the west". As for the Hua Yi system, Gu Jiegang emphasizes the early formation of the ethnic fusion in the Chinese nation, unlike Shiratori Cuyoshi's advocation of "Chinese barbarians". From the specific differences between Shiratori Cuyoshi and Gu Jie Gang to the conclusion of Yu Gong, we see two kinds of different academic systems: Japanese scholars, represented by Shiratori Cuyoshi, start from the theory of Western positivistic historiography, and advocate a strict distinction between the places established by many ethnic groups in Asian history. On the basis of the political power, the traditional Chinese ancient history system was thoroughly overthrown, and the new research conclusion represented by the "discredit theory" was obtained, which was adapted to the transformation of Chinese ancient culture from reverence to demeaning in modern Japanese culture, and became the boost agent of this kind of transformation. Taking the identification of Chinese traditional history and textual research as the main research target and method, we fully draw on the results of textual research in archaeology, gold stone and geography history of the same era, and put forward the "tiring theory", and strive to establish a new Chinese ancient history system while overthrowing the traditional Chinese ancient history system. In the study of history, it was pointed out that Chinese society was confronted with the fact of "strong neighbours" to erase the facts, and the status of "many people also forget their ancestors and go with them". Thus, it can be judged that, under such realistic background, Gu Jie Gang's study on the history of geography also shouldered the mission of the times.

【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：K22

【参考文献】