本文選題：白鳥庫吉 + 顧頡剛�。� 參考：《東北師范大學(xué)》2015年博士論文

【摘要】：白鳥庫吉與顧頡剛,前者是近代日本東洋學(xué)派的創(chuàng)立者,后者是民國(guó)時(shí)期“古史辨”派的創(chuàng)始人；前者提出“堯舜禹抹殺論”,后者提出“層累說”,均在當(dāng)時(shí)中日學(xué)界引起軒然大波,討論與爭(zhēng)鳴持續(xù)不斷。在當(dāng)前的中日史學(xué)界,對(duì)比白鳥庫吉和顧頡剛中國(guó)古史研究的相關(guān)研究已經(jīng)出現(xiàn),然而,已有的研究成果主要從二者的學(xué)術(shù)背景和學(xué)術(shù)淵源入手找尋二者的學(xué)術(shù)是否存在承繼關(guān)系,罕有針對(duì)二者學(xué)術(shù)中的某個(gè)具體課題、具體觀點(diǎn)的對(duì)比,也未出現(xiàn)專門圍繞白鳥庫吉和顧頡剛對(duì)《禹貢》的辨析方法、內(nèi)容與結(jié)論的比較研究。本文以對(duì)《禹貢》的辨析為核心,通過對(duì)比二者對(duì)《禹貢》的成書年代、傳說價(jià)值、地理學(xué)價(jià)值、《禹貢》“九州說”、“五服制”等具體問題的辨析,對(duì)比二者在中國(guó)古史研究中的研究視角、方法、水平、深度上的異同,從而映射出近代日本學(xué)界和中國(guó)民國(guó)學(xué)界對(duì)待中國(guó)古史的不同傾向。本文主要從四個(gè)方面展開研究。第一章剖析白鳥庫吉與顧頡剛“疑古”思想的學(xué)術(shù)淵源。白鳥庫吉和顧頡剛的“疑古”思想都是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)中占主導(dǎo)地位的“信古”思維的挑戰(zhàn)。然而,白鳥庫吉從西方史學(xué)方法和理念出發(fā),徹底推翻明治之前“將傳說視為信史”的觀念,揭示出中國(guó)古史的傳說性質(zhì),這是對(duì)中國(guó)古代史的徹底解構(gòu)。顧頡剛在整體研讀中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)史學(xué)者的疑古辨?zhèn)螌W(xué)術(shù)的基礎(chǔ)上,重視《尚書》今古文之爭(zhēng)和宋代、清代考據(jù)學(xué)敢于質(zhì)疑與辨?zhèn)蔚膶W(xué)術(shù)成就,結(jié)合考古學(xué)、金石學(xué)成果,對(duì)中國(guó)古史展開學(xué)術(shù)研究,在考辨?zhèn)螘�、偽史的同時(shí),完成重建中國(guó)古史的工作。這是在傳統(tǒng)“樸學(xué)考據(jù)”學(xué)基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)中國(guó)古史的解構(gòu)與重新建構(gòu)。本文的第二章主要辨析二者關(guān)于《禹貢》成書年代與價(jià)值的視角、觀點(diǎn)與方法的異同。關(guān)于《禹貢》的成書年代,白鳥庫吉認(rèn)為“堯舜禹三王”傳說是同時(shí)產(chǎn)生的,因此《禹貢》的成書年代也應(yīng)與上述時(shí)間完全一致,即春秋時(shí)代,孔子之前；顧頡剛則認(rèn)為禹的傳說應(yīng)當(dāng)出現(xiàn)在堯舜的傳說之前,而《禹貢》的成書年代又晚于傳說產(chǎn)生的時(shí)期,即戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)代后期,秦統(tǒng)一之前。二者對(duì)于《禹貢》的地理學(xué)價(jià)值存在截然相反的觀點(diǎn)。白鳥庫吉不僅徹底否定《禹貢》的地理學(xué)價(jià)值,更徹底抹殺《尚書》中夏書部分的地理學(xué)和史料學(xué)價(jià)值；顧頡剛則視《禹貢》為“我國(guó)地理學(xué)的寶典”。這種完全對(duì)立的觀點(diǎn)體現(xiàn)出二者在對(duì)待《禹貢》的基本立場(chǎng)上是完全相異的。本文的第三章圍繞二者對(duì)《禹貢》“九州說”的辨析展開。與白鳥庫吉并未對(duì)《禹貢》“九州”名稱的產(chǎn)生時(shí)間問題作專門考證相對(duì),顧頡剛對(duì)此問題作了專門考證；白鳥庫吉從中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)思想觀念入手質(zhì)疑“九州說”的真實(shí)性,顧頡剛從中原王朝不同歷史時(shí)期的疆域變遷入手考證“九州說”的出現(xiàn)時(shí)間與演化過程；白鳥庫吉以強(qiáng)調(diào)傳統(tǒng)信仰的傳說性質(zhì)作為立論前提,主張徹底的“抹殺”；顧頡剛從中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)史學(xué)的樸學(xué)考據(jù)出發(fā),以證實(shí)《禹貢》“九州說”的真實(shí)性作為前提,主張謹(jǐn)慎地“辯證”；白鳥庫吉認(rèn)為《禹貢》“九州”并非真實(shí)存在,顧頡剛則認(rèn)為《禹貢》“九州”是對(duì)戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)代地理疆域的實(shí)際劃分。本文的第四章圍繞二者對(duì)《禹貢》“五服制”與五岳的辨析展開。白鳥庫吉和顧頡剛都認(rèn)為在《禹貢》“五服說”中存在幻想成分。然而,白鳥庫吉認(rèn)為“五服”制度本不是對(duì)實(shí)際地理疆域的測(cè)量,顧頡剛則認(rèn)為“五服”制在中國(guó)古代是實(shí)際存在的,只不過由于《禹貢》中對(duì)于“五服”相距里數(shù)的細(xì)致記述,使得其帶上了幻想的色彩。白鳥庫吉與顧頡剛也都對(duì)《禹貢》“五岳”展開研究,白鳥庫吉忽視《禹貢》中出現(xiàn)的豐富的山川地理信息,而是僅僅圍繞天之五宮思想展開論證。顧頡剛則致力于考證《禹貢》“五岳”名稱的由來與演變,進(jìn)而梳理中國(guó)古史中山岳觀念的形成過程。從《禹貢》“五服”和“五岳”制度出發(fā),二者還對(duì)中國(guó)古代疆域形狀特征作了概括：白鳥庫吉認(rèn)為“南北長(zhǎng)、東西短”；顧頡剛則認(rèn)為“窄于南北而寬于東西”。關(guān)于華夷體系,與白鳥庫吉主張“華夷峻別”不同,顧頡剛突出民族融合在中華民族早期形成中的作用,主張“華夷一體”。從白鳥庫吉與顧頡剛對(duì)《禹貢》辨析結(jié)論的具體差異中,我們看到兩種完全不同的學(xué)術(shù)體系：以白鳥庫吉為代表的日本學(xué)者從西方的實(shí)證主義史學(xué)研究理論出發(fā),在主張嚴(yán)格區(qū)分亞洲歷史上諸多民族建立的地方政權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)上,徹底推翻中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)古史系統(tǒng),從而得出以“抹殺論”為代表的嶄新研究結(jié)論。這種研究結(jié)論與近代日本社會(huì)文化中正經(jīng)歷著的對(duì)中國(guó)古代文化由崇敬到貶低的認(rèn)識(shí)上的轉(zhuǎn)型相適應(yīng),并成為這種認(rèn)識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)型的助推劑。顧頡剛以中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)史學(xué)的辨?zhèn)巍⒖紦?jù)為主要研究目標(biāo)與方法,充分借鑒同時(shí)代學(xué)界在考古學(xué)、金石學(xué)以及地理歷史學(xué)上的考證性研究成果,提出“層累說”,力求在推翻中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)古史系統(tǒng)的同時(shí),建立起新的中國(guó)古史體系。顧頡剛展開地理沿革史的研究時(shí),曾經(jīng)指出中國(guó)社會(huì)面臨“強(qiáng)鄰”抹煞事實(shí),“國(guó)人亦多數(shù)典忘祖,隨聲附和”的現(xiàn)狀,由此可以判定,在這樣的現(xiàn)實(shí)背景下,顧頡剛的地理沿革史研究也肩負(fù)著時(shí)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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：K22

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李孝恮;;域外o"[x，

本文編號(hào)：1797405