Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.53106/160759942023060040002
謝曉東 謝曉東
本文以頗受爭議的《世穆兩朝編年史》為例，探討晚明私修嘉隆史著者政治與學術的個人際遇對其歷史書寫的影響。這些史著的歷史書寫，對晚明中下層官僚士人而言，是他們應對自身政治遭遇的一種策略。晚明史著者藉助對嘉隆近代史事和人物的書寫，表達自我的情感、政治期許、現實訴求和人際網絡。從「活的歷史書寫」視角分析這類史著，可以跳脫出既有史學史研究對其扁平化的分析，從而管窺晚明中下層士人的某種生存策略，以及現實因素與歷史書寫的互動。 In order to better understand the late Ming history of low-ranking literati-officials, this article takes as its point of departure the unofficial history Shimu liangchao biannianshi written by Zhi Dalun. The focus will be on how Zhi Dalun’s political and academic experience influenced his unofficial history of the Jiajing and Longqing reigns. For low-ranking literati-officials in the late Ming, the writing of histories was one strategic response to their personal experience. By writing and commenting on modern events and figures, such writings reveal their private emotions, political expectations, concrete demands, and personal network. If we analyze these histories from the perspective of “living history,” not only can we supercede the flat narrative of the current historiographic landscape, but further glimpse the middle-to-low ranking literati-official’s survival strategies and the interaction between real-time factors and their history writing.
本文以颇受争议的《世穆两朝编年史》为例，探讨晚明私修嘉隆史著者政治与学术的个人际遇对其历史书写的影响。这些史著的历史书写，对晚明中下层官僚士人而言，是他们应对自身政治遭遇的一种策略。晚明史著者借助对嘉隆近代史事和人物的书写，表达自我的情感、政治期许、现实诉求和人际网络。从「活的历史书写」视角分析这类史著，可以跳脱出既有史学史研究对其扁平化的分析，从而管窥晚明中下层士人的某种生存策略，以及现实因素与历史书写的互动。 In order to better understand the late Ming history of low-ranking literati-officials, this article takes as its point of departure the unofficial history Shimu liangchao biannianshi written by Zhi Dalun. The focus will be on how Zhi Dalun’s political and academic experience influenced his unofficial history of the Jiajing and Longqing reigns. For low-ranking literati-officials in the late Ming, the writing of histories was one strategic response to their personal experience. By writing and commenting on modern events and figures, such writings reveal their private emotions, political expectations, concrete demands, and personal network. If we analyze these histories from the perspective of “living history,” not only can we supercede the flat narrative of the current historiographic landscape, but further glimpse the middle-to-low ranking literati-official’s survival strategies and the interaction between real-time factors and their history writing.
{"title":"晚明私修嘉隆史書著者的個人際遇與歷史書寫──以支大綸《世穆兩朝編年史》為例","authors":"謝曉東 謝曉東","doi":"10.53106/160759942023060040002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/160759942023060040002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 本文以頗受爭議的《世穆兩朝編年史》為例，探討晚明私修嘉隆史著者政治與學術的個人際遇對其歷史書寫的影響。這些史著的歷史書寫，對晚明中下層官僚士人而言，是他們應對自身政治遭遇的一種策略。晚明史著者藉助對嘉隆近代史事和人物的書寫，表達自我的情感、政治期許、現實訴求和人際網絡。從「活的歷史書寫」視角分析這類史著，可以跳脫出既有史學史研究對其扁平化的分析，從而管窺晚明中下層士人的某種生存策略，以及現實因素與歷史書寫的互動。\u0000 In order to better understand the late Ming history of low-ranking literati-officials, this article takes as its point of departure the unofficial history Shimu liangchao biannianshi written by Zhi Dalun. The focus will be on how Zhi Dalun’s political and academic experience influenced his unofficial history of the Jiajing and Longqing reigns. For low-ranking literati-officials in the late Ming, the writing of histories was one strategic response to their personal experience. By writing and commenting on modern events and figures, such writings reveal their private emotions, political expectations, concrete demands, and personal network. If we analyze these histories from the perspective of “living history,” not only can we supercede the flat narrative of the current historiographic landscape, but further glimpse the middle-to-low ranking literati-official’s survival strategies and the interaction between real-time factors and their history writing.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":160957,"journal":{"name":"明代研究","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114445500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.53106/160759942023060040003
馬驥 馬驥
日本學者稻葉岩吉最早指出鴨綠江的支流渾江在明代有「橫江」之名，但這一觀點從未得到證實。通過爬梳熊廷弼〈勘覆地界疏〉、《狀啓謄錄》等文獻的記載可知，該觀點是成立的。橫江還從河流名稱引申為區域名稱。直到成化朝（1465-1487）為止，明朝官方只是對朝鮮王朝（1392-1919）用以稱呼渾江的「婆豬江」地名稍有了解，此後長期對渾江缺乏認知。萬曆三十六、三十七年（1608、1609）間，熊廷弼在遼東的勘界調查，使「橫江」一名得以廣泛傳佈。明末遼東戰事爆發後，明朝不少官僚士人都重視橫江的軍事地理價值。但隨著明亡清興，以及這一歷史進程中的邊疆人群瓦解，流域封禁，橫江失去了穩固為官方地名的機會，不再見諸文獻記載。 The Japanese scholar Inaba Iwakichi was the first to point out that, during the Ming dynasty, the Hun River, a tributary of the Yalu River, had been called Hengjiang, but this view had not been independently confirmed. After combing through and analyzing Xiong Tingbi’s “Kanfu Dijie Shu,” “Zhuangqi Tenglu,” and other documents, it can be verified that this view is indeed correct. Hengjiang was further extended from a river name to a regional name. Up until the Chenghua reign (1465-1487), the Ming officials were only vaguely familiar with the name Pajeogang used by the Choson dynasty (1392-1919) to address the Hun River, but from that time onward, they had little awareness of the Hun River. However, Xiong Tingbi’s survey of the national boundary in Liaodong carried out during the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh years of the Wanli reign (1608, 1609) made it widespread. After the Liaodong War broke out in the late Ming, many officials and scholars attached importance to the military geographic value of the name Hengjiang and its river and territory. However, with the fall of the Ming and the rise of the Qing dynasty, as well as the collapse of the frontier people and the closure of the watershed basin in this historical process, the name Hengjiang lost the opportunity to become an official place name and its use was discontinued.
日本学者稻叶岩吉最早指出鸭绿江的支流浑江在明代有「横江」之名，但这一观点从未得到证实。通过爬梳熊廷弼〈勘覆地界疏〉、《状启誊录》等文献的记载可知，该观点是成立的。横江还从河流名称引申为区域名称。直到成化朝（1465-1487）为止，明朝官方只是对朝鲜王朝（1392-1919）用以称呼浑江的「婆猪江」地名稍有了解，此后长期对浑江缺乏认知。万历三十六、三十七年（1608、1609）间，熊廷弼在辽东的勘界调查，使「横江」一名得以广泛传布。明末辽东战事爆发后，明朝不少官僚士人都重视横江的军事地理价值。但随著明亡清兴，以及这一历史进程中的边疆人群瓦解，流域封禁，横江失去了稳固为官方地名的机会，不再见诸文献记载。 The Japanese scholar Inaba Iwakichi was the first to point out that, during the Ming dynasty, the Hun River, a tributary of the Yalu River, had been called Hengjiang, but this view had not been independently confirmed. After combing through and analyzing Xiong Tingbi’s “Kanfu Dijie Shu,” “Zhuangqi Tenglu,” and other documents, it can be verified that this view is indeed correct. Hengjiang was further extended from a river name to a regional name. Up until the Chenghua reign (1465-1487), the Ming officials were only vaguely familiar with the name Pajeogang used by the Choson dynasty (1392-1919) to address the Hun River, but from that time onward, they had little awareness of the Hun River. However, Xiong Tingbi’s survey of the national boundary in Liaodong carried out during the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh years of the Wanli reign (1608, 1609) made it widespread. After the Liaodong War broke out in the late Ming, many officials and scholars attached importance to the military geographic value of the name Hengjiang and its river and territory. However, with the fall of the Ming and the rise of the Qing dynasty, as well as the collapse of the frontier people and the closure of the watershed basin in this historical process, the name Hengjiang lost the opportunity to become an official place name and its use was discontinued.
{"title":"晚明遼東「橫江」考","authors":"馬驥 馬驥","doi":"10.53106/160759942023060040003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/160759942023060040003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 日本學者稻葉岩吉最早指出鴨綠江的支流渾江在明代有「橫江」之名，但這一觀點從未得到證實。通過爬梳熊廷弼〈勘覆地界疏〉、《狀啓謄錄》等文獻的記載可知，該觀點是成立的。橫江還從河流名稱引申為區域名稱。直到成化朝（1465-1487）為止，明朝官方只是對朝鮮王朝（1392-1919）用以稱呼渾江的「婆豬江」地名稍有了解，此後長期對渾江缺乏認知。萬曆三十六、三十七年（1608、1609）間，熊廷弼在遼東的勘界調查，使「橫江」一名得以廣泛傳佈。明末遼東戰事爆發後，明朝不少官僚士人都重視橫江的軍事地理價值。但隨著明亡清興，以及這一歷史進程中的邊疆人群瓦解，流域封禁，橫江失去了穩固為官方地名的機會，不再見諸文獻記載。\u0000 The Japanese scholar Inaba Iwakichi was the first to point out that, during the Ming dynasty, the Hun River, a tributary of the Yalu River, had been called Hengjiang, but this view had not been independently confirmed. After combing through and analyzing Xiong Tingbi’s “Kanfu Dijie Shu,” “Zhuangqi Tenglu,” and other documents, it can be verified that this view is indeed correct. Hengjiang was further extended from a river name to a regional name. Up until the Chenghua reign (1465-1487), the Ming officials were only vaguely familiar with the name Pajeogang used by the Choson dynasty (1392-1919) to address the Hun River, but from that time onward, they had little awareness of the Hun River. However, Xiong Tingbi’s survey of the national boundary in Liaodong carried out during the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh years of the Wanli reign (1608, 1609) made it widespread. After the Liaodong War broke out in the late Ming, many officials and scholars attached importance to the military geographic value of the name Hengjiang and its river and territory. However, with the fall of the Ming and the rise of the Qing dynasty, as well as the collapse of the frontier people and the closure of the watershed basin in this historical process, the name Hengjiang lost the opportunity to become an official place name and its use was discontinued.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":160957,"journal":{"name":"明代研究","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133719850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.53106/160759942023060040001
王昌偉 王昌偉
長期以來，學界在討論明清之際天主教來華對士大夫階層的衝擊時，都傾向於把焦點集中在論述以儒家為代表的中國傳統文化和天主教教義之間的衝突或調和，以及辨別個別士大夫思想中的儒家和天主教成分。近來雖然因為受到新的學術思潮的啟發，已有新的研究視角出現，但上述範式仍主導著學者的寫作。因此，學界多從儒耶衝突的角度，解讀入教士大夫王徵（1571-1644）因膝下無子而受家人逼迫娶妾一事。以往論者認為，自小受儒家以無後為不孝的觀念熏陶的王徵，入教以後，因為天主教以納妾為違反一夫一妻原則的淫行而面對兩難的局面，其內心的矛盾與掙扎，彰顯了天主教在中國傳播過程中遭遇儒家倫理時所面對的阻力。本文則試圖證明，圍繞著王徵納妾一事而產生的一系列文本，其中的複雜性和多層次的意義，不是利用「儒」、「耶」這類經過高度化約的概念可以揭示的。因此，本文將緊隨文本自身的脈絡和語境，在晚明重情文化的背景下，還原王徵對納妾行為及相關問題的反思，並說明王徵如何通過書寫情欲，把信仰、傳教、親情、生理的欲望、身體的規訓與救贖等多方面的因素結合起來，展現了明清之際情欲觀一些甚少獲得關注、但值得重視的面向。 For a very long time, studies on Chinese-Christian encounters during the late Ming tend to focus on how the two value systems went through a process of conflict or accommodation. Historians are particularly interested in trying to identify and distinguish the Christian or Confucian components in the thought of individual scholar-official who were engaged in such interactions. For this reason, when the Christian scholar-official Wang Zheng (1571-1644) produced a collection of texts to recount how he was forced by his family to take a concubine because he had no son and how he felt ashamed of himself for failing to observe the Christian precept concerning adultery, modern scholars tend to interpret Wang’s distress as a manifestation of the dilemma of an individual who were caught between two incompatible value systems: the Confucian tradition that criticizes the inability to produce an heir as unfilial and the Christian tradition that forbids sexual intercourse with another woman who is not your legal wife. Wang’s struggle, according to these scholars, is indicative of the difficulty that Christianity faced when it was trying to gain a foothold in Confucian China. This article will show that we cannot do justice to the complexity of the texts produced in relation to the incident by simply analysing them using a pair of highly essentialized concepts as in Confucianism and Christianity. Instead, we should follow the logic of the narrative closely to try to understand Wang Zheng’s reflection within the context of the rise of the notion of qing in the late Ming. Only then could we fully appreciate Wang’s unique take on the connections between religious belief, missionary work, family affection and obligation, bodily desire and discipline, and salvation. Wang’s view might be idiosyncratic, but it is also a product of its time.
长期以来，学界在讨论明清之际天主教来华对士大夫阶层的冲击时，都倾向于把焦点集中在论述以儒家为代表的中国传统文化和天主教教义之间的冲突或调和，以及辨别个别士大夫思想中的儒家和天主教成分。近来虽然因为受到新的学术思潮的启发，已有新的研究视角出现，但上述范式仍主导著学者的写作。因此，学界多从儒耶冲突的角度，解读入教士大夫王征（1571-1644）因膝下无子而受家人逼迫娶妾一事。以往论者认为，自小受儒家以无后为不孝的观念熏陶的王征，入教以后，因为天主教以纳妾为违反一夫一妻原则的淫行而面对两难的局面，其内心的矛盾与挣扎，彰显了天主教在中国传播过程中遭遇儒家伦理时所面对的阻力。本文则试图证明，围绕著王征纳妾一事而产生的一系列文本，其中的复杂性和多层次的意义，不是利用「儒」、「耶」这类经过高度化约的概念可以揭示的。因此，本文将紧随文本自身的脉络和语境，在晚明重情文化的背景下，还原王征对纳妾行为及相关问题的反思，并说明王征如何通过书写情欲，把信仰、传教、亲情、生理的欲望、身体的规训与救赎等多方面的因素结合起来，展现了明清之际情欲观一些甚少获得关注、但值得重视的面向。 For a very long time, studies on Chinese-Christian encounters during the late Ming tend to focus on how the two value systems went through a process of conflict or accommodation. Historians are particularly interested in trying to identify and distinguish the Christian or Confucian components in the thought of individual scholar-official who were engaged in such interactions. For this reason, when the Christian scholar-official Wang Zheng (1571-1644) produced a collection of texts to recount how he was forced by his family to take a concubine because he had no son and how he felt ashamed of himself for failing to observe the Christian precept concerning adultery, modern scholars tend to interpret Wang’s distress as a manifestation of the dilemma of an individual who were caught between two incompatible value systems: the Confucian tradition that criticizes the inability to produce an heir as unfilial and the Christian tradition that forbids sexual intercourse with another woman who is not your legal wife. Wang’s struggle, according to these scholars, is indicative of the difficulty that Christianity faced when it was trying to gain a foothold in Confucian China. This article will show that we cannot do justice to the complexity of the texts produced in relation to the incident by simply analysing them using a pair of highly essentialized concepts as in Confucianism and Christianity. Instead, we should follow the logic of the narrative closely to try to understand Wang Zheng’s reflection within the context of the rise of the notion of qing in the late Ming. Only then could we fully appreciate Wang’s unique take on the connections between religious belief, missionary work, family affection and obligation, bodily desire and discipline, and salvation. Wang’s view might be idiosyncratic, but it is also a product of its time.
{"title":"晚明重情文化下入教士大夫的納妾與懺悔：以王徵《崇一堂日記隨筆》為例","authors":"王昌偉 王昌偉","doi":"10.53106/160759942023060040001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/160759942023060040001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 長期以來，學界在討論明清之際天主教來華對士大夫階層的衝擊時，都傾向於把焦點集中在論述以儒家為代表的中國傳統文化和天主教教義之間的衝突或調和，以及辨別個別士大夫思想中的儒家和天主教成分。近來雖然因為受到新的學術思潮的啟發，已有新的研究視角出現，但上述範式仍主導著學者的寫作。因此，學界多從儒耶衝突的角度，解讀入教士大夫王徵（1571-1644）因膝下無子而受家人逼迫娶妾一事。以往論者認為，自小受儒家以無後為不孝的觀念熏陶的王徵，入教以後，因為天主教以納妾為違反一夫一妻原則的淫行而面對兩難的局面，其內心的矛盾與掙扎，彰顯了天主教在中國傳播過程中遭遇儒家倫理時所面對的阻力。本文則試圖證明，圍繞著王徵納妾一事而產生的一系列文本，其中的複雜性和多層次的意義，不是利用「儒」、「耶」這類經過高度化約的概念可以揭示的。因此，本文將緊隨文本自身的脈絡和語境，在晚明重情文化的背景下，還原王徵對納妾行為及相關問題的反思，並說明王徵如何通過書寫情欲，把信仰、傳教、親情、生理的欲望、身體的規訓與救贖等多方面的因素結合起來，展現了明清之際情欲觀一些甚少獲得關注、但值得重視的面向。\u0000 For a very long time, studies on Chinese-Christian encounters during the late Ming tend to focus on how the two value systems went through a process of conflict or accommodation. Historians are particularly interested in trying to identify and distinguish the Christian or Confucian components in the thought of individual scholar-official who were engaged in such interactions. For this reason, when the Christian scholar-official Wang Zheng (1571-1644) produced a collection of texts to recount how he was forced by his family to take a concubine because he had no son and how he felt ashamed of himself for failing to observe the Christian precept concerning adultery, modern scholars tend to interpret Wang’s distress as a manifestation of the dilemma of an individual who were caught between two incompatible value systems: the Confucian tradition that criticizes the inability to produce an heir as unfilial and the Christian tradition that forbids sexual intercourse with another woman who is not your legal wife. Wang’s struggle, according to these scholars, is indicative of the difficulty that Christianity faced when it was trying to gain a foothold in Confucian China.\u0000 This article will show that we cannot do justice to the complexity of the texts produced in relation to the incident by simply analysing them using a pair of highly essentialized concepts as in Confucianism and Christianity. Instead, we should follow the logic of the narrative closely to try to understand Wang Zheng’s reflection within the context of the rise of the notion of qing in the late Ming. Only then could we fully appreciate Wang’s unique take on the connections between religious belief, missionary work, family affection and obligation, bodily desire and discipline, and salvation. Wang’s view might be idiosyncratic, but it is also a product of its time.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":160957,"journal":{"name":"明代研究","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115036924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：