|
2014年历史文献学专业硕士论文摘要
1、乾隆朝钦定正史研究
论文作者：周勇军
导师姓名：阚红柳
培养单位：历史学院清史所
论文题目：乾隆朝钦定正史研究
中文摘要
正史作为最重要、最正规的史书，历来受到统治者的重视。随着封建王朝对史学控制的日益加强，正史的政治含义不断上升，最终在乾隆朝达到了顶峰。它的标志便是钦定正史。乾隆朝钦定正史，不仅刊刻出版武英殿本《二十四史》，还借助考证、改修、褒贬等方式赋予了二十四史以清朝正统的含义，更通过《四库全书总目》公开认定正史即为二十四部纪传体史书，确立了正史的神圣地位。这一行为对于认识乾隆帝及其文化政策具有重要的意义。本文即以乾隆朝钦定正史这一历史事件为研究对象，对正史钦定的源流、乾隆朝钦定正史的过程、标准、评价做一整体考察，力求对乾隆朝钦定正史做一个较为全面的分析和考量。
本文首先追溯正史钦定的历史渊源。既探讨清以前正史含义的演变，又抓住顺康雍时期书籍钦定的时代特征以及顺康雍三帝对正史的态度，以此来为乾隆朝钦定正史埋下伏笔。其次，叙述乾隆朝钦定正史的完整过程。从乾隆帝对正史的重视角度来探讨乾隆朝钦定正史的缘起，从《明史》和《二十一史》的改修，《旧唐书》和《旧五代史》的重新纳入，以及钦定正史的最终确立三个方面来再现乾隆朝钦定正史的具体工作。再次，探讨乾隆朝钦定正史的标准。以《四库全书总目》为切入点，分析钦定正史的学术标准和政治标准，探究钦定正史的依据所在。最后，客观评价乾隆朝钦定正史这一历史事件。着重从正史发展的利与弊和官方主导的功与过两方面进行分析。
英文摘要
As the most important and most formal history books, the official histories always drew the attention of the rulers. And the political meaning of the official histories rise with the feudal dynasty increasingly strengthen control of historiography, finally, it reached its peak in the reign of Emperor Qianlong. The symbol is the imperial standard history. Imperial standard history in Qianlong reign, not only the Wuying Palace version of Twenty-Four Histories was printed, but also a orthodox meaning was giving to the Twenty-Four Histories by the ways of textual research, modify, praise or blame. Moreover, the official histories were authorized in public as the Twenty-Four History books by the Si Ku Quan Shu Zong Mu and was seen as the official sacred status. This behavior has an important significance to understanding the Qianlong emperor and the cultural policy. This paper investigates the imperial standard history in Qianlong reign, has an overall inspection for the origins of imperial standard history; the process, standards, evaluation of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign and strives to make a comprehensive analysis and consideration of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign.
Firstly, this paper traces the historical origin of the imperial standard history. It discusses the evolution of the official histories meaning before Qing Dynasty; finds out the characteristics of the books made by imperial reign of ShunKangYong （Shunzhi, Kangxi and Yongzheng） and the attitudes of these three emperors towards the official histories, which are the foreshadowing of the imperial standard history in Qianlong reign. Secondly, it describes a complete process of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign. It explores the origin of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign from the perspective of the official histories emphasized by Emperor Qianlong. It shows the specific work of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign from three aspects, the modification of Ming History and Twenty-one Histories, the re-inclusion of Old History of Tang Dynasty, Old History of the FiveDynasties and the ultimate establishment of imperial standard history. Thirdly, it discusses the criterion of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign. It analysis the academic and political criterion of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign from the Si Ku Quan Shu Zong Mu and explores the basis of the imperial standard history. Lastly, the author gives an objective evaluation of imperial standard history in Qianlong reign, focuses on the pros and cons of the development of official histories and analysizes the merits and demerits of the official leading.
2、宋人笔记中的文书档案史料研究
论文作者：周蕾
导师姓名：李晓菊
培养单位：历史学院历史系
论文题目：宋人笔记中的文书档案史料研究
中文摘要
笔记作为一种内容广博、形式多样的文献载体，其所包含的社会历史与文化方面的史料是极为丰富的，尤其是中唐以后乃至宋代的笔记，在内容上，较之前代的笔记或笔记小说更注重真实性、知识性，更多地涉及政治、历史、语言、文学、典制、礼仪、风俗等多方面的内容，与史学、考据学的关系也更为密切，具有较高的史料价值。
本文主要针对宋人笔记中所载文书档案史料，展开系统的搜集、分析和论述，揭示其独特的价值特点。以往对宋人笔记史料价值的研究，多集中在文学、社会学等层面，史学层面对文书档案史料的关注寥寥无几。本文尝试从历史学的角度，结合文书学等相关学科，探究文书档案史与政治制度史的关系。
首先，介绍宋人笔记发展及其时代特征。主要从宋代政治、历史背景入手，考察笔记写作的时代背景，如宋代官僚政治特点、造纸印刷业的发展、学术思想面貌等问题，在此基础上，分析宋人笔记的主要类别及内容特征，对宋人笔记的整体概貌进行考察。本文的主体部分是对宋人笔记中所载文书档案史料进行总述性考察。即从文书制度的角度，对笔记所载有关文书撰制机构与官吏、文书制度与管理法规、档案的保藏与利用和文书种类及其源变等方面，展开分类论述。最后，就宋人笔记中所载文书问题的讨论，进一步探究其对前代文书档案史和当代文书档案工作的研究价值。同时，分析宋人笔记所载文书档案史料的来源，揭示其独特的史料价值特点。
总之，本文通过对宋人笔记的全面详尽的史料搜集，发现宋人笔记中文书档案新材料，尽力补充学界对于笔记中文书档案史料研究的缺漏，并将文书资料与历史研究相结合，进而揭示出宋人笔记不同于前代的独特价值面貌。
英文摘要
As a literature carrier, the notes have extensive contents and various forms, its social history and cultural historical data is extremely rich, especially for the notes after the Middle Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty, in the content, compared to the previous generation note or notes novels pay more attention to truth, knowledge, more involved in politics, history, language, literature, code systems, etiquette, customs and other aspects of the content, and the relationship with historiography and textual criticism is more closer,which has a high historical value.
This article will center on archives historical data from the notes of Song Dynasty to have a systematic collection, analysis and discussion, reveal its unique value characteristics. Previous studies on the notes of Song Dynasty historical value are more concentrated in the literature, sociology and other aspects, historiography in archives historical data has a very little attention. This article attempts from the perspective of history, combining the archives and other related subjects, to explore the relationship between archival history and the history of the political system.
Firstly, introduces the development and characteristics of the notes of song dynasty. Mainly from the Song Dynasty political, historical background to study the writing background of notes, such as the Song Dynasty bureaucratic characteristics, papermaking and printing industry, academic thought and other issues, on this basis, analysis the main categories and content of the notes feature, the general picture of the notes. The main part of this paper have a general investigation of the archives historical data from the notes of Song Dynasty . From the angle of the archives system, the relevant archives and official archives writing mechanism,system and management regulations, archives preservation and utilization and archives types and source change, expansion discussed. Finally, discusses on the archives from the notes of Song Dynasty ,further the exploration of the work of the former generation archival history and contemporary archival research value. At the same time, analysis on the sources of archives historical data from the notes of Song Dynasty, revealing its unique historical value characteristics.
3、《集古录跋尾》和《金石录》比较研究
论文作者：古云霞
导师姓名：皮庆生
培养单位：历史学院历史系
论文题目：《集古录跋尾》和《金石录》比较研究
中文摘要
欧阳修的《集古录跋尾》和赵明诚的《金石录》是宋代金石学的两部代表性著作，学界对二书的个案研究不少，但对二者进行比较研究，进而考察宋代金石学发展趋势者并不多。本文以《集古录跋尾》和《金石录》为主要材料，结合宋人笔记、文集等史料，详考二书的材料来源、引书情况，探讨二书在“正经考史”方面之沿革异同。
本文认为，《集古录跋尾》之材料来源不如《金石录》广泛，数量亦较少。二书在考证经史时，其征引文献不出经、史、子、集四部范围，数量亦相差无几，但是《金石录》引用子部和集部典籍的数量明显多于《集古录跋尾》。材料来源与引书的差异源于欧、赵二人集录古器碑版的动机有所不同，欧阳修对古器物乃至碑刻铭文的收藏缘于其好古之癖，赵明诚则是从学术的角度出发，真正想要将其著作“以传后学”，以利于金石学的发展。
《集古录跋尾》和《金石录》都致力于“正经考史”，无论是对儒家礼仪（主要指丧葬礼仪）、修乐器之制和古文字的避讳和读音，还是对史事和人物等问题的考证，赵明诚都能推陈出新，纠缪补正，对欧阳修的考证有所推进。二者考证方法大抵相同，均以碑、史互证为主要手段，赵氏更注意从碑文撰地等细节发现并解决问题，并能总结碑刻撰写规律，故其结论也相较欧阳修更为准确。
由于受到好古之癖的影响，欧阳修在《集古录跋尾》中花了很大力气来讨论书法和佛老思想之类的话题，赵氏旨在“以传后学”的学术理想，故能将“正经考史”的理念一以贯之。 《集古录跋尾》和《金石录》的异同比较，不仅反映了欧、赵二人在金石学方法和观念上的继承与发展，也体现了宋代金石学逐渐学术化的发展方向。
英文摘要
Ouyang Xiu’s Jigulubawei (Postscript of Collections on Antiques) and Zhao Mingcheng’s Jinshilu (Collections on Inscriptions) are referred to as two representative works of epigraphy during the Song Dynasty. There is a considerable amount of studies on each of them. However, comparisons between them and research into the trends of Song’s epigraphy were rarely made. Based on the two works, this paper, which is in addition supported by Song’s notes and collected essays, focus in terms of ‘to correct Classics and Histories’ on their differences and similarities by examing their material and quotations.
This paper argues that the material from Ouyang’s Jigulubawei is not so good as Zhao’s Jinshilu both in quality and quantity. In ancient China, books are mainly classified into four branches, including Classics Branch, History Branch, Philosophers Branch and Literature Branch. Neither of the two works quotes beyond this category, and what’s more, the amount of books quoted is almost the same. But apparently Zhao cites much more within the range of Philosophers Branch and Literature Branch as Ouyang. And the difference of material and citations between the two works is a result of various motivations when the authors collect antiques. Ouyang had a pure fondness for antiquity, which leads to his large procession of ancient objects and inscriptions (the foundation of his work), while Zhao writes his book from the academic point of view to promote the development of epigraphy and benefit the future generation.
|
.jpg)
