2017年11月23日 星期四

蒙古一詞再議

 

The Term “Mongγol” Revisited (蒙古一詞再議) 一文已於近日出版。該文擬就歷史文獻和蒙漢對音兩方面切入,以說明「蒙古」一詞乃源自蒙古的發源地「望建」河。全文刊登於Central Asiatic Journal 60 (2017)1/2, pp.183-206,下面為文章的部分章節。

__________________________________

 

 
 

The Term “Mongγol” Revisited 

Kam Tak-sing甘德星

 

Landscape at the confluence of the Ergüne River and the Shilka River . Photo by Wei-chi ren, 2005




V.  MONG ΓOOL: GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES
          If my hypothesis is correct, there is good reason to assume that the term Mongγol, which is cognate with the hydronym Wang-chien, is derived from the indigenous Mong Γool,[1] the river proposed by Banzarov.[2]  According to Kowalewski, the word mong means ‘riche, opulent; fougueux, impétueux’,[3] the Mong Γool, as such, must have been a fast-flowing river.  This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that the Ergüne River, especially the section from Chi-la-lin 吉拉林 (or Shih-wei) to Lian-yin 連崟,[4] where the early Mongols are known to have settled,[5]flows rapidly.[6]  The name Kiyan (Kiān)[7]乞顏 (kǐət ŋan),[8] one of the two legendary Mongol groups that migrated to the Ergüne Qun, the Mongols’ homeland, echoes this thesis.  According to Rašīd-al Dīn, Kiyan means in Mongolian ‘a rushing torrent from the mountains’.[9]  Moreover, the geographical features of the Ergüne Qun, which, as pointed out by Rašīd-al Dīn, means ‘sloping cliff’, are faithfully reflected by the steep slopes that characterize this particular section of the Ergüne River figs. 2 and 3, as the present-day toponym Lian-yin, which reflects the hilly terrain of the region, also suggests.
The use of the word γool in the ethnonym may seem to contradict what I have noted earlier, i.e., it first appears only in sources published after the 13th century, such as the Mongγol-un ni'uča tobča'an and the various Sino-Mongolian glossaries.  Nonetheless, the naming by the Tibetans of a river south of the Kokonor as Jima Gol~Khol (Ch. Ta-fei Ch'uan大非川[10] < Mo. Dabu(sun) γool[11]) in the seventh century demonstrates beyond a doubt that the term γool was in use during T'ang times.  This Mongol vocable must have been brought by the T'u-yü-hun, a Hsien-pi group,[12] when they migrated from Mongolia to the Kokonor area in the fourth century.  The fact that the Dagur language, which preserves the Middle Mongolian forms, has the same word γol, adds credence to our argument.[13]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Another possible derivation is Möngke Γool, i.e., an ever-flowing river that provided the early Mongols with a reliable source of water. The change from Möngke Γool to Mong Γool can be deduced as follows. Owing to haplology, the syllable -ke in möngke was dropped when merged with the following γool, which was contracted simultaneously to become -γol. The ö in the first syllable of the merged word, because of vowel harmony with the resultant -γol, was further changed to o through regressive assimilation. Though a tantalizing alternative, Möngke Γool is a less likely derivation than Mong Γool because of the complicated process of linguistic change involved.

[2]It is interesting to note that one of the tributaries draining into the Hei-lung-chiang is known as the Mo Ho 漠河 River (or Mu Ho 木河 in Ming times) and that the County named after it is known to have been inhabited by the Shih-wei people. [See Mo Ho hsien-chih 漠河縣志, ed. Wang Shu-ts'ai 王樹才 (Peking: Chung-kuo ta pai-k'e ch'üan shu ch'u-pan she, 1993), pp. 1, 57-6, 107, 657]. However, no reference is made to this river in T’ang sources, and its medieval reading mak γa (Kuo, Ku-yin, pp. 17, 26) does not quite match the term Mongol.

[3]J. E. Kowalewski, Dictionnaire mongol-russe-français, vol. 3 (Kazan, 1844; reprint, Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1993), p. 2029a. Kowalewski’s definition is obviously a translation of I. J. Schmidt, Mongolisch-Deutsch-Russisches Wörterbuch, nebst einem deutschen und einem russischen Wortregister (St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, W. Graeff und Glasunow, and Leipzig:Leopold Voss, 1835), p. 217b: ‘reich, űberflűssig; trotzig, driest’. Though rarely seen, the word mong is not a hapax legomenon. Its use is attested in the Qorin naimatu tayilburi toli (Kőkeqota: Őbőr Monγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a, 1994), p. 1205, where the phrase mong song ügei is glossed as ‘masi elbeg delbeg,’  and in the Mongol kelen-ü toli (Kőkeqota: Őbőr Monγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a, 1999), p. 1870, where the phrase mong ügei is also glossed as ‘elbeg delbeg’. Its existence is furthermore mirrored by its Oyirad counterpart moη, which carries the same meanings of ‘keck, trotzig’ as Kowalewski’s and is used similarly to constitute a toponym (moη-χamγ̥ name eines sandberges bei Sarepta a. d. Wolga). See G. J. Ramstedt, Kalmückisches Wörterbuch (Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1935), p. 264b and H.A. Zwick, Handbuch der Westmongolischen Sprache (Villingen: Ferd. Forderer, 1853), p. 266b, on which the former is based.

[4] Mo Ho Hsien-chi, p. 105; Hsü Chan-chiang et al., eds. Hu-lun Hu chi, p. 37; Hei-lung-chiang chi-kao, chüan 3, pp. 320-321; chüan 4, p. 571.

[5] Recent archaeological discoveries provide evidence that the early Mongols lived in the Ergüne River basin. Their presence is confirmed by the tree-trunk coffins found in the vicinity of the confluence of the Shilka River and the Ergüne River (fig. 1). These coffins, which date from the 8th century to the 9th century, are hollowed out of a massive log, and are typical of those used by the Mongols who later nomadized the Eurasian steppes. The Russian archaeologists who discovered these coffins in the late 1980s call the culture they represent the Dabsun culture. Similar dugout coffins dated around the 10th century have been discovered in West Wu-chu-erh西烏珠爾 and Hsieh-erh-t’a-la謝爾塔拉north of Hu-lun Lake, showing the Mongols’ gradual migration southward. It is from the Hu-lun Lake region that the Mongols moved further west and settled in the Onon River basin since the 10th century. See Lin Mei-ts’un林梅村, Sung Mo Chih Chien 松漠之間(Peking: San-lien shu-tien, 2007), pp. 256-57, Chung-kuo she-hui k’e-hsüeh yüan et al., Hai-la-erh Hsieh-erh-t’a-la mu-ti海拉爾謝爾塔拉墓地 (Peking: K’e-hsüeh ch’u-pan she, 2006).

[6] Rivers in this area flow swiftly. A tributary of the Ergüne now known as the Chi-liu River激流河, as its name suggests, is one such example.

[7] Shi Chi, vol.1 part 1, p.252. For the term Kiyan, see Cha-ch’i-ssu-ch’in, Meng-ku mi-shih hsin-yi ping chu-shih 蒙古秘史新譯並注釋 (Taipei: Lien-ching ch’u-pan shi-yeh kung-ssu, 1979), p. 44, note 2.

[8] Kuo, Ku-yin, p.74, 199.

[9] Shi Chi, vol.1 part 1, p.252. The Mongols’ penchant for evoking a hydronym to name themselves is also evidenced in the term Činggis, which is derived from the Turkic word teŋiz, meaning ‘ocean’. See Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictinary of Pre-Thirteehth Century Turkish, p.527.

[10]Christopher I. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 33, note 109. Note that γool was not used by the Turks to mean river in the T'ang period as Beckwith claims. See Clauson, Etymological Dictionary of Pre-thirteenth Century Turkish, p. 715, where it is noted that kö:l (g-) is ‘never used for “sea”, or for “river”’.

[11]Chou Wei-chou 周偉洲, ‘Ta-fei yü Mo-li 大非與墨離’, in Hsi-pei li-shih yen-chiu 西北歷史研究 (Shan-hsi: San Ts'ing ch'u-pan she, 1990), pp. 129-34.

[12]On the linguistic affinity between the Hsien-pi and T'u-yü-hun languages, see Ch'en Chien 陳踐 and Wang Yao 王堯, Tung-huang T'u-po wen-hsien hsüan 敦煌吐蕃文獻選 (Peking: Min-tsu ch'u-pan she, 1983), p. 162 and Paul Pelliot, ‘Notes sur les T'ou-yu-houen et les Sou-p'i’, T'oung Pao, vol. 20 (1921), pp. 323-30.

[13]Nicholas Poppe, Grammar of Written Mongolian, p.2; Na-shun ta-lai那順達來, Niakan Daor Bulku biteg (Hu-ho-hao-t’e: Nei Meng-ku ta-hsüeh ch’u-pan-she, 2001), p. 128.




(國立中正大學滿洲研究班甘德星)


2017年11月14日 星期二

Companions in Geography: East-West Collaboration in the Mapping of Qing China (c.1685-1735)




Mario Cams, University of Macau
ISBN13: 9789004345355
E-ISBN: 9789004345362
Publication Date: July 2017
Format: Hardback
Pages, Illustr.: xiv, 280 pp.


In Companions in Geography Mario Cams revisits the early 18th century mapping of Qing China, without doubt one of the largest cartographic endeavours of the early modern world. Commonly seen as a Jesuit initiative, the project appears here as the result of a convergence of interests among the French Academy of Sciences, the Jesuit order, and the Kangxi emperor (r. 1661-1722). These connections inspired the gradual integration of European and East Asian scientific practices and led to a period of intense land surveying, executed by large teams of Qing officials and European missionaries. The resulting maps and atlases, all widely circulated across Eurasia, remained the most authoritative cartographic representations of continental East Asia for over a century.

This book is based on Dr. Mario Cams' dissertation, which has been awarded the "2017 DHST Prize for Young Scholars" from the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, Division of History of Science and Technology (IUHPST/DHST).



Table of contents
Acknowledgements

List of Illustrations

Introduction: Towards a New Cartography of Cross-cultural Circulation
 1 Situating the Study
 2 Delineation and Approach
 3 Cartography and the Jesuit Missions to China
 4 Chapter Overview

1 Instruments for the Emperor: New Frontiers, New Practices
 1.1 An Instrumental Convergence of Interests
  1.1.1 The Académie and the Instrument Market in Paris
  1.1.2 The King’s Mathematicians’ Interest in Cartography
  1.1.3 Paris-made Instruments for the French Mission
 1.2 Improving Cartographies: An Emperor’s Quest
  1.2.1 The Kangxi Emperor’s Cartographic Aspirations
  1.2.2 Qing Statecraft and Cartographic Practice
  1.2.3 The Qing Court’s Appropriation of Paris-made Instruments
 1.3 Frontier Matters: New Qing Cartographic Practice
  1.3.1 Integrating the Khalka: Exploring a New Frontier
  1.3.2 The 1698 Preliminary Survey
  1.3.3 Re-standardizing the Qing’s Most Basic Unit of Length
  Conclusion

Intermission One: Missionaries or Mapmakers? The Mapping Project and its Place in the Mission
  Justifying Missionary Involvement
  The Unauthorized Return of Joachim Bouvet
  Conclusion

2 Of Instruments and Maps: The Land Surveys in Practice
 2.1 Beyond the Passes: Observations and Calculations
  2.1.1 New Qing Cartographic Practice along the Great Wall
  2.1.2 Revisiting the Manchu Homelands and Northern Frontiers
  2.1.3 Strategic Expeditions into Korea and Tibet
 2.2 The Logistics in Mapping the Chinese Provinces
  2.2.1 Moving South: Sequence, Timing and Strategies
  2.2.2 Directed from the Center: The Emperor and His Administration
  2.2.3 Team Composition and Local Support
 2.3 The Imperial Workshops Connection
  2.3.1 Mapmakers from the Inner Palace
  2.3.2 European Technical Experts and Assistants
  2.3.3 The Logistical Centrality of the Imperial Workshops
  Conclusion

Intermission Two: Missionaries and Mapmakers: Missionary Activity during the Land Surveys
  The Restitution of Church Buildings
  The Impact of the Chinese Rites Controversy
  Conclusion

3 The Afterlife of Maps: Circulation, Adaptation, and Negotiation
 3.1 The Printed Life of the Overview Maps of Imperial Territories
  3.1.1 The Woodblock Editions
  3.1.2 The Copperplate Editions
  3.1.3 Imperially Commissioned Compilations and Later Renditions
 3.2 The European Incorporation of a Qing Atlas
  3.2.1 Early Transmissions and Reception in Europe
  3.2.2 Contracting Jean-Baptiste Bourguingon d’Anville
  3.2.3 Intercultural Adaptation: d’Anville’s Regional Maps
 3.3 Beijing, Paris and Saint Petersburg: Negotiating the Gaps
  3.3.1 d’Anville’s General Maps and the Paris-Saint Petersburg Connection
  3.3.2 The Saint Petersburg Connection to Beijing
  3.3.3 d’Anville’s Maps: Reception and Further Adaptations
  Conclusion
  Annex: Extant Kangxi-era Sheets (Printed)

Conclusion: Unlocking Dichotomies: Revisiting Cross-cultural Circulation
  On Qing Imperial Cartography: Traditional vs. Scientific Practice
  On the Role of the Individual: Global vs. Local Networks
  On Instruments and Maps: The Circulation vs. the Production of Knowledge
  On Interculturality: China vs. Europe

References and Bibliography
Index


----------
Biographical note
Mario Cams, Ph.D. (University of Leuven, 2015), is Assistant Professor at the University of Macau’s Department of History and specializes in the history of early Sino-European contacts, late imperial China, and the history of cartography.


2017年11月12日 星期日

鄔堅巴評傳:十三世紀藏地大成就者





作者 李惠玲
出版社 三聯書店(香港)有限公司
出版日期 2016/06/27
ISBN 9789620439124
頁數 432頁

十三世紀的亞洲,動盪不安、充滿紛亂憂患。蒙古騎兵的鐵蹄、中亞穆斯林軍隊的利刃,橫掃歐亞,大部分地區戰火頻仍。藏地雖有高原絕地的屏障保護,仍難獨善其身,可謂內憂外患。地方勢力之間、教派之間長期爭鬥,高原上本來已經嚴峻的生存條件還經常被地震饑荒等弄得更糟,人間難見淨土。

本書的主人翁鄔堅巴正是生於這樣一個時代。

鄔堅巴,藏地稱「大成就者鄔堅巴」,是鄔堅巴•仁欽貝(U-gyan-pa Rin-chen-pe,1230-1309)的漢譯簡稱。鄔堅巴幼有宿慧,年少時已得多名大師傳授此密法,成為當時藏地集「時輪金剛密法」三大派承傳的權威。鄔堅巴後來不但成為兼通顯密佛學與「時輪」密法的高僧,也是得道的瑜伽行者、大學者、譯師、名醫、煉丹師,以及藏傳佛教活佛轉世系統肇始的關鍵角色,是紛亂的十三世紀後藏地區舉足輕重的人物。他曾經歷千辛前往北印度求取最高密法,也到過上都朝見忽必烈。他堅毅不屈、文武兼備、行俠仗義、嫉惡如仇、特立獨行,極具代表性。

總而言之,本書藉由一個遊走於青藏高原及北印度的高僧大德的足跡,以及當時藏地與中原、蒙古、印度、穆斯林等的關係,分享其見聞感悟,讓讀者更深入了解這片高寒 之地的人和事。

看更多:
鄔堅巴評傳_十三世紀藏地大成就者_李惠玲著


--------------------------------

作者簡介

李惠玲,祖籍廣東順德,香港土生土長,為華人世界中極少數的藏學學者之一。早年於香港大學修讀中國文史及美術考古史,從事中國文史藝術專業翻譯多年。後負笈英國牛津大學東方研究院西藏與喜馬拉雅學系,獲碩士及博士學位,專研十三世紀藏西歷史及傳記文學,多次承受劇烈的高山反應,深入藏地考察。現時除繼續翻譯專業外,並以自由學者身份進行西藏文史研究,同時於本地大學的專業進修學院教授西藏語文及文化,並兼任香港多間博物館的特約研究員及編輯工作。已出版著作《細說西藏歷史文化》。


2017年11月6日 星期一

清太祖滿文實錄大全






作者: 中國第一歷史檔案館,中國人民大學國學院
出版社: 遼寧民族出版社
出版日期: 2017/1/1
ISBN 9787549715367
定價: 4,800.00
冊數: 10
第1冊,大清太祖武皇帝實錄-順治本,4卷全
第2、3冊,大清太祖高皇帝實錄-康熙本,10卷全
第4、5冊,大清太祖高皇帝實錄-乾隆本,10卷全
第6-9冊,滿洲實錄-滿漢蒙三體合璧本,卷一-卷八
第10冊,拉丁字母轉寫與索引





內容簡介
清太祖實錄用編年體記述了清代入關前政治、經濟、文化、軍事、外交、文化及自然現象等等眾多方面的歷史,是清代歷史的珍貴資料。清太祖滿文實錄不同版本同時出版,彌補了清太祖實錄漢文版本的不足和缺憾,為清代入關前的比較歷史研究提供重要參考文獻,也為研究清代前期的語言文字、及清太祖實錄的編纂史提供了重要資料。另外,從版本角度來看,這四種實錄都是孤本,而且是內府精寫本,既有版本研究價值,也有文化欣賞和收藏價值。




清太祖滿文實錄
《清太祖滿文實錄大全》由遼寧民族出版社、中國第一歷史檔案館、中國人民大學國學院合作完成。此書被列入中國人民大學科學研究基金重大項目,受到該大學統籌推進世界一流大學和一流學科專項資金的支持。




實錄是我國傳統編年體史書的一種,專門記述某一皇帝統治時期的大事,包括政治、經濟、軍事、文化、天文、地理、外交等情況。據史籍記載,最早的實錄是南北朝時期的《梁皇帝實錄》。唐朝以後,繼嗣之君讓史官根據前朝皇帝起居注、時政記、檔案等編撰實錄,歷代相傳,沿為定制。至清代《大清德宗景皇帝實錄》(光緒實錄)問世止,在我國歷史上共編修過百餘部實錄。因實錄的內容往往涉及時政機密,修成之後均藏于宮禁或有司,從不刊印流傳,在王朝更替時絕大部分毀於戰火。南北朝至元代的實錄,除《唐順宗實錄》及《宋太宗實錄》殘本幾十卷外,皆已佚失。明清兩代的實錄,比較完整地保存至今,具有重要的學術研究價值。

清代沿用以往朝代編修實錄的制度,編纂了卷帙浩繁的各朝實錄。清朝12 位皇帝中11 位有實錄,共計4400 餘卷。最後一位皇帝溥儀在位僅三年就爆發辛亥革命而退位,仍由原編纂《大清德宗景皇帝實錄》的人員修成了《宣統政紀》。此書雖不再用實錄的名稱,但體例與實錄無異。


 

清實錄的編修,由按例開設的實錄館承擔,書成即裁撤。編修實錄的史料經皇帝特許可以調閱起居註冊、上諭、題本、奏摺及其他原始檔案。編纂體例除《滿洲實錄》外,基本一致。實錄由卷首和正文兩部分組成,卷首主要有御製序、修纂凡例、目錄、進實錄表、編修官等內容。正文以時間為序,彙編成卷。各朝實錄,篇幅不等,記事細目多寡不均,大多都涉及政治、經濟、文化、軍事、外交、天文、地理等方面的內容,記載了有清一代近300 年的用人行政和朝章國故。

清實錄編修並非完全照史料編纂,而是依據統治者需要,甚至對已編修完成的實錄加以修改。清實錄編修完畢,秘藏宮禁。只有皇帝閱讀時,由內閣實錄庫提供。未經皇帝特許,臣工不得閱看,更不許刊印。清代官方編纂的其他史籍在編纂時經皇帝允准可參考實錄進行編纂,如國史館編纂本紀、列傳等史籍時,很多史料均出自實錄。




清實錄分別用滿文、蒙古文、漢文3 種文字書寫。清實錄編修完成後,形成各種不同規格和不同裝潢形式的精寫本存藏各處。後人依據其裝幀特點和開本大小區分為小黃綾、小紅綾、大紅綾3種文本。其中小黃綾本是進呈皇帝御覽審定用本,然後按皇帝審定後的小黃綾本,分別用滿文、蒙古文、漢文謄寫,並以紅綾為封面,裝訂成冊,妥善保存。從乾隆朝開始編修的滿文、漢文實錄正本各有5 部,即小黃綾本1 部,小紅綾本2 部,大紅綾本2 部。編修蒙古文實錄4 部,其中大紅綾本只有1 部,無盛京藏本。清實錄的稿本仍沿襲明朝舊制,在西苑蕉園焚毀,但也有部分稿本存世。










清朝實錄與其他朝代實錄相比,有鮮明的特點:第一,清代離當今最近,其各朝實錄保存比較完整,在中國文獻史上極為少見。第二,清代規定滿語滿文為國語國書,大型官修史籍多有滿文本。清實錄自太祖至穆宗(努爾哈赤至同治帝)都有滿文本,還有蒙古文本和漢文本,形成滿文、蒙古文、漢文三體文字的大型編年體史料長編,為歷代文獻中所罕見。第三,清代皇帝的實錄受到多方面影響,有多次修改和修訂情況,這在我國歷代實錄中極其罕見。清太祖努爾哈赤的實錄就歷經多次編修形成不同年代、內容有差異的不同版本。





在清代實錄中清太祖努爾哈赤的實錄版本最多,流傳下來的有《大清太祖武皇帝實錄》、《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》康熙本和《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》乾隆本、《滿洲實錄》共計4 部。同一皇帝有4 種實錄,這在流傳下來的歷朝實錄當中是絕無僅有的。

為了更好地整理和保護珍貴的滿文古籍文獻,進一步推進相關學科的研究,同時為廣大讀者創造便利的查閱條件,今將中國第一歷史檔案館所藏《大清太祖武皇帝實錄》、《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》康熙本、《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》乾隆本和《滿洲實錄》4 部清太祖實錄,經掃描複製後編輯成冊,冠以《清太祖滿文實錄大全》之名,公開出版發行。其中《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》康熙本和《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》乾隆本屬首次公佈,以期有助於清朝開國史、清代文獻學、滿學、東北民族史以及滿語文等諸領域的研究。


此次清太祖滿文實錄的影印出版,均照原書掃描仿真製版,最大限度地保持原書的基本特徵。同時,為了便於查閱起見,對其滿文進行拉丁字母轉寫,編制人名、地名索引;根據出版開本的需求,適當壓縮原書版面的尺寸;在版面設計上,採用原書版框的基本特徵,在貼口處用漢文標明原書的書名、卷次和頁碼;根據分冊裝訂的需要,在保持原書卷次秩序的前提下,分編裝訂成10 冊,第一冊為《大清太祖武皇帝實錄》、第二至三冊為康熙本《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》,第四至五冊為乾隆本《大清太祖高皇帝實錄》、第六至九冊為《滿蒙漢合璧滿洲實錄》、第十冊為《拉丁字母轉寫與索引》。



2017年11月5日 星期日

五色四藩——多語文本中的內亞民族史研究






作者: 烏雲畢力格
出版社: 上海古籍出版社
副標題: 多語文本中的內亞民族史研究
出版年: 2017-7
頁數: 400
定價: 88.00元
裝幀: 平裝
叢書: 歐亞古典學研究叢書
ISBN: 9787532585229


內容簡介

《五色四藩——多語文本中的內亞民族史研究》分上下兩編。

上編“多語文本與內亞關係研究”主要是內亞民族史相關的內容,涉及蒙古高原、青藏高原和天山北路衛拉特草原等區域的滿蒙、蒙藏和滿臧之間的政治關係,從時間上來講,主要集中在清前期。本編共十一章,由十一篇獨立的論文組成,分別為《明朝兵部檔所見林丹汗與察哈爾蒙古》、《綽克圖台吉的歷史與歷史記憶》、《康熙皇帝親征噶爾丹的滿文檔案及其流傳》、《車臣汗汗位承襲的變化》、《清太宗與紮薩克圖汗素班第的文書往來》、《康熙初年清朝對歸降喀爾喀人的設旗編佐》、《外藩蒙古內紮薩克盟的雛形》、《1705年西藏事變的真相》、《六世達賴喇嘛倉央嘉措圓寂的真相》、《噶爾丹與藏傳佛教上層》、《圖爾扈特汗廷與西藏關係(1643—1732)》。

下編“蒙古歷史地理研究”涉及的內容主要有四個方面:第一是明末漠南蒙古喀喇沁、東土默特部的遊牧地考證,第二是清初神秘的“察哈爾國”遊牧地的考證,第三是17世紀上半葉中亞衛拉特人各部的遊牧地考,第四是關於清代蒙古地圖文獻的點滴。共有六章,分別為《清初“察哈爾國”遊牧所在》、《東土默特遊牧地之變遷》、《三世達賴喇嘛圓寂地之地望》、《17世紀衛拉特各部遊牧地之分佈》、《日本天理圖書館所藏手繪蒙古遊牧圖及其價值》、《清代克什克騰旗的兩幅遊牧圖》。


緒論:
多語文本與內亞民族史地研究

上編
多語文本與內亞民族關係研究

第一章 明朝兵部檔所見林丹汗與察哈爾蒙古
第二章 綽克圖台吉的歷史與歷史記憶
第三章 康熙皇帝親征噶爾丹的滿文檔案及其流傳
第四章 車臣汗汗位承襲的變化
第五章 清太宗與紮薩克圖汗素班第的文書往來
第六章 康熙初年清朝對歸降喀爾喀人的設旗編佐
第七章 外藩蒙古內紮薩克盟的雛形
第八章 1705年西藏事變的真相
第九章 六世達賴喇嘛倉央嘉措圓寂的真相
第十章 噶爾丹與藏傳佛教上層
第十一章 土爾扈特汗廷與西藏關係(1643-1732)

下編
蒙古歷史地理研究

第1章 清初“察哈爾國”遊牧所在
第二章 東土默特遊牧地之變遷
第三章 三世達賴喇嘛圓寂地之地望
第四章 十七世紀衛拉特各部遊牧地之分佈
第五章 日本天理圖書館所藏手繪蒙古遊牧圖及其價值
第六章 清代克什克騰旗的兩幅遊牧圖



──────────────
作者簡介 烏雲畢力格,德國波恩大學博士,現任中國人民大學國學院西域歷史語言研究所、清史研究所雙聘教授,國學院副院長、清史研究所滿文文獻研究中心主任,中國蒙古史學會會長。

從事蒙古史研究、中亞民族關係史研究、滿蒙文檔案文獻研究和清史研究。1987年以來,用蒙、漢、德、英等文在國內外 發表了學術論文50餘篇,著有《和碩特史略》、《Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Berichts ueber den Feldzug des Kangxi-Kaisers gegen Galdan (1696-1697)》、《喀喇沁萬戶研究》、《<阿薩喇克其史>研究》、《十七世紀蒙古史論考》等,主持整理出版《清內閣蒙古堂檔》、《清朝前期理藩院滿蒙文題本》等。


2017年11月3日 星期五

重釋內亞史:以研究方法論的檢視為中心




作者: 鍾焓
出版社: 社會科學文獻出版社
出版年: 2017-11
頁數: 389
定價: 68.80
ISBN: 9787520115162


本書以作者多年來對內亞史研究的心得為主,對世界著名內亞史研究學者波西和傅禮初、鄧尼斯.賽諾等的論著和研究方法進行評書,並對具體的內亞史問題進行解讀。本書從伯希和、鄧尼斯?賽諾、傅禮初、烏瑞夫人、王明珂、森部豊六位學者入手,分別評述他們的內亞研究成果、方法及影響,梳理內亞研究的脈絡。本書隨著評述人物的變化,涉獵的時間、空間範圍比較廣,既有地理意義上的北亞、阿勒泰,又有方法論層面民族史、歷史人類學等分野,還有日本西域研究的新動向等學科前沿。內容豐富、概況性強是本書的優點,本書既可以成為青年學生內亞研究的入門讀物,也是學術界內亞史的一次總結。


─────────────────
鍾焓,1976年出生,中央民族大學歷史文化學院副教授,專攻北方民族史。


2017年11月2日 星期四

西域歷史語言研究集刊(第九輯)





作者:中國人民大學國學院西域歷史語言研究所
出版社:科學出版社
出版時間:2017-09-01
定價: 168元
書號:9787030545688


目錄

二木博史教授及其學術貢獻 烏雲畢力格(i)
二木博史研究業績表 財吉拉胡(1)
海都崛起與窩闊台系在中亞的進退 孫聞博(11)
愛新國指授歸順蒙古諸部遊牧地考述 薩出日拉圖(23)
兩件滿文題本與清代和中國民族史中的官印文化 賈寧(39)
清代喀喇沁三旗旗制的衰微——基於蘇木丁數的考察 珠颯(57)
清代蒙古秋朝審考 蒙古勒呼(73)
清初顧實汗與清廷關係 明·額爾敦巴特爾(103)
五世達賴喇嘛致蒙古部三封書信研究 魏建東(117)
清代昭烏達盟的形成及其會盟問題探析——以翁牛特右翼旗印務處檔案爲中心 玉海(129)
乾隆中葉清與巴達克山關係考(1760—1767) 馬子木(139)
準清爭奪西藏的餘韻:昭地立汗問題 烏蘭巴根(151)
18世紀前期清朝、準噶爾、西藏、拉達克關係管窺——以拉達克喇嘛噶津林沁爲中心 陳柱(169)
《乾隆朝滿文寄信檔譯編》的史料價值特點略析 杜家驥(191)
被遺棄的歷史碎片:1772年大喇嘛羅卜藏堅贊奉乾隆皇帝之托忒文奏摺 葉爾達(203)
《塔爾巴哈台奏稿》與嘉慶時期新疆北部邊政研究 華立(213)
民國時期有關蒙地墾殖的兩種珍稀文獻 忒莫勒(229)
關於正黃旗滿洲副都統卜舒庫滿漢合璧碑 張閌(237)
蒙古國通史著作中所記之 Ts.丹巴道爾吉 劉迪南(245)
從醫學人類學與醫學史交叉視角試論蒙古族的整骨療法 財吉拉胡(253)
The Indictment of Ong Qa’an: The Earliest Reconstructable Mongolian Source on the Rise of Chinggis Khan Christopher P. Atwood(267)
The In.uence of Mongol Beliefs on the Law in the Mongol Empire Florence Hodous(303)
Арван Зургадугаар Зууны .еийн “Хоньчин” Гэх Цолыг Тодлох нь БоржигдайОюунбилэг(317)
Жаруудын хоёр хошууны нийгмийн з.рчил: 19 д.гээр зууны с..лч 20 дугаар зууны эхний хэрэг явдлуудаар сэдэвлэх нь Оюунгэрэл(335)
Улсын т.шээ г.н С.Жамьян монголшунханДанжуурыг Наянт вангаасзалсан т..хээс .г..лэх.й Ж.Урангуа Г.Баярмаа(345)
Н..дэлчин Малчдын Суурьшлын Тухай Шинжлэх нь Кодама Канаку(367)
Оуэн Латтиморын дурсамж СНINA MEMOIRS хэмээх номын Хятад орчуулгад гарсан асуудалНарангэрэл(375)
Наран улсын нэрт монголчэрдэмтэн Л.Чулуунбаатар(389)
『理藩院則例』の一規定とその背景—道光 3年のハルハ居住民人家屋焼き払い 事件を事例に— 佐藤憲行(393)
20世紀初頭,内モンゴル東部における「文契」と「地券」—ハラチン右旗土地 文書を中心に— 広川佐保(419)
中華民国期におけるモンゴル人の文化·教育活動: 1912~1932年を中心に 娜荷芽(437)キャフタ会議における中国政府の対応 ボルジギンフスレ(451)
1920年代の内モンゴルにおけるモンゴル語教科書編纂に関する研究 ウユンゴワ(烏雲高娃)(465)
モンゴル牧畜民による地形に関する認識と表象、過剰な知識―モンゴル国ウブルハンガイ県ハラホリン郡の事例から 辛嶋博善(477)
忘れ去られた天然林の大規模な伐採―中国内モンゴル渾善達克沙地を事例 にして― ナラン(491)
サイチンガと東洋大学 都馬 バイカル(505)
《西域歷史語言研究集刊》第九輯作者名錄(517)


CONTENTS

Foreword Borjigidai Oyunbilig(i)
FUTAKI Hiroshi—Bibliography Compiled by Sajirahu(1)
The Rise of Qaidu and the Expansion of the .gedei Family in Central Asia Sun Wenbo(11)
An Inspection and Narration of Aisin Gurun’s Granting Herding Lands to the Monglian Tribes that Had Pledged Allegiance to the State Sachuraltu(23)
Two Manchu Memorials to the Throne and the Culture of Using Seals in Qing and Chinese Ethnic HistoryChia Ning(39)
A Discussion on the Decline of Kharachin Three Banners’ Banner System: Based on a Survey ofSumus’ Population Zhu Sa(57)
An Inquiry to the Mongol Autumn and Court Assizes during the Qing Mongolkhuu(73)
On the Relationship between Gushri Khan and the Early Qing Imperial Court M. Erdenebaatar(103)
A Study on the Three Letters to the Mongolian Rulers by the Fifth Dalai Lama Wei Jiandong(117)
An Exploration and Analysis of the Formation of Juu Uda League and Its Problems during the Qing Based on the Archival Materials Housed in Ongnigud Right Banner’s Printing Office Yu Hai(129)
An Investigation on the Qing-Badakshan Relation in the Middle of Emperor Qianlong’s Reign (1760-1767) Ma Zimu(139)
Spreading Rumors as a Strategy in Competing for Influence in Tibet between Jungarian Khanate and the Qing CourtUlaanbagana(151)
A Limited View on the Relationship of the Qing Court, Dzungar Khanate, Tibet, and Ladakh in Early 18th Century Centering on Ladakh Lama Gajin Rincin Chen Zhu(169)
A Brief Analysis of the Value of Collection of Translated Letters in Manchu under Qianlong’s Reign as a Historical SourceDu Jiaji(191)
Da Lama Lobszangjanzan’s Tod Mongolian Memorial to Emperor Qianlong in 1772:A Forgotten Piece of History M. Erdemt(203)
A Study on the Memorial by Taerbahatai in Its Relation with the Qing Court’s Frontier Policies Regarding Northern Xinjiang during Emperor Jiajing’s Reign (1522-1566) Hua Li(213)
On Two Rare Texts Related to the Cultivation of Mongolian Wasteland in the Era of Republic of China (1912-1949) Tuimer(229)
On the Stele with Both Chinese and Manchu Inscriptions Dedicated to the Manchu Vice-general Bushuku of Plain Yellow Banner Zhang Kang(237)
The Ts. Dambadorj Depicted in the Works on the General History of Mongolia Liu Dinan(245)
An Attempted Discussion on the Mongolian Therapy of Bonesetting from an Interdisciplinary Perspective of Medical Anthropology and Medical History Saijirahu(253)
The Indictment of Ong Qa’an: The Earliest Reconstructable Mongolian Source on the Rise of Chinggis Khan Christopher P. Atwood(267)
The Influence of Mongol Beliefs on the Law in the Mongol Empire Florence Hodous(303)
A Study of the Sixteenth Century Mongolian Term Qon.in Borjigidai Oyunbilig(317)
On the Social Conflicts of Two Jarud Banners: Centering on Several Cases in the Late 19th to Early 20th Centuries Oyungerel(335)
A Study of Duke C. Jamiyan’s Request for Tibetan Buddhist Canons from King Nayant J. Urangua Г.Bayarmaa(345)
A Study on Inner Mongolian Herdsmen’s Life after Their Being Resettled KODAMA Kanako(367)
A Reexamination of the Chinese Translation of Owen Lattimore’s China Memoirs Narangerel(375)
FUTAKI Hiroki, a Renowned Japanese Scholar in the Field of Mongolian Studies L.Chuluunbaatar(389)
“The Regulation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and Its Social Background: A Case Study on the Event of Burning Chinese Houses in Khalkha Mongolia in the Third Year of Emperor Daoguang’s Reign SATO Noriyuki(393)
“Contracts” and “Certificates” in Eastern Inner Mongolia: Centering on the Historical Documents of Qaracin Right Banner in the Early 20th Century HIROKAWA Saho(419)
Cultural and Educational Activities in Mongolia in the Republican Era: Centering on the Years between 1912 and 1932 Naheya(437)
The Strategy the Qing Government Adopted in the Kyakhta Meeting Husel Borjigin(451)
A Study on the Compilation of Mongolian Textbooks in the 1920sOyungoo(465)
Cognition, Representation, and “Excessive” Knowledge about Terrains of Mongolian Pastoralists: A Case Study on Harhorin Sum,rhangai Aimag, and Mongolia KARASHIMA Hiroyoshi(477)
The Forgotten Natural Forests: A Case Study on the Hunshandake Sandy Land Naran(491)
Saichunga and Toyo University TOBA Baikal(505) List of Contributors(517)




2017年10月18日 星期三

滿文字典中沒有的字:si’tiyeriliyetiye






Laqcaxa jecen-de taqôraxa babe ejehe bithe(《異域錄》)中,Tulišen提到位於伏爾加河與卡贊卡河交匯處的喀山城。他在那兒見到一種名為si’tiyeriliyetiye的魚(九耐堂本,下卷,頁9 b.5,今西, 頁55)。Tulišen不知道其為何物,故在漢文本中將之音譯作「四帖里烈帖魚」。

我想所謂的「四帖里烈帖魚」即在伏爾加河中棲息的cте́рлядь(鱘魚)。日本學人今西春秋在《校注異域錄》中將之音譯做スチェルリャード(今西, 頁128),沒有另作解釋,スチェルリャード實即英文的sterlet,亦即漢文的鱘魚。



(中正大學滿洲研究班甘德星)


2017年10月17日 星期二


滿洲史言學刊

 2 





哈佛大學內陸歐亞研究的黃金年代專號

1. Richard Frye
2. Omeljan Pritsak
3. Francis Cleaves 
4. Joesph Fletcher







台灣   嘉義
國立中正大學
滿洲史言中心
2017.10

 

2017年10月16日 星期一

Richard Frye (1920-2014)




Memorial Minute


At a Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on February 2, 2016, the following Minute was placed upon the records. RICHARD NELSON FRYE Born: January 10, 1920 Died: March 27, 2014 Born in Birmingham, Alabama, to Swedish parents, Richard Nelson Frye was raised in Danville, Illinois. As a freshman in high school, on the way to his after-school job as ticket seller in his father’s movie theater, twelve-year-old Richard spotted a book in the window of the town’s only bookstore: Harold Lamb’s Tamerlane, the Earth Shaker, which, as he put it, consumed him to the extent that he decided the study of Central Asia would be his life’s goal. He went on to study Oriental history at the University of Illinois at Urbana in 1935, serving in the ROTC and studying Arabic language at a summer school at Princeton University in 1938. Upon finishing his undergraduate degree summa cum laude in 1939, he began his graduate studies at the Department of History at Harvard, where for two years he studied Chinese language, history, and archeology. In the fall of 1941, as a naval officer, he was persuaded to learn Japanese but then was called to Washington, D.C., to join the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), manning the “Afghan desk” as part of a team of Near East specialists. After intensive training in cryptanalysis, he was assigned to Afghanistan, where he went carrying with him his Ph.D. thesis, a translation of Narshakhi’s History of Bukhara. Once in Kabul, he was allotted the teaching of mathematics at Habibiya College (1942–44) since Daniel Ingalls, future Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard, with whom he had traveled, had arrived before him and had preempted all the English classes. Frye traveled extensively in the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia, amassing the intimate knowledge of this region that he would draw upon later in his career. Frye left the OSS in 1945, returning to Harvard, where he was admitted as a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows in the spring of 1946. That fall he received his Ph.D. in the field of Oriental history. His advisor, Robert Blake, then “put him to work” on classical Armenian. Together they also translated the medieval Arabic account of Ibn Fadlan’s travels up the Volga, on which Frye’s student, the novelist Michael Crichton, based his book Eaters of the Dead, which subsequently became the 1999 film The 13th Warrior. When he found he was unable to study Iran and Central Asia intensively at Harvard, Frye began studying old Iranian languages with the great Iranist Walter B. Henning at the University of London, having obtained permission from the Society of Fellows to be away from Cambridge “because of the disruptions caused by the war.” Returning to Cambridge, he taught an anthropological survey of the Near East and continued his studies in classical Armenian, making contacts in the Armenian community, which led to his co-founding of the National Association of Armenian Studies and Research. Thanks to his advocacy, Armenians have established Armenian scholarly studies throughout the United States, beginning with a named chair at Harvard’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Frye conducted his first research trip to Iran in 1948. In his third year as a Junior Fellow, he received several job offers, including ones from the Universities of Pennsylvania and of Michigan. With these as leverage, he secured a joint appointment at Harvard as Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and of General Education. In 1952 Frye accepted a request from the Metropolitan Museum of Art to catalogue the Persian manuscripts in the collection of Hagop Kevorkian, with whom he became friendly and whom he persuaded to endow a chair in Iranian studies at Columbia University. Frye taught at Columbia for one year but then decided to return to Harvard, where he was promoted to associate professor in 1954. The Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard was founded that year, and Frye managed daily operations there. His students over the following years included the Aga Khan’s grandsons Karim and Amin and their uncle Sadruddin, whom Frye consulted on the possibility of establishing a chair in Iranian studies at Harvard. Sadruddin told him to write to his father, who wrote back, “Where should I send the money?” The Aga Khan chair of Iranian was duly established in 1957 with Frye as the first incumbent, a post he held until 1990. During his long Harvard career, Frye served as visiting professor or scholar at the Universities of Frankfurt (1959–60), Hamburg (1968–69), Shiraz (1970–76), and Tajikistan (1990–92) and was Director of the Asia Institute in Shiraz from 1970 to 1975. At Harvard, Frye taught entry-level courses on Iran and Zoroastrianism that served undergraduates and graduate students in fields related to these subjects. Many of his graduate students have continued in academia and made signal contributions to Iranian and Central Asian history. In 1972, he co-founded the Harvard Committee on Inner Asian and Altaic Studies, which he chaired from 1983 to 1989 and which has produced doctoral students in fields reaching geographically from Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet to modern Eastern Europe. Among his numerous publications are The History of Ancient Iran (1984), a comprehensive history of greater Iran, including Afghanistan and Central Asia, and three other valuable historical surveys: The Heritage of Persia (1963), The Golden Age of Persia (1975), and The Heritage of Central Asia (1996). His fascinating autobiography, Greater Iran: A 20th-Century Odyssey, appeared in 2005. Many of his books have been published in several major languages, including Russian and Persian. From his fifty years at Harvard and forty-one years on its faculty, Frye left his colleagues with an indelible memory of a unique personality. He cared deeply for his students and possessed vast knowledge that he was always ready to share with colleagues here and elsewhere. He was renowned wherever he went for both his good humor and his outspoken opinions. Richard Nelson Frye died on March 27, 2014. He is survived by two of his three children from his first marriage and a son, Nels Mishael, with his second wife, Eden Naby.


Respectfully submitted,
William A. Graham, Jr.
Carl C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
Roy P. Mottahedeh
Gregory Nagy
Prods Oktor Skjærvø, Chair



Professor Richard N. Frye, Aga Khan Professor of Iranian Studies Emeritus


2017年10月14日 星期六

Omeljan Pritsak (1919-2006)






Memorial Minute
May 14, 2009

At a Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences May 5, 2009, the following Minute was placed upon the records.
Omeljan Pritsak was a man of seemingly inexhaustible energy, broad erudition, and total dedication to scholarship in a broad range of fields. While he will probably be best remembered at Harvard and in the Ukrainian diaspora community as the co-founder and long-time director of Harvard’s Ukrainian Research Institute, his energy, erudition, and scholarship also found expression in a prodigious output of scholarly work and in institution-building in several countries and many scholarly fields. He was founder, editor, or an early stalwart of a number of periodical and monographic series—first in Germany, then in this country, and, ultimately, in his native Ukraine. His prodigious range and productivity is only partially captured by the published bibliographies of his works.
Pritsak was born on 7 April 1919 in Luka, in the Sambir region of Ukraine, and completed his secondary education at the Polish “First Gymnasium” of Ternopil’, where for some years he was the only Ukrainian student. His higher education, with a concentration in Ukrainian and, increasingly over time, Turkic history and philology, took place at the University of L’viv, at the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv, and, after World War II (during which he became first a Red Army soldier, then a prisoner of war, then an Ost-Arbeiter), at the Universities of Berlin and Göttingen, the latter of which awarded him a doctorate in 1948.
Pritsak was invited to visit Harvard University for the academic year 1960–61 and returned to Harvard as Professor of Linguistics and Turcology in 1964. He retired in 1989.
By the time of his arrival in Cambridge, Pritsak had already become an internationally recognized specialist in historical and comparative Turkic and Altaic linguistics and a leading authority on the history and cultures of the Eurasian steppe. He was the first scholar to solve problems of succession in Turkic tribal royalty, especially in the first Turkic Islamic dynasty of the Karakhanids. At Harvard, he turned increasingly to the analysis of the Ukrainian past in its larger context, drawing on his training in the relevant oriental languages to flesh out that history with material previously underrepresented or unknown.
In 1967 Pritsak proposed the creation of a firm foundation for the development of Ukrainian studies at Harvard through the establishment of three endowed chairs (history, literature, and philology) and a research institute. This project was accomplished thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian Studies Fund, which raised the necessary funds within the North-American Ukrainian diaspora community. The Ukrainian Research Institute was founded in 1973 and Pritsak became its first director. In 1975 he was named to the new Hrushevs’kyi Chair in Ukrainian history.
In most of his work, Pritsak was very much a structuralist. Therein lay the basis of his close collaboration with Roman Jakobson (1896–1982), especially in the International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics (The Hague: Mouton), which Jakobson edited in the mid-1960s. Pritsak also took a very pronounced structuralist view of genealogy and chronology—although his interest in these fields may have originated with some adolescent discoveries about his own birth and parentage.
He could overreach himself, as specialist reviewers of his The Origins of Rus’ (Harvard 1981) have been quick to point out. He was impatient with critics, spending very little energy in engaging with their views. He insisted that the cultural history of the East Slavs (and for him political institutions were a part of cultural history) must be viewed in the broadest Eurasian terms, taking fully into account the experiences of Scandinavian, Turkic, Baltic, and other Slavic peoples and sources in their languages.
The great majority of those who challenge Pritsak’s conclusions on the origins of Rus’ themselves view history in primarily “national” categories, but—despite his dedication to Ukrainian history—he explicitly did not. It is true, however, that when asked by one of those signed below why his projected book on the Origins of Rus’ would be in six volumes, he is said to have replied, “Because Ochmanski’s ‘Origins of Poland’ is in three.”
In one of his last general articles on the subject, he was particularly direct: “The history of Ukraine is not the history of the Ukrainian ethnic mass (ethnicity is not a historical subject) but the objective view, measured in linear time, of all types of states and communities which existed on the present territory of Ukraine in the past.”
Nor was he a “Normanist,” as is sometimes alleged. While his inaugural lecture in the Hrushevs’kyi Chair began with the story of the uproar caused by Gerhard Friedrich Müller’s 1749 lecture, “Origines gentis et nominus Russorum,” and his later work stressed the role of Scandinavians (among others) in the founding of “Kyivan Rus’,” he steadfastly insisted that the entity that emerged in the eighth and ninth centuries was multi-ethnic and multicultural at its core.
After retirement, Pritsak became more involved in the post-Soviet struggle for the revival of academic historical studies in Ukraine, spending increasing amounts of his time there (despite a serious cardiac condition that had led to surgery as early as 1977). He became the first elected foreign member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, and revived the Institute of Oriental Studies in Kyiv, introducing new university-level programs in that field and many other neglected areas of historical scholarship. Sadly, however, even a man of his astuteness and dynamism was unable to escape the tangled webs of post-Soviet academic politics and intrigue: these years were filled with disappointments.
By that time, however, Pritsak’s major work had been accomplished. It has transformed our understanding of East Slavic history. Never again will any serious historian of the region be able to treat the history of this space as anything but the history of—in his words—a “multiethnic and multilingual” society.
Omeljan Pritsak is survived by his wife Larysa Hvozdik Pritsak; by his daughter, Irene Pritsak (by his late first wife, Nina née Nikolaevna Moldenhauer); and by two grandchildren, Lailina Eberhard and Michael Wissoff.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael S. Flier
Richard N. Frye
George G. Grabowicz
Roman Szporluk
Edward L. Keenan, Chair


2017年10月10日 星期二

Joseph Fletcher (1934-1984)




Memorial Minute
From the Library of  Prof. Tak-sing Kam)




Joseph Fletcher (1934-1984) exerted a tremendous influence on the development of the fields of Chinese and Central Asian history, the scale of which is all the more noteworthy for the brevity of his academic career. Endowed with a remarkable aptitude for foreign languages, wide-ranging interests, and a passion for teaching, Fletcher spent nearly the entirety of his academic career at Harvard. He earned his A.B. from Harvard in 1957, was a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows from 1962 to 1966, and received his Ph.D. from the Department of Far Eastern Languages in 1965. He then joined the faculty of Far Eastern Languages as an assistant professor in 1966 and was promoted to Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History in 1972. He remained in this position until his untimely death, from cancer, on June 14, 1984.

Fletcher’s studies of Central Asia and the Inner Asian frontiers of China were enabled and augmented by his linguistic talents. In addition to the languages of Western Europe, he also read Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Mongolian, and Manchu. He brought all of these languages to bear on his scholarship, which covered a wide range of subjects stretching from the forested coastlines of Manchuria to the mosques of the Middle East. His dissertation, completed under the tutelage of his mentor Francis Cleaves, was a close textual study of the seventeenth century Mongolian chronicle known as the Erdeni-yin Erike. He worked extensively on problems related to the history of the Qing Empire, and was among the first to argue forcefully for the integration of Manchu sources into the historiography of China’s final dynasty. His contributions to the Cambridge History of China were widely acclaimed for demonstrating the importance of the Inner Asian frontier to the governing consciousness of the Qing rulers, and thereby balancing the earlier tendency to focus on coastal interactions with the West as the primary window through which to understand Qing foreign relations. In his later years he turned to the subject of Islam in China, working particularly on the connections between eighteenth century Chinese Islam and widely Islamic currents in Central Asia. Although he never finished a book, he published dozens of articles and prepared many more manuscripts that remained unpublished at the time of his death. Some of these were subsequently edited and released by his former colleagues and students.

A dedicated teacher, Fletcher taught Manchu and Mongolian, graduate seminars in Inner Asian history, and a popular general education course for undergraduates on the history of Mongol Empire. Despite being diagnosed with terminal cancer, he continued to teach through the final year of his life, and passed away less than a month after submitting grades for the spring semester. In 1983, he was awarded the Levinson Teaching Prize, an annual award given to the best teacher of undergraduates at Harvard University.


(EALC, Harvard)




                                                 (中正大學滿洲研究班甘德星提供)


2017年9月30日 星期六

清帝國性質的再商榷:回應新清史(第4刷)






本論文集自出版以來, 已增印至第4刷(2017)。論文集的觀點也漸為學界所認識。

文集中所收拙著康熙遺詔中所見大清皇帝的中國觀〉,其論點亦多為研究清史的方家所接受。大陸著名學者姚大力說本文「言簡意賅」,並多加謬獎(見《殊方未遠》,2016,頁299)。這和論文集的台灣匿名審查人所說「此文十分簡潔有力」前後呼應。另一在大陸具影響力的學者黃興濤,在他最近出版的新著中亦利用本文的研究成果抨擊「新清史」的「中國非大清」之說(《重朔中華:近代中國「中華民族」觀念研究》,香港:三聯書店,2017,頁203741580)。網上詞條,如維基百科的「清朝」(注4)、元清非中國論」等,拙著也多被引用。 拙著於刊出後二三年間即蒙學界青睞,不以篇幅多寡而見棄,內行看門道,外行看熱鬧,此之謂乎。

現在,研究清史的學者對「新清史」之說並不陌生。本論文集可讓讀者從另一角度思考「新清史」學者所提出的看法。以下是出版社對文集內容的簡介:

近年美國學界流行「新清史」之說,認為清朝是中亞帝國而非中華帝國 [筆者按:大清不是帝國且以譴責所謂大中國沙文主義為藉口來否定漢化,以混淆族群認同與國家認同來論證清朝並不認同中國,其言外之意質疑中國領土主張的歷史正當性,呼之欲出。顯而易見,所謂「新清史學派」無疑在大做翻案文章,以「新見」引世人注目,但無論在理據上與事實上都難以自圓其說。本書由海峽兩岸八位歷史學者分別提出論文,在學術會議上共同商榷後,整編而成。八篇論文聚焦於同一主題,從不同角度,諸如文化、學理、族群、漢化、認同、教育、制度,以及中國觀多方面,回應了「新清史」的論述,肯定了清朝是中華帝國的延伸,中國從秦至清原是多民族帝國,不僅漢化,也有胡化,清朝並不是中國歷史上唯一非漢族建立的朝代,豈能獨外於中國?


(中正大學滿洲研究班甘德星)



2017年9月18日 星期一

滿文字典中沒有的字:kengkiyaken~genggiyeken



老滿文拾零



《無圈點檔子》1623年記事


天命8年(1623)5月24日,《無圈點檔子》的記事謂:Môsei gôrun-i baiisa ambasa emo niialma geli salabome kengkiiaken-i banjijina. (Musei gurun-i beiisa ambasa emu niyalma geli selabume genggiyeken-i banjicina.)句中的genggiyeken一字意義不明。

Genggiyen + ken,原來即「略明亮」之意,但結合後面的-i banjicina便不能翻作「略明亮地生活」。G. Roth-Li在Manchu: A Textbook for Reading Documents將之翻譯為live in an enlightened manner (2000p.342)遼寧大學《重譯滿文老檔》太祖朝第三分冊則將之翻作「明智地生活」(1979, 50),似皆不合文意。中華書局出版的《滿文老檔》(上)(1990,頁492)、《內閣藏本滿文老檔》冊19(2009,頁183)之譯文,完全乖離滿文原文,可以置之不論。

日本《滿文老檔》II genggiyekenよりらか」,並將genggiyeken-i banjicina翻作「明るく暮らす」(頁771)。日文之「明るい」,除「光明」外,也有「快樂」之意,結合其前面的selabume,genggiyen在這裡作「愉快」解較佳。滿文字典中多無此解釋,宜補入之。



(中正大學滿洲研究班甘德星)