頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 關於金朝開國史若干問題的再辨析=A Further Discussion of Several Issues regarding the History of the Founding of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 邱靖嘉; | 書刊名 | 香港大學中文學報 |
| 卷 期 | 2:2 2024.11[民113.11] |
| 頁 次 | 頁27-53 |
| 分類號 | 625.4 |
| 關鍵詞 | 金朝開國史; 楊朴; 遼金和議; 年號; 國號; The founding history of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty; Yang Pu; Liao-Jin peace agreement; Reign title; Name of state; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| DOI | 10.30227/HKUJCS.202411_2(2).0002 |
| 中文摘要 | 關於金朝開國史的真實性問題,學界存有很大爭議。最新研究表明,金太祖完顏阿骨打當於遼天慶七年(1117)採納謀士楊朴的勸進意見,稱帝建國,國號“大金”,建元“天輔”,而《金史》所記遼天慶五年(1115)阿骨打稱帝及建國號“大金”、年號“收國”之說乃是出於金修《太祖實錄》的改篡。然近來,程尼娜撰文表示楊朴勸進說不符合金建國前後女真人的政治生態,因而堅信《金史》記載;陳曉偉則認為《金太祖實錄》沒有隱諱楊朴事跡,且直書契丹冊立阿骨打之事,無改篡開國史的動機,故不宜否定《金史》的歷史敘述。但通過對楊朴事跡、遼金和議以及金初年號、國號的再辨析,可知其觀點在史料解析和論證邏輯上都經不起推敲,恐難成立。 |
| 英文摘要 | Regarding the authenticity of the founding history of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, there is significant controversy within the academic community. Recent research indicates that Emperor Taizu of Jin, Wanyan Aguda, adopted the suggestion of his advisor Yang Pu in the seventh year of the Liao Tianqing era (1117) to proclaim himself the emperor and establish the state with the name "Great Jin" and the reign title "Tianfu". However, the History of Jin records that Wanyan Aguda proclaimed himself the emperor and established the state "Great Jin" with the reign title "Shouguo" in the fifth year of the Liao Tianqing era (1115). This discrepancy is attributed to revisions made in the compilation of "Veritable Records of Taizu" in the Jurchen Jin Dynasty. Recently, Cheng Nina has argued that Yang Pu's advice does not align with the political ecology of the Jurchens before and after the establishment of the Jin, and she firmly believes in the records of the History of Jin. Meanwhile, Chen Xiaowei asserts that the Jin's "Veritable Records of Taizu" did not conceal Yang Pu's deeds and openly recorded the Khitans' enthronement of Aguda, suggesting no motive to revise the founding history. Therefore, he is of the opinion that the historical narrative in the History of Jin should not be negated. However, a further discussion on Yang Pu's deeds, the Liao-Jin peace agreement, and the reign title and the name of the early Jurchen Jin Dynasty reveals that their views are not substantiated and cannot withstand close scrutiny in textual analysis and argumentation. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。