The historical narrative of the Wanli Korean campaign in the Qing Official Ming History

Abstract

The Ming History (明史 Mingshi) by Qing official historians took more than 90 years to complete, and Wan Sitong's 萬斯同 Draft Ming History (明史稿 Mingshi gao), Wang Hongxu's 王鴻緒 Draft Ming History, and the Ming History palace edition overseen by Zhang Tingyu 張廷玉 were the most important histories of the Ming over its different stages of compilation. Wan Sitong gave much attention to the writing of history in the biographies from the Wanli Korea Campaign, Wang Hongxu did not give them much attention, and Zhang Tingyu repudiated and even negated them. In Zhang Tingyu's Ming History, the Annals of Shenzong (神宗本紀 Shenzong benji) set the tone of repudiating the Korea campaign. Due to their clan, the Bozhou Campaign (播州之役 Bozhou zhiyi), or the Liaodong Incident (遼東事變 Liaodong shibian), nearly none of the Ming generals from the eastern expedition to Korea were given biographies due to their participation in the Korean War. The History of the Choson (朝鮮傳 Chaoxian zhuan) gives a negative evaluation that denies or undervalues relevant people and battles. On the one hand, this was due to the influence of historical sources. Due to Yang Gao’s 楊鎬 responsibility for defeat in the Battle of Saerhu 薩 爾 滸 之 役, the compilers of the Veritable Records of Ming Shenzong (明神宗實錄 Ming Shenzong shilu) followed the account of Ding Yingtai 丁應泰 in their records and denied the accomplishments of Yang Gao and the Ming army in Korea. On the other hand, due to real political needs, as the commanders of the eastern expedition to Korea later became the military rival of the Later Jin in Liaodong, an attitude of denial had to be adopted against them to create legitimacy for the Qing dynasty. These were the two main factors that determined the way in which the Qing official Ming History wrote the history of the Wanli Korean War.     

让材料自己说话——浅论当前历史传记写作的一种趋势

《陈寅恪的最后二十年》、《顾颉刚和他的弟子们》、《束星北档案》等著作,代表了当前历史传记写作的一种趋势。《陈寅恪的最后二十年》的文本近似历史叙事散文;《顾颉刚和他的弟子们》的文本更接近史学论文;而《束星北档案》则类同电视记录片的文稿。这些著作共有的特点是:在修撰方式上,大量运用了第一手材料;在文本风格上,力求作品深入浅出、雅俗共赏;在写作理念上,坚持真实第一,尊重历史。这一趋势非常值得重视。     

三件王原祁画作的辨伪

本文就传世的三件相互关联的王原祁画作,即两件年款相同的《仿大痴山水图》轴以及与其中一件题识雷同的《西岭云霞图》卷,一并加以讨论,通过对其中文字及其书法、绘画风格的考鉴,认定此三件作品为伪作。     

存世《出师颂》墨迹本与刻本关系考

本文将《隋贤书出师颂》墨迹本与传世《出师颂》的八种刻本进行排比梳理,归纳出三个系统:即“萧子云”系统、“索靖”系统、“隋人”系统。通过各本文字校勘比较和文献考证,证明“索靖”系统刻本的母本即史载北宋“宣和本”,“隋人”系统即史载南宋“绍兴本”,而此两本与北宋《兰亭续帖》所刻“萧子云本”,俱出自同一个更古的祖本。进而对辑入《出师颂》文字的《文选》一书的版本进行分析,论证“绍兴本”应是隋和初唐书家的临摹本,即《隋贤书出师颂》墨迹。     

论明万历中后期言官对神宗的批判

明万历中后期,以言官为首的官僚集团兴起了一股批判明神宗的风潮。其根本缘由,首先是神宗君德严重缺失,其次在于言官勇于以道事君。在深层次上,这种批判也是该时期政局危殆、皇权变异并衰落以及士风日下、部分言官沽名钓誉等社会变动综合作用的结果。尽管这种批判并未摆脱传统的“尊君—罪君”的政治评判模式,但它是明清之际启蒙思想的先导和重要的思想资源。     

刘向《新序》版本述略

西汉刘向所撰《新序》,是历代用来规谏上及帝王下及子民的好教材,故历来手抄版刻者甚多。然其流传情况历来缺少考证,不失为一种遗憾。其实,从刘向撰定该书并奏于汉帝到当代《新序》的多人整理,大致出现了二十多种手写本或雕版印刷本,因此《新序》的版本源流还是有章可寻的。     

《宋太祖实录》探微

《宋太祖实录》前后经过四次编修,成书三部,至迟到元代时仍有传本存世。其纪事由于皇帝直接干预以及史臣避忌等原因,从而始终存在缺漏、原无后增以及与它史有异等问题,它直接促使私家通过著述欲辨明该段史事。     

高拱《病榻遗言》考论——与赵毅教授商榷

赵毅教授撰文提出,张居正倒台原因中包含高拱权谋"因素",此说值得商榷。本文认为:《病榻遗言》刊刻问世于万历三十年至三十一年之间,不在万历十年至十二年之间,故与张居正身后罹难无涉;该书是高拱对隆庆六年正月至万历元年二月之间发生的诸多政治事件的真实记录,并非不实之词;该书是当事人记述的回忆录,绝不是"为其身后报复政敌"的所谓"政治权谋"、"巧妙政治设计",因而不可能影响到万历十年以后的明代政局。     

《中华大帝国史》与英国汉学

西班牙传教士门多萨的《中华大帝国史》（1585）是第一部对中国社会、文化、历史等各个方面进行全方位介绍的通史型的巨作。1588年该著的英译本在英国广泛流传,成为英国人获得真实且周详的中国文化资料库。该著对英国人中国观的形成,汉学知识的获得起到了重要的启蒙作用,是英国人认识和了解汉学之肇始。