WEKO3
アイテム
史記大宛伝と漢書張騫・李広利伝との関係について
https://toyo-bunko.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/5485
https://toyo-bunko.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/54859b57a9ea-c6e2-42a5-8aa3-00643b2d45c0
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
gakuho01_64-1,2-01.pdf (1.7 MB)
|
|
|
|
gakuho02_64-1,2-01e.pdf (139.7 kB)
|
|
| Item type | 学術雑誌論文 / Journal Article(1) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2018-07-30 | |||||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||||
| タイトル | 史記大宛伝と漢書張騫・李広利伝との関係について | |||||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||||
| タイトル | On the Relationship between the Shih-chi 史記, Bk.123 and the Han-shu 漢書, Bk.61 anad 96 | |||||||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||||||||
| 資源タイプ | journal article | |||||||||||
| 著者 |
榎, 一雄
× 榎, 一雄
|
|||||||||||
| 抄録 | ||||||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||||||
| 内容記述 | There are two opposite opinions concerning the relationship between the Shih-chi, Bk. 123 and the Han-shu, Bk. 61 and 96. The author in this article tries to establish that, as traditionally believed, these books of Han-shu were compiled utilizing the Shih-chi as one of the main sources, by presenting evidence which has hitherto been overlooked.(1) The Chinese are called Ch’in-jên 秦人 in the Shih-chi, and Han-jên 漢人 in the Han-shu. The term Ch’in-jên is an older designation of the Chinese people in Central Asia than Han-jên. Central Asia is called Hsi-yü 西域 in the Han-shu, but no such name appears in the Shih-chi, in which Central Asia is referred to as Hsi-kuo 西国 and Hsi-pei 西北. The Gate of Jade or Yü-mên玉門 is used to designate the province of Yü-mên in the Shih-chi, while the term Barrier of Gate of Jade or Yü-mên-kuan 玉門関 is employed in the Han-shu according to later usage. These examples show that the Shih-chi follows the older usage of appellations, and the Han-shu the later one.(2) There is a big difference between the accounts of the ancient history of Central Asian peoples in the Shih-chi and the Han-shu. The difference arose because the compilers of Han-shu had access to new information on Central Asia which was not available to Ssu-ma Chicn. The Han-shu revised the accounts given in the Shih-chi on the basis of this new information. This difference is clearly evident in the Han-shu’s descriptions of the struggles and migration of the Hsiung-nu 匈奴, the Ta-yueh-shih 大月氏, the Wu-sun 烏孫, and the Saka 塞 which are not recorded in the Shih-chi. Such a difference shows that the accounts of Central Asian peoples in the Shih-chi cannot be regarded as being copied from the Han-shu.(3) There also are other points which make us realize that the Shih-chi accounts were not copied from the Han-shu, but vice versa.(4) The question of misplacement of written strips, which is said to exist in both the Shih-chi, Bk. 123, and the Han-shu, Bk. 61, and which Professor A. F. P. Hulsewé and Dr. M. A. N. Loewe insist are only understandable if the Shih-chi accounts were copied from the Han-shu, the text of which was not original and already damaged at the time. The strongest reason is that such an eminent scholar as Pan Ku would never have blindly followed the Shih-chi 'text if it was out of order. However, the author of the present article believes that there is no misplacement of written strips in the text examined by the two learned scholars. One can easily read the text as it is. Pan Ku found no misplacement of written strips in the Shih-chi text, because he was an eminent scholar, and he must have copied it. | |||||||||||
| 書誌情報 |
東洋学報 en : The Toyo Gakuho 巻 64, 号 1・2, p. 1-32, 発行日 1983-01 |
|||||||||||
| 出版者 | ||||||||||||
| 出版者 | 東洋文庫 | |||||||||||
| ISSN | ||||||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | ISSN | |||||||||||
| 収録物識別子 | 0386-9067 | |||||||||||
| 書誌レコードID | ||||||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||||||||
| 収録物識別子 | AN00169858 | |||||||||||
