比較內藤湖南、宮崎市定與郝若貝的「唐宋時代觀」*

Comparison of Naito Konan, Miyazaki Ichisade and Robert M. Hartwell's Views of the T'ang and Sung periods

帶領中國古代史研究走向新方向最重要的人物，非內藤湖南莫屬。1909年，內藤湖南升任京都帝國大學的教授，講授「支那近世史」，著名的「唐宋時代觀」，又或「中國近世」說雛形初現。1914年，其關心辛亥革命後中國局勢發展的《支那論》出版，更完整的「唐宋時代觀」於焉誕生。二戰結束後，日本史學界檢討戰前的皇國史觀，內藤湖南的學說開始受到重視，圍繞其時代區分論的論爭應運而生。其中，支持內藤湖南「唐宋時代觀」最力的學者，是同京都大學出身的宮崎市定。宮崎市定雖然支持內藤湖南的時代區分，但受到桑原騭藏影響，他採用西亞、中國、歐洲文明先後發達、互相影響的基調討論中國的近世特質，加強內藤湖南鮮少觸及的社會與經濟部門，對內藤湖南的平民地位提升論點有所修正。內藤湖南的學說在美國學界也引起廣大的回響。郝若貝（Robert M. Hartwell）從區域開發與人口密度變化帶來的政治與社會變化情形著手論述，從地方史的角度挑戰內藤湖南的中國近世專制論。然而，這些嘗試探討中國近世之「現代性」的論文，在不同的時代環境和學術氛圍下，結論也各不相同。筆者對三者均有談到的政治結構和社會結構進行比較，認為可以歸納出內藤湖南和宮崎市定的「內在先進性」和郝若貝的「發展後停滯性」二種中國近世的歷史發展類型。不管是那種類型，中國宋代以後的歷史發展，都走向與歐洲的「現代性」不同的發展方向。受到這些學說影響，從不同的角度來討論中國之現代性的論文紛紛出現。近來甚至有把宋元明三個時代當作一個轉折期的「宋－－元－－明變遷」論出現。我們可以看到「中國史自有其發展之內在動力」是近來這些親論述的思考傾向，強調歷史發展的連續特性，而非單一的比較性思考，不論是朝代之間的比較，又或中國與歐洲的比較。

When we talk about who leaded the Chinese history studies to the new direction, it should be Naito Konan. He was appointed as professor of oriental history and began to lecture on “The Modern History of China” at Kyoto University in 1909. The embryo of “Naito Hypothesis” was brought up at the same time. In 1914, as the book, Shina ron (Essays on China) which he talked about the situation after the Revolution of 1911 was published, the more complete “Naito Hypothesis” was born. After World War II, the history circles in Japan started to review the history theory of Imperial Japan, and began to pay attention to “Naito Hypothesis”. The discussion of the periodization of Chinese history which Naito Konan put forth came with the tide of fashion. Miyazaki Ichisade is the man who struggled to maintain Naito Hypothesis best also came from Kyoto University. Though Miyazaki agree with the periodization of Chinese history which was put forth by Naito, he applied Kuwabara Jisysuzō’s idea which emphasized the importance of the history of West Asia. He thought that the process of history of West Asia, China and Europe developed one by one and influenced one another, then introduced the concept to discuss the characters of modern China. He enhanced the social aspect and economic aspect which was rare addressed by Naito Konan as well and revised the issue that meant the position of common people was promoted. Naito Hypothesis was also popular in the Sinological circles of USA. Robert M. Hartwell debated that the regional development and the transformation of population density could change the political institutions and social constructions. He challenged the “theory of despotism in modern China” of Naito Konan from the local history concepts. However, the articles which try to address the “modernity” of modern China had different conclusions under various times and academic atmosphere. I think that I can generalize two types of the development of the history of modern China while compare the points of political institutions and social constructions which issued in the articles, that one is Naito and Miyazaki’s “inherent advanced” and one is Hartwell’s “stagnation after development”. No matter what type, the history after Song dynasty is different from the “modern” Europe. Under the impact of the hypotheses, there are more and more articles which from various points of view to discuss the “modernity” of China issued. Recently, “Song- Yuan-Ming Transformation” theory which makes Song, Yuan and Ming dynasty as one period attracts lots of consideration as well. We can discover that the way of discusses more and more incline to idea that “there are inherent advanced dynamics in the history China”. They think deeply the continuity in the processes of history and not simply to compare between dynasties or China with Eurpoe.