英文摘要 |
In the beginning of the 20th century, Naitō Konan (1866-1934) brought up the idea of the Tang-Sung transformation and a following periodization of Chinese history (known as the “Naitō Hypothesis”). This theory became a paradigm generally accepted in the academic community of history in Japan after World War II. Following a thesis mainly concerning aristocracy, Six Dynasties scholars elaborated studies in that topic and related subjects in that period. Tanigawa Michio paid special attention to the “Naito Hypothesis,” but in addition to the cultural aspect, he also underlined the connection between the aristocratic clans and the society, to which Naito failed to give sufficient consideration. Tanigawa thus brought up the thesis of “the Middle-Age community” to support the periodization of Chinese history in which the Six Dynasties period is included in the Chinese Middle Ages. Influenced by Ch’en Yin-k’o, Tang Changru elaborated Ch’en’s theory of “South-Dynastirization” and rendered it his important approach to the periodization of Chinese history. Futher, he raised a schema of two different historical paths which the North and the South Dynasties took respectively, in order to clarify the vicissitudes of the feudal society in China. Tang took socio-economic changes as the criteria when periodizing Chinese history, combining traditional and Marxist views and studies of history. The aim of this article is to draw a comparison between the representative theories and viewpoints of the history academic circles in Japan and those in Chinese studies, whereby we may reach a deeper understanding of the Six Dynasties period. |