《三国史记·高句丽本纪》研究

【作者】 李大龙；

【导师】 李桂芝；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 北方民族史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 《三国史记》是邻国朝鲜较早出现的汉文史书,作者是王氏高丽的大臣金富轼。该书模仿中国古代正史的体例编撰,由本纪、志、年表、列传四部分构成,成书于1145年,是研究高句丽、新罗、百济历史的重要史料。本论文选取《三国史记·高句丽本纪》作为研究对象,探讨的重点是希望通过《三国史记·高句丽本纪》和中国史书的对比,解读二者之间的关系,包括《三国史记·高句丽本纪》与中国史书的渊源关系,二者在记事上存在的差异、差异形成的原因,以及对个别问题进行辨正,进而对《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的学术价值及作者金富轼的治史态度等提出个人愚见。论文由九章和绪论、结语、后记构成。第一章主要探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》所载高句丽建国神话的史料来源及其相关问题。认为早在东汉时期高句丽人就已经创造了建国神话,只是这一神话还没有达到完善的程度,而这一建国神话的完善是逐步的,但传说的完善不会晚于好太王时期,《魏书·高句丽传》记载的传说是高句丽人完善之后并得到高句丽王庭认可的传说,《三国史记·高句丽本纪》记载的传说并不是高句丽人认同的传说。第二章以《三国史记·高句丽本纪》王莽朝记事研究为重点,探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》和中国史书记载的差异。认为中国史书对王莽时期高句丽的记事应该是准确的,相反《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的记载则存在很多问题,考虑到《三国史记》不仅成书较晚,而且对严尤的奏言等也有篡改的情况,所以这一记载的可信度应该是很低的。第三章探讨的重点是《三国史记·高句丽本纪》东汉时期记事和中国史书相关记载的差异,分别考察了大武神王十一年与辽东太守之战记事、乐浪王崔理和乐浪郡归属、慕本王二年高句丽政权袭太原记事、大祖大王三年筑辽西十城、高句丽与东汉王朝战事等,认为《三国史记·高句丽本纪》在高句丽政权和东汉王朝关系记事中出现这些问题的原因应该有三个:一是,《海东古记》中有些记载不见于其他史书,而金富轼又没有其他可以参考的资料,只好引而用之。“吾王”、“我军”等这些不规范也不准确的用词之所以出现如果不是金富轼故意为之,那么就有很大可能是金富轼抄录于《海东古记》。二是,面对《海东古记》和中国史书记载的矛盾,金富轼并没有做深入考证,更多的是提出疑问,但最终还是采用《海东古记》的记载,上述注释即是明证。金富轼的这一做法和现代一些学者对《三国史记》的态度如出一辙,即都对当地史书的记载深信不疑。三是,针对众多史书在记事上存在的差异,金富轼本人也做了自己的选择,甚至进行了一些删节,由此造成了更多的差异和矛盾。第四章探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》高句丽与孙吴、曹魏关系的记事,认为《三国史记·高句丽本纪》关于高句丽政权和曹魏、孙吴关系的有些记述是中国史书没有的,似乎可以弥补中国史书记载的不足,但是这些记载或多或少都存在着难以解释的矛盾,对于这些资料的应用还是需要进行深入分析,否则我们对事件的认识会出现偏差。第五章主要探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》高句丽政权与两晋南北朝时期各政权关系的记事,认为《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的相关记载源出于中国史书,与中国史书的记载存在差异或矛盾的原因是作者金富轼在引用中国史书的同时做了改动,因此《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的这部分记事载从总体上看并没有新的内容,相反作者的一些删改却造成了很多新的问题。第六章主要探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》高句丽政权与隋王朝关系的记事,认为《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的记事基本上是抄录于《资治通鉴》的相关记载,而且抄录的也很不完整,存在很多遗漏或作者金富轼的故意删节,这对于人们了解高句丽政权和隋王朝的关系造成了一定影响。同时在抄录时也存在一些改动,改动也多是在原意基础上的名词换用,其史料价值是值得慎重考察的。第七至八章主要探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》高句丽政权和唐王朝关系及其灭亡后的记事,认为基本上是抄录于《资治通鉴》的相关记载,少数情况下补入了《旧唐书》、《新唐书》的相关内容,但这种补入也是在《资治通鉴》记载的大框架下进行的。第九章以探讨《三国史记·高句丽本纪》记载的王系为主,认为《三国史记·高句丽本纪》所记载的二十八代高句丽王难以得到其他史书,尤其是中国史书的支持。论文对《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的总体评价是:通过对《三国史记·高句丽本纪》部分记事与中国史书记载的对比,可以认为《三国史记·高句丽本纪》一半以上的内容是抄自中国史书,而且这种抄录是有改变和节略的,不仅造成了记事的不完整,也形成了一些新的问题。当然,《三国史记·高句丽本纪》也有不少中国史书没有记载的内容,按照作者金富轼的说法,这部分内容应该是源于“海东古记”,不过从金富轼对中国史书记载的引用情况分析,这部分内容也会存在有意改动或删节的情况,其可靠性也是需要注意的。需要特别指出的是,本论文的作者无意完全否定《三国史记·高句丽本纪》的史料价值,只是认为该书的记载存在很多问题,如果对其记载不加考证地奉为圭臬,那么我们的高句丽历史研究只会离历史的真实越来越远。更多还原

【Abstract】 Shih Chi of Three Kingdoms（《三国史记》） is an early historical book written in Chinese in history of Korea;its author is Jin Fushi（金富轼） who was a minister in Wangshi Korea（王氏高丽）.This book,written in AD 1145,imitated the compiling style of historical books in ancient China,which is composed of biographic sketches of kings（本纪）,zhi（志）, chronology（年表） and collected biographies（列传）.It’s an very important reference material to study the histories of Gaogouli,Xinluo and Baiji. This dissertation selects the Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings（《高句丽本纪》） from Shih Chi of Three Kingdoms to conduct a research. Through comparing Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings with relative chapters of Chinese historical books,especially focusing on probing into their original relations,their differences in recording events and the reasons for these differences,identifying and correcting several specific errors,the dissertation aims at showing the academic value of Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings and Jin Fushi’s historical ideas.This dissertation is composed of nine chapters,introduction, epilogue and postscript.The first chapter mainly researches the historical origin of the myth about Gaogouli state’ beginning and the relevant problems.The author believes that Gaogouli people had created the myth of state-establishing in the Eastern Han Dynasty,but the myth was far from achieving perfection at that time,it got gradually improved and reached its final completion before the period of Haotaiwang（好太王）. The legend recorded in Biography of Gaogouli in Weishu（《魏书·高句丽传》） was the final edition completed by Gaogouli People which was confirmed by the royal court of Gaogouli.The legend in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings was not accepted by Gaogouli People.The second chapter,focusing on the records in the Wang Mang period（王莽时期） in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings),researches the differences of records about Gaogouli between Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings and Chinese historical books.The author thinks that the records about Gaogouli during Wang Mang period in Chinese historical books are accurate,and the records in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings have lots of problems.Considering that Shi Chi of Three Kingdoms was finished later and Yan You（严尤）’s memorial was rewritten,hence such records about Gaogouli is of low authenticity.The third chapter discusses the differences of records about Gaogouli during the Eastern Han Dynasty between Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings and Chinese historical books.After respectively examining the records about the war between the King of Dawushen（大武神王） and the prefecture chief of Liaodong（辽东郡守） in the 11^th year of the King of Dawushen（大武神王）,the Lelang King Cui Li（乐浪王崔理） and the jurisdiction of Lelang prefecture（乐浪郡）,the raiding Taiyuan（太原） by Gaogouli in the 2^nd year of the King of Muben（慕本王）,the ten cities in Liaoxi（辽西） built in the 3^rd year of the King of Dazuda（大祖大王）,the war between Gaogouli and the Eastern Han Dynasty,etc.,the author thinks that there are three reasons to explain why Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings has problems when it come to the relationship between Gaogouli and the Eastern Han Dynasty.Firstly,some materials from Haidong Guji（《海东古记》） can not be found in other historical books and Jin Fushi had to quote them without other relevant references;secondly,facing the contradictions between Haidong Guji and Chinese historical records,Jin Fushi,like some modern scholars,didn’t make textual research deeply, but just adopted the records of Haidong Guji.Thirdly,when facing so many recording differences in various historical books,Jin Fushi made his own choice,even made some abridgements,which led to more differences and contradictions.The 4^th chapter makes a thorough inquiry into the records about the relationship between Gaogouli and Wu（吴）, Wei（魏） in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouii Kings.The author thinks these contents have not been found in Chinese historical books,which seem to make up the deficiency of Chinese historical books.But those records have more or less inexplicable contradictions,so to use these materials,careful analysis is needed.The 5^th chapter expounds the records about the relationship between the regime of Gaogouli and the Eastern and Western Jin Dynasties（东晋、西晋）,as well as the Southern and Northern Dynasties（南北朝） in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings. The author thinks that these records are from Chinese historical books, and there appears some contradictions because of Jin Fushi’s revision when he quoted them from Chinese historical books.Generally speaking, these records in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings seem to have little new contents.On the contrary,Jin Fushi’s revision led to many new problems.The 6^th chapter studies the records about the relationship between Gaogouli and Sui Dynasty（隋朝） in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings.The author thinks these records were mainly excerpted from the relevant records in Zizhi Tongjian（《资治通鉴》）,and the omitting and rewriting do influence people’s understanding of the relation between Gaogouli and the Sui Dynasty.So its value is worth considering. The 7^th and 8^th chapters discuss the records about the relationship between Gaogouli and the Tang Dynasty（唐朝） as well as Gaogouli’s downfall in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings.The author thinks these records were basically excerpted from Zizhi Tongjian,and some complementary contents was from Old Tang Shu（《旧唐书》）,New Tang Shu（《新唐书》）. The 9^th chapter mainly probes into the records about the lineage of the royal family in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings.The author thinks that the records about the 28 kings in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings can not get support from other historical books,especially from the Chinese historical books.The general evaluation by this dissertation on Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings can be concluded as the following.After comparing with Chinese historical books,the author thinks that almost half of the contents of Biographic ketches of Gaogouli Kings were excepted from Chinese historical books,along with some abridgement and omitting, which not only made the records incomplete,but also created some new problems.Of course,there are some contents in Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings which can not be found in Chinese historical books. According to Jin Fushi’s statement,this part of contents should come from Haidong Guji（《海东古记》）,but its reliability needs to be noticed because of Jin Fushi’s revision when excerpting them.What needs to be especially pointed out is that the dissertation does not want to completely deny the value of Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings as historical materials,but only to point out there are many problems existing in the book.If we take Biographic Sketches of Gaogouli Kings as criterion without careful textual research,then our research on the history of Gaogouli will be sure to diverge the historical truth.更多还原