綜觀臺灣歷史的演變,從清到日治的政權轉移之間,吳德功(1850-1924)身為學識養成於清代的傳統士人,在政權轉換之初經歷過積極抗日、閉門隱世,最後轉向與臺灣總督府合作,致力推廣地方文教與社會福利。本論文試圖以吳德功作為早期臺灣史學書寫的一個代表,將其有關史實紀錄的作品視為歷史書寫的文本,透過比較分析方法與當代其他文人著作進行交互對照,說明吳德功的書寫特色與異同。此外,進一步觀察吳德功在兩個時代的作品中,所反映出的關懷重心是否因政局變動而有所改變。並且,企圖藉由其作品呈現出的人際往來關係,建構吳德功在清、日兩時期的交遊網絡。 經過本論文的研究,透過重新考訂吳德功的生平事蹟與著作版本,發現多部著作皆經過後世編輯者的刪改,以及三屋大五郎對《戴案紀略》、《施案紀略》的翻譯稿本等現今尚未有相關研究之文獻。其次,藉由吳德功在清末寫作的《戴案紀略》、《施案紀略》、《彰化節孝冊》來觀察,乃是割臺之前臺灣人寫臺灣事的例證之一,回應吳密察對臺灣史學始於割臺巨變的說法。再者,從《讓臺記》、《觀光日記》,以及收錄於《揚文會策議》中的策議文章來看,吳德功早在1897年《讓臺記》寫作完成之前,即已改變以中國道統為唯一依歸的思維模式。並且,吳德功在兩個時代中皆以地方社會事務為處事重心的行為,更驗證他對地方人民福祉的人道關懷,較之國家甚至民族的認同意識,來得更加注重與關心,藉此回應施懿琳對吳德功身分認同轉移的觀點。總結來看,本論文嘗試藉由吳德功的具體歷史書寫事例,透過史學角度的切入面向,重新觀察吳德功在早期臺灣史學書寫上的地位與特殊性。
Overview the history of Taiwan in the government changing between the Qing Dynasty and the Japanese-managed period, Wu De-Gong(1850-1924)was a traditional local gentleman and developing his knowledge in the Qing Dynasty. Crossing the great divide, he even joined the anti-Japanese movement, lived in privacy, and then changed his mind to collaborate with the Doge’s Palace. Wu De-Gong was a characteristic person to be a case study because of his special writing skills and distinguishing features, so that I compare his literary works about historical evidence with the other writings by analytic comparison. Furthermore, I investigated that Wu’s literary works to reflect his focus changing and human relationship in the great divide. After studying, I found less research about Wu De-Gong’s stories and events, in addition to some of Wu’s publications were expurgated by posterior editors and the Japanese translations of Dai-an-ji-lyue(戴案紀略)and Shih-an-ji-lyue(施案紀略)by Mituya Daigorou(三屋大五郎). First, I analyzed the works written in the Qing Dynasty, such as Dai-an-ji-lyue, Shih-an-ji-lyue and Chang-hua-jie-siao-ce(彰化節孝冊), these were the example of Taiwan’s historical evidence written by Taiwanese before Taiwan had been ceded. This standpoint has responded to Wu Mi-Cha’s(吳密察)argument that Taiwan historical science was started in 1895. Second, I examined the literatures of Rang-tai-ji(讓臺記), Guan-guang-rih-ji(觀光日記), and Yang-wun-huei-ce-yi(揚文會策議), so I suggested that Wu De-Gong had already changed his ideology which had ever been the only one orthodoxy dominated by Chinese governance before 1897. Moreover, I approved that Wu had always cared about local affairs accounting his responsibility more than national identity, which has reflected arguments for changing Wu’s self-identity commented by Shi Yi-Lin(施懿琳)after 1897. In conclusion, I investigated and established the status and important role of Wu De-Gong by his literary works of historical aspects in the times crossing the great divide.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。