蒙古帝國王族世系譜研究

Study on the Genealogical trees of Chinggisids: Historiographical Reconstructions

吳國聖(Kuo-Sheng Wu)

指導教授 ： 張廣達 ； 甘懷真

國立臺灣大學/文學院/歷史學研究所/博士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201600457

摘要

本研究以中外諸史家，用漢文、藏文、波斯文、蒙文、滿文、回鶻文等語文所編纂之「蒙古帝國王族世系譜」為研究對象。以歷代成吉思汗裔諸王在世系譜中的記載，作為觀察歷史的切入點。時間跨距從文獻可稽的成吉思汗的歷代祖先，一直討論到清中葉的蒙古王族，選擇具有解釋力和代表性的個案，研究「差異」本身，和「造成差異的原因」：諸如系譜形式產生的影響、史料來源所造成的影響、不同史學傳統所引起的差異、不同語文載體所呈現的不同樣貌等問題。
非漢文史料的重要性在此研究中十分顯著。現行的非漢文史料，大多沒有定本，多半是以寫本、抄本的形式存在不同的圖書館中。整理本或者譯本，事實上和寫本之間有著非常大的差距，內容不一定精準。本論文提出大量實例，認為整理者或譯者有意或無意地更動原文，是研究之前不能忽視的重要關鍵。
本研究證明了「脫卜赤顏」並非傳統上公認的「秘史」，而只是一般檔案、史書的泛稱；又《元史》世系表的記載，不一定是歷史的全貌。再者，證明了波斯文《史集》與藏文史料的記載，必須回歸重要原始寫本，重新校勘，才能符合文獻學的基本要求。研究中運用了多種非漢文史料，更正了長期以來依據漢文史料所建立的既有認識。
本論文運用歷史語文文獻學的分析，將史料的背景與內容汲取出字面意義之外的深層歷史學資訊。不僅運用「審音勘同」為分析工具，同時注意到不同史料記載中的相異之處。在勘同的同時保存史料記載的差異，並且從這些差異作為線索，重新校勘史料、分析文獻。討論「史料來源為何」以及「撰寫者對史料的詮釋與選擇」。
研究中特別運用波斯文與藏文文獻，討論了成吉思汗的先世以及元朝大汗的子嗣問題。又從明清滿蒙文文獻與檔案，分析後期蒙古王族世系的編纂與發展問題。從世系譜文獻的勘定與比對，對於元明清時代留下的蒙古史文獻記錄，展開了史學方法論的辨析與研討。並且對於史籍之中難以深入討論的議題，從文獻內容的邏輯辯論出發，提出了兼具合理性與啟發性的全新論述。

關鍵字

蒙古帝國 ； 成吉思汗裔 ； 世系譜 ； 波斯文史料 ； 藏文史料 ； 滿文檔案 ； 蒙文文獻

並列摘要

In this study, it focused on the genealogical trees of Chinggisids as the topic. The resources of the lineage I made use of are mainly written in ancient Chinese, Tibetan, New Persian (Farsi), Middle Mongolian, Manchu, ancient Uighur and other languages or scripts. From the ancient ancestors of Genghis Khan until the Mongolian nobilities in mid-Qing dynasty, selected typical cases were investigated for the "differences among records", and "the reasons for the variance or contradiction among the pedigrees", such as the impact caused by the diverse 1.formats of the genealogical charts/2.historical sources/3.historiographical traditions etc., or by different languages, which appeared in the contexts.

The importance of the historical records in Non-Chinese languages in this study is very essential and significant. Most of these non-Chinese sources are not the definitive or standard editions, but merely as original manuscripts or copies in the libraries all over the world. There are very large gaps between the manuscripts and the publications or translations of the literature. The editors or translators intentionally or unintentionally changed, generalized or over-corrected the originals so the published texts are not usually very accurate to the urtext.

This study demonstrated the so-called "tobčiyan" should not be treated as the traditionally recognized "secret history", but just the collective name for "general archives" or normal "historical books". The genealogical tables recorded in Yuan Shi are not necessarily the whole picture of the real lineage of Chinggisids. The Persian literature as "Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh" etc. and the Tibetan historical records must be examined directly from the important original manuscripts and be verified meticulously to meet the basic requirements of Philological approach. A variety of non-Chinese historical records were studied to reconstruct the unknown contents of the pedigrees and corrections based on these evidences, instead of the existing understanding primarily derived from Chinese records.

The study made use of the analysis of historical philology to read between the lines in order to extract the historical backgrounds beyond the literal meaning. Not only using "philological collation" as an analytical tool, also noting the distinct differences in the historical records, it took these varieties as clues to re-collate and inspect the literature to discuss the "origins of the historical sources" and "the interpretations and choices of the writers/editors. "

The Persian and Tibetan literature were particularly discussed to explain the problems in the lists of Genghis Khan's ancestors and the discrepancy of the records of Khagan's offspring in Yuan Dynasty. The Manchu and Mongolian documents and archives from Ming and Qing dynasties were analyzed to recount the codification and development of the written later Mongolian royal lineage. From the surveying and comparing of the genealogical trees, the documented Mongolian history of Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties were argued methodologically. Among the historical records with existing fixed explanations, enlightening new reasonable treatments were submitted by logically debating on the basis of the contents of the major Mongolian royal pedigrees.

並列關鍵字

Mongol Empire ； Chinggisids ； genealogical trees ； historical materials in New Persian ； historical materials in Tibetan language ； archives in Manchu language ； Mongolian literature

參考文獻

林士鉉，《清代蒙古與滿洲政治文化》。（臺北：國立政治大學歷史學系，2009）。

莊吉發，〈穿越歷史：追蹤清太宗皇太極繼承汗位的內幕〉《清史論集（二十四）》。（臺北：文史哲出版社，2015），頁7-17。

Coblin, W. South, A Handbook of 'Phags-Pa Chinese. (Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawai'i Press, 2007).

王汎森，〈歷史研究的新視野：重讀〈歷史語言研究所工作之旨趣〉〉，《古今論衡》，11（2004），頁1-12。

甘懷真，〈中國古代君臣間的敬禮及其經典詮釋〉，《臺大歷史學報》，31(2003)，頁45-75。