岑毓英对西南民族地区文化教育贡献初探——岑毓英研究之三

岑毓英无论抚滇、抚黔、他修复书院,加广学额,增加束修膏火,招商创收,保证文教经费,补贴进京会试举人一系列措施,有力地推动了云贵地区文化教育的恢复和发展。他把文化教育全面推行到贵州少数民族地区,并用制度予以保证,对少数民族的社会进步、民族和睦,有着划时代的历史作用。     

岑毓英与广西岑氏来源

岑毓英在其编修的<西林岑氏族谱>中自称为汉代名臣岑彭之后,广西岑氏始祖为北宋时期随狄青南下镇压侬智高的岑仲淑.考诸史籍,壮族地区祖先北来说唐宋时期即盛行,明清至今未间断.岑毓英通过修谱补充前人说法之不足,溯源接流,添枝加叶,使原本错漏百出的岑氏来源臻至圆滑.     

岑毓英与台湾防务

岑毓英(1829—1889年),字彦卿,号匡国,是中国近代史上知名度较高的人物。他出身于广西西林县那劳村一个壮族家庭,历代世袭为官,为维护清朝的封建统治效劳。道光二十五年(1845),17岁的岑毓英在县试中初露锋芒,为其飞黄腾达奠定了基础。不久,轰轰烈烈的太平天国革命爆发在即,号称“广西盲肠”的西林县,各族农民起义风起云涌,岑毓英“招集乡团,击散‘匪党’,叙功以县丞选用。”咸丰六年(1856)岑毓英率勇协助清军     

中法战争前夕岑毓英与刘永福关系的转变

岑毓英是壮族历史上有影响的人物。由于种种原因,史学界对这一历史人物的研究尚欠深入。本文拟从微观处入手,对中法战学爆发前岑毓英与刘永福黑旗军的关系作一剖析。 (一) 刘永福原是广西农民反清组织的一个小头目,后因清朝追剿,被迫进入越南躲避。在越北,他聚众耕牧,建立根据地,积聚力量。时值法国殖民主义者武装侵越,越南有濒临亡国之虞。同治十二年(1873),法军攻陷占领海阳、宁平、南定等城后,越南危在旦夕。阮朝政府派北圻统督黄佐炎请刘永福协助抗法,遂有黑旗军在河內西郊阵斩法     

试论中法战争中的岑毓英——岑毓英研究之二

法国殖民主义者1883年8月强迫越南当局签订<顺化条约>以后,便把侵略矛头指向中国.面对法国殖民主义者的侵略野心,身为云贵总督的岑毓英坚定地支持刘永福,最终成就了刘永福抗法民族英雄的威名.在国家遭受侵略的危险关头,岑毓英挺身而出,率部出关,抗击侵略者,发明"地营"战法,克敌制胜.血战宣光,重创敌军,逐鹿山西牵制敌军主力,取得临洮大捷,和镇南关大捷一起铸成中法战争胜利的丰碑.岑毓英是中国近代史上英名不朽的爱国将领,是广西壮族人民的优秀儿子!     

壮族文人吟咏铜鼓诗

铜鼓作为一种特殊的民族乐器和礼器,大约在公元前七世纪就在我国云南西部礼社江流域诞生了,流传至今,已有二千六百多年的历史.铜鼓进入我国的历史载籍,从《东观汉记》算起,也有一千七八百年了,但铜鼓入诗,则迟至唐代中叶才开始.唐诗号称五万首,提到"铜鼓"二字的仅有七首,可以说是凤毛麟角.揆其原因,操之者一般来说都没有自己的民族文字,通识汉文的人也甚少,有关铜鼓的知识,只通过口传身授流传下来;汉族诗人进入使用铜鼓的民族地区的时代较晚,而铜鼓本身富有浓厚的神秘色彩,汉族诗人即使到了使用铜鼓的民族地区,也极难有见到铜鼓的机会,而当他     

试析壮族的"汉裔情结"——以岑毓英为例

在壮族社会里,假托汉人后裔(其心理表现即"汉裔情结")的现象十分普遍.岑毓英是近代历史名人,他出身壮家,却自称为汉人后代,并通过编撰族谱、营建祖墓等途径,极力打造"汉裔"身份.他崇尚汉文化.鄙视少数民族,镇压民族斗争,是壮族"汉裔情结"的典型个案.这种情结的产生,是古代夷夏观、正统观、历代朝廷的民族政策、先祖传说及儒家思想等多种因素作用的结果.在多维视角审视下,"汉裔情结"具有现实功用,是利益驱动的产物,是中华民族多JL--体格局进程的鲜明例证.     

认识你自己:历史学与人的自我认识

人是社会的产物,更是历史的产物,因此,现实中的人不可避免地要受到历史既定因素的制约和束缚,他要想不仅在思想上而且在行为上都成为一个能自觉掌握自己命运的自由人,除了认真学习与研究历史外,别无他途.学习与研究历史,是人们认识自我、使自己领悟到完人的唯一途径.     

釘在篱笆上的釘子

从前,有一个脾气很坏的男孩.他的爸爸给了他一袋钉子,告诉他,每次发脾气或者跟人吵架的时候,就在院子的篱笆上钉一根.第一天,男孩钉了37根钉子.后面的几天,他学会了控制自己的脾气,每天钉的钉子也逐渐减少了.他发现,控制自己的脾气,实际上比钉钉子要容易的多.终于有一天,他一根钉子都没有钉,他高兴的把这件事告诉了爸爸.     

邓小平改革理论的几个特点

中国历史上的几次改革,可以说都没有从本质上改变中国落后封闭的面貌,即使是历史上的戊戌变法,也只不过是一次不彻底的改革.在1978年竞的十一届三中全会以后,中国走上了改革开放的强国之路.邓小平作为中国改革开放的总设计师,勾画和设计了中国的宏伟蓝图,彰显出他自己改革理论的独到特点.邓小平是一位世纪伟人,他引领中国人民走上了改革开放的强国之路.     

救济苍生 矢志不渝——丁竹园济世救亡理念探析

丁竹园的济世救亡理念缘起于特殊的时代背景和特殊的职业经历。在其济世救亡理念的丰富内涵中,救国于危难、救民于水火是主线与核心。透过《竹园丛话》的系列言论,我们可以深刻感受到丁竹园冲破民族畛域,放眼整个国家和中华民族的济世救亡殷切情怀。     

拱心石与神王——施鲁克人的nyikang神与神圣王权的研究

In his famous book The Golden Bough,James Frazer mentioned one special custom found along the shores of Lake Nemi in Italy. The forest king who lived beside Lake Nemi, was not only once a prisoner, but also the murderer of his predecessor. Why did the King have to be killed? How could he be killed? This was the very starting point of James Frazer’s divine kingship study. This was in contrast to the common idea held in many cultures, that kings, or even gods, would die. However, in the most primitive societies, kings and gods also had a symbolic duty. People be-lieved that their king took the responsibility to maintain the order of society and the natural world. In that case, it was obvious that if the king became old and weak, the society and order would be in danger. The way used by primitive people to solve this problem was to kill the king when he became weak, and to rebuild this symbol of order through the accession of a new king. This worry about the loss of order and fertility, Frazer explained, was the reason why they choose to kill their king, who was also a god to them. To prove his theory, Fra-zer used many examples. Among them, the exam-ple of the Shilluk of Nilotic Sudan was the only real case of a people killing their king. All the kings were possessed by the spirit of Nyikang, who was not only a hero and king in their history, but also the god who created the universe of the Shilluk people. In Shilluk, it was not the king who ruled the country, but the spirit who possessed him. For that reason, once the king showed his weakness and age, he had to be killed or commit a suicide so as to keep Nyikang in a healthy body. This case was mentioned by James Frazer, re-examined by Evans-Pritchard, and discussed by Henri Frank-fort and David Graeber. The Shilluk people lived in Sudan, in the Ni-lotic area alongside the Nile River. Their kingdom consisted of y many hamlets and occupied by linea-ges. But all these hamlets and lineages shared the same king, who was believed to be the descendant of their semi-divine hero and first king, Nyikang. Nyikang was believed to bring the fertility of men, of cattle, and of the crops. He lived among his people and blessed them. He was a mythological figure who represented a changeless moral order and the stable structure of the state. The Shilluk people believed that the king was the embodiment of Nyikang, and, thus, shared his divinity. All the Kings were believed to be descended from Nyi-kang. The king could be killed for two reasons:when he could no longer satisfy his wives, it was time for him to die and make room for a more vig-orous successor; or he would be killed by one of the prince who coveted the shrine at night. There were many graves of kings and of Nyikang all a-round the kingdom, but all the Shilluk people knew that Nyikang was not buried in any of them, he would never die. The king, however, was the container of the Nyikang’s spirit. Thus, after his death, he was no longer divine, so his funeral would be a clan affair rather than a national affair. In Frazer’s opinion, Shilluk kings confirmed their rule and power by maintaining their connec-tion with the god, Nyikang. And, he gained divin-ity from this connection. However, this divinity was not permanent. In the same way, the stability of the Shilluk social order was also not permanent, so the complete failure of that power would cause the danger to the entire society. When the new king ascended the throne, the social order would be re-established. So, to kill the old king when he could no longer take responsibility for the whole of society was the way for the Shilluk to release the tension and handle the danger which resulted from their king’s death and to keep the social order. Several decades after the publication of The Golden Bough, Evans - Pritchard gave a talk at The Frazer Lecture ( 1948 ) . He looked at the Shilluk custom of killing their king together with the social structure of the Shilluk kingdom, and pointed out some of the unreasonable explanations made by James Frazer. He believed that this cus-tom, which Frazer explained as the way the Shilluk maintained the divinity of kingship, had political reasons and social functions. Based on his field-work, Evans - Pritchard described the political structure of Shilluk as follows: Shilluk hamlets consisted of one to fifty different families. Each hamlet was occupied by members of an extended family or a small lineage. The headman of a hamlet was also the head of a lineage in the settlement. All the Shilluk settlements composed a common polity, i. e. the land belonging to the Kingdom of Shillukland. There were two chiefs in the hierarchy between the king and the settlements. These were the Ger, who represented northern Shillukland, and the Luak, who represented the southern shil-lukland. Those two chiefs each ritually represented half of the kingdom, and they played a very impor-tant role in the election of the new king. Evans-Prichard discovered that there were very close con-nections between the kings, the princes and their villages where they were born. The pregnant wives of the kings would be sent back to their natal villa-ges to bear their children, and the princes were brought up by the headmen of their natal villages. Except them, all of the princes had their royal cli-ents ( Ororo) in the villages. These were the com-panions of the prince, so they would live in the capital with the prince if he was chosen to be the king, and would return to their village to guard the king’s tomb. This information will help us to see and understand the social structure of Shilluk soci-ety. The dual balanced structure of Shilluk society was represented by the southern-northern opposi-tion. We find that the Shilluk kingdom had a double configuration—one that was politically re-flected in its territorial division, which was divided into northern and southern parts, and the other one was ritually reflected in the rituals related to the cult of Nyikang. The king and the capital specific-ally stayed in the center. As Evans - Pritchard said, Northern Shillukland and Southern Shil-lukland were the arches of the kingdom of Shilluk, and kingship was the keystone. This duality was clearly represented in the election system and in-vestiture. The investiture of the new king would take place about a year after his election. Since this ceremony was meant to rebuild the social or-der, all the hamlets would participate in it. After the old king’s death, the spirit of Nyikang would no longer stay in his body. Instead, it would move to an effigy of a hamlet which was in a far north dis-trict of Shillukland. The effigy would be sent by the army of north to the outskirts of the capital, where there would be a ceremonial war with the king’s army. Since Nyikang was in the northern army, it was obvious that the king would fail. Then, the ef-figy of Nyikang would be put on the king’s chair. Then, the king would sit on the chair, and, as a result, the spirit of Nyikang entered into the body of the new king. Now, there would be another war— because Nyikang had entered into the body of the new king, the northern army failed, and, they would then take the effigy back to the shrine. This ceremony not only illustrated the tension be-tween the north and the south of Shillukland, but also the tension between the god Nyikang and the human king. And all these tensions were resolved through a unified kingship. We find that Shilluk society, no matter whether within the vertical and horizontal structure of the southern -northern op-position, or among the different hamlets, they all had different objects to show their loyalty. Howev-er, all these differences would be reduced when they faced a unified national symbol— Nyikang or divine kingship. The king did not belong to any single tribe or hamlet after the ceremony. He be-came the symbol of the happiness and continuity of all the Shilluk people. From this ceremony, Evans -Pritchard re -explained the reason for the special custom of the Shilluk. He asserted that in Shilluk society, the king’s death would cause chaos and many dangers. The king had died in the way they described be-cause they were afraid of exposing the tensions hid-den within the social structure. So, this tradition was only a political myth hidden under the facts. The second kind of death of the king was that he was killed by a prince. Evans-Pritchard believed that all Shilluk princes received support from their natal villages. If all the tribes had their own king, the Shilluk kingdom would definitely be torn apart. So, they still needed a center from which to build the whole kingdom, i. e. the kingship. In a king-dom of this kind, if the king attached himself to one hamlet, other hamlets would fight for their own rights. So, because the kingship was permanent and ensured the unity of the whole kingdom, it should be emphasized. In contrast to Evans-Pritchard’ s structural-functionist explanation, the American archaeolo-gist, Henri Frankfort, made his analysis of the customs of the Shilluk based upon the methodology of mythology. He compared the divine kingship of Egypt and Shilluk in his book Kingship and the Gods. And, based upon the process of the combi-nation and separation of the king and the gods, he discussed the function of divine kingship. In E-gypt, the pharaoh was called “the Lord of Two Lands”. This title involved two gods who were en-emies:Horus and Seth. They were respectively the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Even when Seth had been defeated by Horus, it did not mean that he totally disappeared. This is because he had his own function within the existing order. Horus was not only a mythological figure, but also was one which reflected on the pharaoh. The pharaoh was always regarded as Horus or his embodiment. This idea is quite similar to the connection of Nyikang with the Shilluk king. However, in Egypt, there was another god who had a close connection with the kingship, that is, Osiris. In Egypt, the dead king was believed to change into Osiris, and the king on the throne, just as Horus, was regarded as the son of Osiris. Beside this connection, in the myths, Osiris was said to be the “Ka ” of Horus, which was something like energy, and for the king, it was somewhat like a kind of ruling power. This kind of father-son relationship also ex-isted among the Shilluk people. When Evans -Pritchard described the ceremony, he mentioned that Dak, the son of Nyikang, was also honored. However, in Shilluk, Nyikang meant all the kings, no matter whether dead or alive. What was more important is that Shilluk kings themselves were not gods, they were just processed by Nyikang, and it was Nyikang who was the real ruler. That was the reason why the accession ceremony of the king was so important. However, in the Egyptian view, the concept of kingship itself was more complicated than that of the Shilluk. All the Egyptian kings themselves were gods, and their orders, as god’s order, must be obeyed. So, although there was a stable kingship in the two societies, the roles played by the king were totally different. However, we can still find some basic elements of the divine kingship from these two cases. Because the king himself was a human being, he would definitely turn old and die. In order to resolve the social stress caused by the succession of the kingship, the kingship had to be stable. So, the king must have a relationship with the gods. It was the god and the kingship that maintained the unity of this structure. In 2011 , David Graeber published his paper titled The Divine Kingship of the Shilluk in which he used theories from political science to discuss the relationship between Nyikang and the Shilluk king . He tried to use this case to understand the e-mergence of the state and power. He compared the political status of Shilluk with their myth and cos-mology. He proposed three very important con-cepts:i) divine kingship which was absolutely dic-tatorial and had god-like authority—and was one in which this divine god went beyond the morality;ii) the sacred kingship which was ritualized and exemplary—this was a kind of prophetic and legis-lative king ; iii) violence and antagonism with no reason - the subject of the violence was the sover-eign and the people. All of these three concepts, David Graeber said, could be found in the Shilluk Kingdom. That was not because they were so -called primitive ethnic groups, but because this kingdom was a “Utopian State”. In other words, this kingdom, or the construction of its main cit-ies, was an imitation to the cosmic order, and, therefore, did not need a management institution to rule it. However, because this could never exist in the real world, violence appeared. David Graeber divided the kingship into two types: the divine and the sacred. In the former, the king was believed to be the god itself. And, in the latter, the kings were those who brought and created order. However, if order was set up by a king, it was asked whether or not the king himself still stayed within the order? So, the extreme type of sacred kingship would be the denial of the limi-tation of the king’s life. David Graeber suggested that the King of Shilluk did not have real power. The responsibility the Shilluk king undetook was the order of the whole cosmos. When he became weak, he could no longer judge and rule based on the cosmology. This is the reason why he had to be killed. We can see that the king who ruled the state according to the cosmology was more like a divine king, so his fate was that he must be killed by people. However, after he was killed, the for-mer “scapegoat” became the god and was wor-shiped by the people. The social order was rebuilt because of the king’s death, and in doing so he be-came the embodiment of the strength needed to re-build the social order. So, we can note that in Shilluk society, although people expect stability and order, they cannot allow the rule to become a central control and monopoly. The king should be in the center of order, but because the king would definitely become old, people tried to reduce the disorder through killing him. Due to the limitations of the king, he was trapped in the absolute authori-ty of the divine kingship, and the infinite order of the order. Hence, he was killed again and again. The appearance of the king was to resolve the dilemma within this society. He tried to build a U-topia, but was trapped in it because of his own limitations. Just like the kings were killed con-stantly, the conflict between sovereignty and the people would never stop. David Greaber pointed out that this constant opposition was the origin of state. This opinion totally refuted existing political theories, o matter whether they were that of Max Weber or of those who believe that it was through making law and rules to solve the conflict or the so-cial tensions in Africa, for their opinions were based on the perspective of nation state. However, in Africa, at least in Nilotic Sudan, they were u-sing this conflict to build their state. Graeber’s ar-ticle indicated that in the war between the sover-eign and the people, the sovereign is limited, and can never win truly. It reveals a new possibility for the construction of a nation state and political sys-tem. To sum up the discussions above, we have found that in those societies with divine kingship, the reason for the king’s divinity was because he undertook the people’s expectation of a stable soci-ety, and the fertility of crops, and livestock. Be-cause these expectations were not stable in them-selves, people either believed that their king him-self was a god, or tried to ensure that their king was in a healthy state. The similarity between them was that people had to keep the kingship stable and reduce the tension and chaos caused by the king’s death. From their fear of disorder and the fear of powerful order, we can even find a variety of ways of thinking about a perfect and eternal order, as well as on an imperfect and limited life. Thus the King always connected with a stone, for people al-ways expect a stable and changeless eternity.     

李绍明先生的彝族研究

李绍明先生自幼生活在彝区,很早就对彝族文化感兴趣。1953年,他毕业于四川大学历史系民族学专业,在学习和以后的工作中先后得到陈宗祥、吴泽霖、冯汉骥、马长寿、林耀华等先生的帮助和指导,他在民族识别、社会性质研究等关于彝族的历史和现状方面的研究中,硕果累累,弄清了凉山彝族在民主改革前奴隶社会的状况以及历史发展脉络,对彝族族源、族属及文化对比等方面的研究也有重要价值,所主持的横断山区"六江流域"民族综合考察,开创了藏彝走廊民族综合研究的先河,在国内外有重大影响。李绍明先生还积极参与了关于中国民族学地位的交流和对话,对学术进行了反思,在此方面也发表了不少学术成果。     

"消经"日记《正大光明》与普洱马阿洪

普洱马阿洪,名寿清,中国伊斯兰教陕西学派云南籍著名阿洪。在清朝同治年间参加陕西回民起义期间,用“消经”撰写了一本“随军日记”———《正大光明》,简要记录和回忆了那时回民起义的起因、经过、“受抚”谈判的情况、“善后”的安置、义军的活动、开支账目、作者的感想、回民被左宗棠大肆屠杀以及义军悲壮逃难的历史等。本文以普洱马阿洪一生的历史和陕甘回民起义为轴线,以历史事实为基础,根据民间调查、口头传述和文本资料,对普洱马阿洪的生平、著述略作介绍,以期引起更多读者和研究者的关注。     

杨怀中先生及其《回族史散论》

对一个学者最好的纪念就是对他学术心路的追忆、对其作品的肯定和对其衣钵的传承,这应当是我们作为研究者的一种追求和共识。2019年8月29日,著名回族史学家杨怀中先生走完了他的一生,于一个以学术为志向的学者而言,肉体的生命结束了,但学术生命没有终止,先生身前所著的学术著作、学术遗产和为学之风,会因后来者的阅读和传承而得以延续。文章以杨怀中先生的《回族史散论》为切入点,回顾杨先生的系列著作,梳理杨先生的学术心路、学术遗产和为学之风,以期在先生学术著作和为学之风的勉励中前行。     

元代葛逻禄诗人廼贤生平考述

廼贤是中国诗史上仅有的葛逻禄人,在当时诗、文声名极大,但其生平未见碑传,需要我们钩沉整理.本文对其族籍、家世进行了考辫,梳理了其生平事迹:自幼生长在江南鄞县,力学诗书;既壮,肆志远游,求仕不得;晚年官编修,客死军中.     

阿升喇嘛考

阿升喇嘛是锡勒图库伦札萨克喇嘛旗历史上首任札萨克达喇嘛(追认),他早年频繁往来于蒙藏地区间,对藏传佛教格鲁派传入蒙古地区功不可没,也为蒙、藏、满等民族间的相互联系起过重要的作用。有关该喇嘛历史事迹在蒙、藏、汉、满文书写的历史文献中均有述及,不过,对其身份来历和历史事迹等的记载,不同文字文献又有所不同,故研究者们就该喇嘛相关问题的阐述还未达成共识,因此,极有必要对其历史事迹做系统考述。     

试论马援对古代民族地区的贡献

本文根据史实客观地论述了东汉伏波将军马援在古代民族地区的重要建树:治陇6年,镇抚边众,开渠引水,郡中乐业,开创了安抚少数民族、团结少数民族并与之和睦相处的羁縻政策,为后世封建民族羁縻制度的形成,提供了成功的范例;经略岭南3年,百越民众“奉行马将军故事”,马援是中国历史上第一个用法律形式巩固自己斗争成果的将军,有力地推动了岭南百越地区郡县制和封建生产方式的发展,为岭南地区社会进步和民族和谐,作出了杰出的贡献。     

胡适的民间文学理论与实践

在百年中国民间文艺学史上,胡适是民间文学的文学研究派的代表人物。他是"双重的文学"、"比较研究法"、"母题研究"等民间文学研究理念的始作俑者和实践者。他支持顾颉刚的古史辨伪,认定古史传说的嬗变无非是由简单变复杂、由地方性变全国性、由神话变史实、由寓言变事实四种途径,并将其研究方法概括为"历史演进法"。他是我国学术史上提出"箭垛式人物"及"滚雪球"式的变迁规律这两个传说学理论的第一人,为中国传说学的建构奠定了初步基础。《歌谣》周刊停刊,歌谣研究会的学者们风流云散逾十年后,他再度复刊《歌谣》周刊,宣称"我们现在做这种整理流传歌谣的事业,为的是要给中国新文学开辟一块新的园地",并发布全国歌谣普查建议书,因而与南方民俗学派的思潮遥相对峙。