论文部分内容阅读
1931年,日本学者仁井田陞、牧野巽发表长篇论文《〈故唐律疏议〉制作年代考》,提出现存《唐律疏议》不是制定于永徽四年(653年),而是制定于开元二十五年(737年)的新说。新说发表后,日本学界震动,并很快接受,成为定论。1978年以来,仁井田陞、牧野巽的新说也引起中国学界的空前关注,但与日本相反,不是广为人们所接受,而是受到了强烈质疑,杨廷福、蒲坚等各自撰文予以反驳。不过,检讨中国学者的回应,我们发现都缺乏足够的说服力,甚至仁井田陞、牧野巽在论文中涉及的某些问题都根本没有触及。《唐律疏议》的制作年代是可以讨论的,其他学术问题也是可以讨论的,但任何讨论都需要恰当的方法,严密的逻辑和过硬的证据,而在这些方面,我们中国学者还需要加油。
In 1931, Japanese scholar Ren Jing Tian Sheng and Mu Yeh-ki published a long essay, “The Making of the Tang Dynasty Law,” and proposed that the existing “Tang Law” was not formulated in Yonghui for four years (653 years) but was formulated in New Opinion in New Century 25 (737). After the new statement was published, the Japanese academic community shaken and quickly accepted it as a conclusion. Since 1978, Renjing Tiansheng and Makino Mi have also caused unprecedented new concerns among Chinese academics. However, contrary to Japan, they are not widely accepted but are strongly questioned. Yang Tingfu and Po Jian respectively refuted their respective writings. However, in reviewing the responses of Chinese scholars, we found that they lacked sufficient persuasion and that even some of the issues raised by Makino in the essay did not touch at all. There are other academic issues that can be discussed during the production of “Tang Laws and Disputes,” but any discussion requires appropriate methodologies, rigorous logic, and strong evidence. In this respect, we Chinese scholars also need to cheer up .