论文部分内容阅读
一、谱碑校史王云教授研究明史,以方志、碑志考证明史之讹误,他说:“地方志和碑志,大体是当时人记当时事,当地人记当地事……有校正补充正史的作用”。如略举明史讹误之处:《明史·刘铤传》载“邓川土知州何钰,凤僚婿也”。《云南土司·麓川》载“邓川土知州何钰,凤僚婿也”。《明史实录·神宗万历实录》卷一五三载“邓川土知州何某与凤为寮婿,遣通事招凤”。明人瞿九思《万历武功录》及沈德符《野获编》也将阿钰误作何钰。《神宗万历实录》卷一六三载“腾越州知州令致仕何钰诱制岳贼事,给赏银二千两”。明末清初谈迁编著《国权》载“故维摩知州何钰与凤善,令往说之……凤遂降”。又“邓川土知州何山,与凤僚婿也。”以上所记载,将阿钰误为何钰或何山,将邓川州误为腾越州或维摩
First, the history of the monument to Professor Wang Yun Ming history study to Fangzhi, monument to prove the history of the corruption, he said: “Local history and inscriptions, the general is the time people remember the moment, the local people remember the local affairs ... effect”. As a slight misleading explanation of the history of the Ming Dynasty: “History of Ming Liu Liu Chuan” set “Deng Chuan Tuzhi He Yu, Feng-son also ”. “Yunnan Tusi Luchuan” contains “Deng Chuan Tuzhi He Yu, Feng-son also ”. “History of the Ming Dynasty records · Shenzong Wanli Repertoire,” Volume Fifty-three contained “Deng Chuan Tuzhi Hemou and phoenix for law-off, repatriation move Zhao Feng.” Ming Qu Jiusi “Wanli Wu Gong Lu” and Shen Defu “wild series” also Yu Yu Yuxian mistakes. “Gods Wanli Record” volume sixty-three set “state courthouses know that the state of Tengzhou Yue Yu induced thieves things, to reward silver two thousand two”. Towards the end of the Ming and Qing Dynasties moved to edit the “national rights” set “Therefore, the states of Victoria know Ho Yu and Fung Shan, so to say ... ... Phoenix descend”. And “Deng Chuan Tuzhi Ho Hill, and Phoenix son-in-law too.” The above records, will Yu Yu mistaken as Yu or He Shan, Deng Chuanzhou mistaken for the state of Teng-Wei or Vimala