加载中…
正文 字体大小:

南京事件:最新研究及趋势(部分二)Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends

(2012-01-09 14:21:07)

 

作者:David Askew (澳大利亚学者,毕业于日本京都大学法律系,现任日本立命馆亚洲太平大学准教授,澳洲莫纳什大学讲师。Askew精通英德日三文,并具有阅读中文的能力。)

本文最早于2002年发表于英国的Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies (当代日本研究电子杂志)。

原文地址:http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html

此部分中文译者:YZ Zhu。

 

Schools of Thought, Methodologies and Sources

学派,方法论,以及情报源

Since the Japanese discourse on the Nanjing Incident is the most sophisticated, the following discussion about various schools, methodologies and sources will focus on the situation in Japan. Schools of thought tend to be determined at least in part by methodology and/or source(s) (or perhaps the methodology/source[s] have determined the school), so these three issues will be tackled here together.

由于日本学术界对于南京事件的研究是最细致的,以下关于不同学派,方法论以及情报来源的讨论会主要集中于日本国内相关讨论的情况。至少在部分意义上,学派的分类取决于其所用的方法论跟其情报的来源(或者不同的方法论跟情报源会决定学派),基于这个原因,我会试图把这三个问题会视为一体而进行处理。

Interpretations of the Nanjing Incident in Japan are usually summarised as falling into three schools of thought,[12] defined by the number of people each argues were massacred in Nanjing (Hata Ikuhiko 1993). They are the Nanjing Incident as Illusion School (maboroshi-ha), which argues that at most several thousand were massacred in Nanjing; the Middle-of-the-Road School (chūkan-ha), which argues that between 13,000 (in the case of Itakura Yoshiaki) and 38,000-42,000 (in the case of Hata Ikuhiko) were massacred; and the Great Massacre School (daigyakusatsu-ha), which argues, in the words of one of its leading advocates, Kasahara Tokushi, that "over 100,000, perhaps nearly 200,000 or even more", were killed in Nanjing. [13] The English language debate does not have as great a range of opinion, although Masahiro Yamamoto clearly falls within the Middle-of-the-Road School, and Iris Chang even more clearly argues for a massacre on a far greater scale than any member of the Great Massacre School. Chinese language sources are closer to Iris Chang than any of the three Japanese groups.

在日本,对于南京事件的研究可以被归纳成对于受害者人数数量持不同观点的三类学派。第一类被称为“南京事变是幻觉的学派”(幻觉学派),其中的学者争辩最多只有数千人在南京被屠杀;第二类是“中间道路学派”(中道学派),其中的学者认为受害者的人数可能在于一万三千人(代表人物由明Itakura Yoshiaki)到三万八千或者四万两千人(代人物是秦郁彦 Hata Ikuhiko)之间;第三类则是“大屠杀学派”,在其代表人物笠原十九司Kasahara Takushi的言论中,认为“(在南京,受害者)人数超过了十万,甚至有接近二十万或者更多”。在英文的学术界则没有如此不同的观念,尽管山本昌Yamamoto Masahiro(一个用英文写作做研究的日本学者)明显属于“中道学派”,而张纯如认为受难者人数甚至大于任何一个“大屠杀学派”学者所认可的数字。在中文的研究中,则大致可以得出其有对于张纯如说法的赞同,而非认可之前所提到的任何一日本学派的说法。

A recent introduction to the three schools was recently provided in "Ketteiban 'Nankin Jiken' Saishin Hōkoku" (Shokun! 2001). A conservative Japanese magazine of opinion, Shokun! sent out a questionnaire to which almost every important (living) researcher of the Nanjing Incident in Japan replied. [14] The questionnaire was sent to both academic and lay members of all three groups, and responses were received from Ara Ken'ichi, Ōi Mitsuru, Takaike Katsuhiko, Fujioka Nobukatsu, Fuji Nobuo, Watanabe Shōichi, Tanaka Masaaki, Matsumura Toshio and Kobayashi Yoshinori (all from the Illusion School), Suzuki Akira (not clear, but given here as a member of the Illusion School), Unemoto Masaki, Nakamura Akira, Okazaki Hisahiko, Sakurai Yoshiko, Tanabe Toshio and Hara Takeshi (all of whom Shokun!places in the Middle-of-the-Road School); and finally Eguchi Keiichi, Fujiwara Akira, Himeta Mitsuyoshi, Inoue Hisashi, Yoshida Yutaka, Kasahara Toshushi and Takasaki Ryūji (Great Massacre School). By any standards an impressive and comprehensive list, this includes almost every researcher actively working on the Nanjing Incident in Japan. The major omission, apart from Hata Ikuhiko and Higashinakano Osamichi, who were involved elsewhere in the Shokun! project, is Honda Katsuichi. Both Hora Tomio and Itakura Yoshiaki have recently died, while Kitamura Minoru first joined the debate on Nanjing only after this survey was published.

一个最近的关于日本这三学派的介绍是“(此为日文)決定版南京事件 最新報告”(《诸君!》(杂志)2001)。作为一个代表保守意见的日本杂志,《诸君!》发出了一个被几乎每一个在此领域重要的日本研究学者所回答的问卷调查。这个问卷调查是面向这三学派的学术界人士以及普通票友,提供回答的人包括(斜体部分为日本人名) 阿羅 健一Ara Ken'ichi, 大井 Ōi Mitsuru, 高池勝彦Takaike Katsuhiko, Fujioka Nobukatsu, 冨士 信夫Fuji Nobuo, 渡部昇一Watanabe Shōichi, 田中正明Tanaka Masaaki, 松村 俊夫Matsumura Toshio and小林よしのり Kobayashi Yoshinori (以上全部来自于幻觉学派), 鈴木明Suzuki Akira (尽管不是很确定,不过在此他也被当成了幻觉学派的一员), 畝本正巳Unemoto Masaki, 中村 Nakamura Akira, 岡崎久彦Okazaki Hisahiko, 櫻井よしこSakurai Yoshiko, 田辺敏雄Tanabe Toshio and Hara Takeshi (这些学者被《诸君!》杂志认为是中道学派); 以及最终有江口圭一Eguchi Keiichi, 藤原彰Fujiwara Akira, 姫田 光義 Himeta Mitsuyoshi, 井上ひさしInoue Hisashi, 吉田裕Yoshida Yutaka, 笠原十九司Kasahara Toshushi 高崎隆治Takasaki Ryūji (大屠杀学派)。在任何标准之下,这都是一个综合并且令人印象深刻的名单,它包括了几乎每一个在日本积极参与南京事件研究的学者的名单。主要的疏忽,除了没有包括在其他地方参与了《诸君!》杂志计划的两位学者秦郁彦Hata Ikuhiko 中野修道Higashinakano Osamichi之外,是本多勝一Honda Katsuichi. 当时(其他的几位相关学者)洞富雄Hora Tomio 由明Itakura Yoshiaki 正过世没多久, 而这个问卷调查刚出版时另一位名为北村稔Kitamura Minoru 的学者则是刚刚加入关于南京事件的争议中。

This group of researchers and writers was asked to reply to a number of questions, including how many Chinese each believes the Japanese illegally killed (massacred) in Nanjing, how the Nanjing Incident should be defined in terms of both time and geography, whether the execution of soldiers who shed their uniforms and hid among the civilian population of Nanjing should be included in any count of a massacre, and whether the Japanese execution of plain-clothed soldiers was forbidden by international law.

这些学者跟作家被要求回答一系列的问题,包括,他们各自认为被日本人非法杀害(屠杀)的中国人的数目,在事件与地理上南京事件应该如何被定义,杀害穿着军服或者混迹于平民当中的军人是否应该被当成屠杀的一部分,以及杀害穿着便衣的军人的行为是否为国际法所禁止的。

The answers to the first question about the scale of Japanese atrocities in and around Nanjing are hardly surprising - the various schools are after all defined by their views on the issue. Members of the Illusion School answered that the number was zero (Fuji Nobuo), almost zero, or, in the case of Watanabe, 40 to 50. The Middle-of-the-Road School, which is given a broader definition than the one I use, ranges from "several thousand" (Nakamura and Unemoto) through about 10,000 (Okazaki, Sakurai, and Tanabe) to about 20,000 (Hara) (I would place all but Hara in the Illusion School). The Great Massacre School ranges from at least 100,000 (Eguchi), more than 120,000 (10 sūman), a figure which has become the orthodox position of this school and which is advocated by Himeta, Inoue, Kasahara and Yoshida, to the older orthodoxy, 200,000, which is still advocated by Fujiwara and Takasaki.

对于第一个问题的答案,也就是关于日本在南京城中及周边地区暴行的规模,应该不会让人感觉惊讶——所谓不同学派的分歧往往是由这个定义所决定的。一位幻觉学派的成员回答的数目是0冨士信夫Fuji Nobuo),几乎为零,或者根据渡边Watanabe的主张,4050。中道学派,通常使用的比我还要广阔的定义,数目可以从“几千”(中村NakamuraUnemoto),“一万”(冈崎 Okazaki, 樱井Sakurai,田边Tanabe)到“两万左右”( Hara)(我依然会把Hara放到所谓的幻觉派当中去)。大屠杀学派则从十万(江口Eguchi)起步,或者是十二万(10 sūman),这个数字已经几乎成为了这一学派的正统观念,并且被姬田Himeta, 井上 Inoue, 笠原Kasahara吉田Yoshida等学者所认可,而曾经这一派的正统数目则是二十万人左右,虽然依然被藤原Fujiwara高崎Takasaki所赞同。

The enormous differences in the various estimates of the scale of the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing are at least partly due to the differences in definition of concepts such as "Nanjing" and "massacre". The Illusion School has a very different understanding of the time frame of the incident and the geographical definition of Nanjing than that of the Great Massacre School. The majority of the Illusion School believes that the Nanjing Incident lasted for 6 weeks, from mid-December to late January (this definition also dominates the English-language literature). The Great Massacre School, however, gives mid-November to late January (Eguchi and Takasaki), 6 weeks (Fujiwara and Himeta), and 1 December, 4 December and mid-December to March (Inoue, Kasahara and Yoshida respectively). There is also a large variation in the geographical definition of Nanjing. Because their time frame has been pushed so far back, Eguchi and Takasaki appear to define it to include areas such as Suzhou, 120 miles away (occupied by the Shanghai Expeditionary Army on 19 November) and Jiaxing, which fell on the same day and which was even further away from Nanjing. Apart from Himeta, who defines Nanjing as the city and its suburbs, all other members of this school define Nanjing as the city and 6 surroundingxian (counties). Needless to say, by expanding the time framework and geographical definition, it becomes possible to argue for a higher death toll; and by narrowing it to argue for a smaller one. One of the great limits of the debate in Japan is that these differences are rarely if ever clearly articulated, so any debate on the death toll in "Nanjing" is meaningless if two completely different definitions are being used.

有关日军在南京所犯下的暴行规模的讨论中所存在的巨大分歧至少可以被部分归结于对于“南京”与“暴行”的定义上的不同。相对于“大屠杀学派”,幻觉学派至少在事件与空间的构架下对于次事件有着非常不同的见解。大多数幻觉学派的学者认为南京事件,从十二月中旬开始到一月晚期,持续了六周左右的时间(这个说法在相关英文研究文献中得到了主流的认可)。而“大屠杀学派”则把时间定义为了从十一月中旬开始在一月晚期(江口Eguchi跟高崎Takasaki),六周(藤原Fujiwara 跟姬田Himeta),或者由十二月一号,十二月四号,十二月中旬开始到来年三月份结束(各自由井上Inoue, 笠原Kasahara 吉田Yoshida 提出)。在地理范围的定义上,(不同学派之间)也有着大相径庭的见解。由于他们所提出的时间上的概念跨度是如此长久,江口Eguchi跟高崎Takasaki所定义的受害地区包括了苏州,一个120英里外的城市(在1119号被日军的“上海远征军”所占领),以及同一天被攻陷缺但离南京更加远的嘉兴。除了把“南京”定义为南京市及其郊区的姬田Himeta以外,其他属于这个学派(大屠杀学派)的学者都把“南京”定义为南京市与它周边的六个县。由此自然可以得出,如果把时间跟空间的范围所扩大,便可以得出更高受害者人数的结论,而如果反其道而行之,也可以得出更少受害者人数的说法。在日本相关讨论中一个主要的不足之处就是这些不同的定义很少被清楚地提出,由此可见,除非关于这两个概念的定义被统一,否则关于遇难者人数的争论几乎是毫无意义的。

Large differences are also seen regarding the question whether soldiers who changed into civilian clothes and hid among the civilian population of Nanjing should be viewed as plain-clothed soldiers, regular soldiers, civilians, or other (or in other words whether they should be viewed as combatants or non-combatants). Of the 16 members of the Illusion and Middle-of-the-Road Schools, 11 view such soldiers as plain-clothed soldiers and four as regular troops (combatants). Of the seven members of the Great Massacre School, one views such soldiers as regular troops, and six have replied "other", giving their definition as defeated soldiers who had lost the will to fight (non-combatants). Needless to say, this difference has large implications in terms of the legality of the executions of these soldiers. There is in fact also a clear fault line regarding the questions whether the execution of these soldiers was legal: all members of the Great Massacre School declare that it was not; almost all others believe that it was.

在关于是否应当把穿上便装并且混杂于南京的平民人口中的军人归类成“便衣军人”,“普通军人”,“平民”或者“其他类别”(换句话来说,是否应当把他们看成战斗人员或是非战斗人员)的问题上也存在着巨大的分歧。在十六位主要属于“幻觉学派”与“中道学派”的学者中,有十一人认为上述的军人应被视为便衣军人,有四人则认为他们应被当做普通军人(战斗人员)。而在大屠杀学派的七位主要学者中,只有一位认为那样的军人依然是普通军人,而有六位则认为他们是属于“其他类别”,其定义为已经失去了战斗欲望的战败军人(非战斗人员)。自然不必说,这些分歧对于处决这些军人的合法性(译者注:这里的原词是Legality,合法性,而非Legitimacy,所谓的正当性)有着较大的影响。对于这些军人的处决是否为合法的问题上有着一条明显的正误线界:大屠杀学派认为这是不合法,而剩下的学者几乎清一色的认为这是合法的行为。

This questionnaire provides the most detailed summary of the debate in Japanese circles about the Nanjing Incident that I am aware of. It was an impressive coup to have gained replies from so many researchers in Japan, and to have made it possible to paint a picture of an emerging consensus about Nanjing in Japan. It is clear that the Great Massacre School has begun to revise its figures for the scale of the killings quite dramatically downwards. It is also clear that the various schools share a very different set of assumptions about the time and geographical framework of the Nanjing Incident. What would be of great interest would be to ask members of the Illusion School what they believe the death toll would be if the time span and geography of "Nanjing" were expanded, and at the same time to ask the Great Massacre School the same question if the definition were narrowed. My own assumption is that the differences between the Middle-of-the-Road School member, Hata Ikuhiko, and Great Massacre School member, Kasahara Tokushi, for instance, would disappear if this were done.

The survey does not, however, provide more information on the schools themselves, or on their major characteristics. A summary of these characteristics will be attempted below.

在我所知的范围内,这个问卷调查提供了对于日本国内南京事件争论最详细的一份概述。它令人称赞之所不仅仅在于它收集到了几乎所有日本国内相关学者的回答,也在于它使日本国内对于南京事件的争论成为一个共识而变得可能。自从那以后,大屠杀学派明显地减少了受难者的数目。这个问卷调查也显示了不同学派的分歧主要在于他们对事件与空间定义,认知上的不同。一件值得去做的事情则是询问幻觉学派是否会上调他们眼中受难者的人数一旦采用更宽广时间以及空间的定义。与此同时,也询问大屠杀学派一样的问题如果更狭小的定义被采用。我本人的假设则是一旦如此提问确实被付之行动的话,存在于一些中道学派成员比如秦郁彦Hata Ikuhiko跟一些大屠杀学派成员比如笠原十九司Kasahara Tokushi之间的分歧点便会消失。然而这个问卷调查没有提供对于这些学派本身,以及其特点的信息。一份关于这些特点的总结会被提供如下。

The Illusion School mainly consists of conservative thinkers who are not professional historians, and of the three groups is easily the one with the largest number of lay members. It has, however, been given an enormous boost with the recent publication of Higashinakano Osamichi (1998), "Nankin Gyakusatsu" no Tettei Kenshō(A Thorough Investigation of the "Nanjing Massacre"), one of the most important works on the Nanjing Incident as a whole to emerge since the publication of Hata Ikuhiko's authoritative Nankin Jiken in 1986. Despite its many flaws in objectivity, Higashinakano's work will continue to influence the debate in Japan for the foreseeable future.[15]

幻觉学派主要由保守派思想家组成,而非专业的历史学家,也拥有在三个不同学派中最多人数的非专业人员。不过随着近期由 東中野修道Higashinakano Osamichi (1998) 所撰写的 "南京虐殺徹底検証 Nankin Gyakusatsu" no Tettei Kenshō(A Thorough Investigation of the "Nanjing Massacre")(南京大屠杀的彻底调查)的出版,幻觉学派的影响力得到了很大的提升。此书也是自秦郁彦Hata Ikuhiko 所写且具有权威性的《南京事件出版以来最重要的相关学术研究著作之一。尽管在客观性上有着不少的缺陷,看来東中野Higashinakano的著作依然会在未来持续影响着日本国内对于此事的争论。

Higashinakano has also teamed up with Fujioka Nobukatsu to publish a series of articles that mercilessly examine Iris Chang's work. These articles were subsequently brought together as Za Reipu obu Nankin no Kenkyū - Chūgoku ni okeru "Jōhōsen" no Teguchi no Senryaku (Research on The Rape of Nanjing: China's Methods and Strategy in the "Information War") (Higashinakano and Fujioka, 1999). The Illusion School publishes through a number of small conservative publishers, frequently appears in the pages of right-wing magazines such as Seiron and Shokun! and has found support in the mainstream (albeit clearly conservative) press, the Sankei Shinbun. To the best of my knowledge, this school has no academic supporters in either the English-language or the Chinese-language discourse.

東中野 Higashinakano也与藤岡信勝 Fujioka合作,出版了一系列无情批判张纯如著作的文章。在此之后,这些文章于1999年被编成一本叫做《对于南京侵犯的研究,在中国的情报战的方法与手段》(ザレイプオブ南京研究―中国における“情報戦”手口戦略Za Reipu obu Nankin no Kenkyū - Chūgoku ni okeru "Jōhōsen" no Teguchi no Senryaku (Research on The Rape of Nanjing: China's Methods and Strategy in the "Information War")。幻觉学派学者通过一些小型保守出版社,持续出现于一些比如《正論》,《诸君!》之类的右翼杂志之上,并且在例如《産経新聞》 之类主流(主流中的保守派)出版社中也找到了不少的支持。在我所知的范围内,无论是在英文语言的研究者或者是中文语言的研究者中,这一学派似乎没有任何学术界的支持者。

Although there are problems with the Rabe Diary, it has tended to support the work of the Middle-of-the-Road School. The last (posthumous) work by Itakura Yoshiaki (1999), Hontō wa Kō datta Nankin Jiken (The Truth about the Nanjing Incident), is an impressive summary of the work of someone who devoted his life to researching the Nanjing Incident. It brings together much of the research that Itakura has done in the area, and will serve to bolster the Middle-of-the-Road School. Itakura also played a major role in editing one of the most important pieces of research on the Nanjing Incident, the three volume Nankin Senshi work, which consists of an overview of the battle for Nanjing and a collection of diaries and official battle reports of the various Japanese military units that took part in the attack on Nanjing (Nankin Senshi Henshū Iinkai ed. 1993a; 1993b; 1993c). The latest individual to join the debate on Nanjing, Kitamura Minoru, sees himself as a member of this school (although he quite deliberately refuses to make any estimate of the death toll - arguably a sensible option for Japanese researchers). As an academic who specialises in modern Chinese history, Kitamura has much to offer the debate, and it is to be hoped that he will continue his research. [16] The authority on the Nanjing Incident, Hata Ikuhiko, is also a member of this school. I see Masahiro Yamamoto as clearly belonging to it, although his estimate of the total number of victims is a little high. (I would also count myself as a member.) To the extent that this school is defined as consisting of professional historians rather than ideologues (or myth-makers), and to the extent that it is defined as accepting the premise that the story of Nanjing can only be told through a reconstruction of the primary documents, I would also tend to count many of the professional Western-based historians in this group too.[17] However, as long as the estimate of the number of victims remains the yardstick used to divide individual theorists into separate schools, and as long as Western scholars refrain from making any such estimate, this would perhaps be a little premature.

尽管拉贝日记也有种种问题,它依然提供了支持中道学派学法的证据。板倉由明(Itakura Yoshiaki)个人的最后一部作品(去世后出版)《南京时间真相》『本当はこうだった南京事件』(The Truth about the Nanjing Incident),是一位毕生致力于南京事件研究的学者所写出的一部令人称道的作品。此书综述了板倉毕生进行的大部分研究,并且进一步加强了中道学派的说法。板倉的贡献不仅仅限于此,他也参与了在南京事件研究领域最重要的一套书之一,名为《南京戦Nankin Senshi 的前后三册丛书的编写工作。此丛书包括了对于南京战役的全面介绍,以及参与了对南京进攻日本方面军人所写的一系列日记与官方战役报告(Nankin Senshi Henshū Iinkai ed. 1993a; 1993b; 1993c)。一个最新加入这个有关南京辩论的学者是北村 ,他认为自己是中道学派中的一分子(尽管他对受难者人数进行评论的故意拒绝,对于日本学者来说,这不愧为一个明智的选择)。对于一个致力于研究当代中国历史的学者来说,北村能做出的贡献或许有许多,因此我们期待他能继续从事这一方面的研究。作为对于南京研究上的一位权威人物,秦郁彦Hata Ikuhiko)也是属于这个学派(中道学派)。由于这一学派的组成往往是职业历史学家而非意识形态的鼓动者(混淆视听者),也因为此派的学者一直坚持通过原始材料来还原南京时间的历史真相,我倾向于把许多活跃于西方的职业历史学家也归于此学派。然而,只要对于死亡人数的估计依然是在此争论中划分不同学派的主要标准,以及许多西方的学者学者往往拒绝对于受难者人数进行估计,使用这样的一种归类法或许依然是不成熟了一点。

Ironically, perhaps, the Great Massacre School can be said to share much with the Illusion School. Both can be highly ideological and dogmatic, both can be extremely violent in the language they use, and both can be more than careless with the historical facts and sources.[18] Of the two, however, the Great Massacre School is clearly the more sophisticated, counting among its members a large number of academics who bring a great deal of authority to their findings. This school has been relatively quiet recently. [19] As even Kasahara (2001: 266) (polemically) notes, "In recent years more books questioning the massacre have been published [in Japan] than those confirming the facts of the incident". Iris Chang's work has clearly dealt the Great Massacre School a severe blow. Members of this school translated her book into Japanese but, through their publisher, the left-wing Kashiwa Shobō, had a public (and embarrassing) falling out with the author when she refused her translators permission to correct the enormous amount of mistakes her book is riddled with or to add translator's footnotes, and also objected to the publisher putting out a sister volume in which the mistakes would have been explained. Rather than concentrating on those who argue for a smaller death toll than what it sees as acceptable, the Great Massacre School has thus been forced into the (unusual) position of criticising a work that argues for a larger death toll, and in doing so has to a certain extent blurred the clear lines that separated it from (or at least introduced some ambiguity in the relationship with) the Middle-of-the-Road School.

具有讽刺意思的是,在某种意义上,大屠杀学派也可以被认为与幻觉学派有着不少的共同之处。两者都非常地强调意识形态化跟教条化,两者都擅长使用语言的暴力,两者都对历史事实与数字进行非常轻率的处理。然而在两者之中,大屠杀学派的主张明显是更为的精密,其主要得益于属于此派学者不小的数目,他们的研究也往往有着一定的权威性。大屠杀学派在最近则是相对沉寂。就连笠原十九司Kasahara Tokushi都(愤愤不平地)指出,近年来有更多质疑大屠杀的图书(在日本)被出版,而非那些确定这一事件的著作。张纯如的著作对于大屠杀学派来说是一个不小的打击。这一学派的学者率先将张纯如的著作翻译成了日文(并将其在日本出版),但再次其中他们与此书的左翼出版书商柏書房Kashiwa Shobō 一起遭遇了一个非常公开而且又尴尬的失败。这是因为张纯如拒绝了(日文)译者对于她书中大量事实性错误的校正或者是由译者加入一些解释这些错误的脚注,她同样也拒绝了出版商的要求同时出版一本用于详细解释这些错误的姊妹刊。与其集中注意力去对付一些他们认为不可靠或者故意缩小了受难者人数的言论,大屠杀学派不得不花费大量的精力去批评一本故意把人数夸大到了不可接受边缘的书(张纯如的著作)。与此同时,在某一程度上,大屠杀学派与中道派之间的原本清晰的分界线反而变得更模糊了(至少他们之间的关系变得更加的不确定)。

The Great Massacre School has recently published a volume that violently criticises the work of the Illusion School (Nankin Jiken Chōsa Kenkyūkai ed. 1999). In doing so, however, it merely reinforces the perception that it is no longer positively advancing new theories and interpretations, but is merely fighting a defensive rearguard action. The works of this School are published by left-wing publishers such as Aoki Shoten and Ōtsuki Shoten, which serves to emphasise its increasing marginalisation. Kasahara Tokushi did publish Nankin Jiken from the left-wing, but much more mainstream, Iwanami Shoten as recently as 1997. This work, however, inadvertently used a fabricated photograph, and Kasahara was forced to make an embarrassing and public apology (typically, Iris Chang used the same photograph in her work after it had been exposed in Japan as a fake). One of the great strengths of this school has been its continued efforts to bring together, translate and publish the primary sources on the Nanjing Incident. Moreover, a large group within this school has begun to revise its numbers downwards (I believe that this is due to the publication of Rabe). This perhaps indicates that it is possible that the school might split into two, with a small group of hard-line ideologues maintaining the old orthodoxy and a larger group of professional historians moving towards the Middle-of-the-Road position.

大屠杀学派在最近出版了一本猛烈批评幻觉学派主张的合辑(南京事件調査研究会ed., 1999(Nankin Jiken Chōsa Kenkyūkai ed. 1999)。然而越是如此行为,该学派给人造成的印象在于他们并非积极地推出新的理论跟理解,而是仅仅进行着一场保卫他们现有成果的论战。这一学派的著作往往由一些例如青木書店Aoki Shoten 大月書店Ōtsuki Shoten 之类的左翼出版社所出版,由此从另方面证实了这派的日渐式微。尽管也是左翼出版商,由笠原十九司Kasahra Tokushi所写的《南京事件》却在主流得多的岩波书店Iwanami Shoten所出版。然而此书,因为无意之中使用了一张伪造的照片,导致笠原十九司最后不得不羞辱地公开道歉(即便这帐照片在日本已经被揭穿为伪作,这张照片也出现在了张纯如的书中)。大屠杀学派的主要贡献则在于其中的学者不断进行着第一手资料的收集,翻译与出版工作。除此之外,这一学派的大多数学者已经开始了对于受害者人数的重新修订(我认为这主要是由于拉贝日记的出版)。这个事实或许显示了大屠杀学派一分为二的可能性:一小部分依然坚持着老套正统的意识形态狂热者,跟余下大部分向中道学派靠拢的职业历史学家。

These three schools are well established in Japan, and this categorisation will therefore continue to be useful when discussing the debate there. However, in analysing the debate outside Japan, these categories are far less useful. I believe that a better way to divide the various positions that exist may be produced from an examination of the basic mindset of each researcher that divides the debate into the "historians" and the "myth-makers". Both the Great Massacre School and especially the Illusion School are frequently far more interested in the present than the past. Both construct mythologised narratives of the past that serve the political, ideological and emotional needs of the present. The Middle-of-the-Road School, on the other hand, rather than taking a position that lies between the other two, argues instead for the integrity of the historiographical process of reconstructing history based on an informed and self-critical interpretation of the primary materials. In a triangulation of the debate, it emphasises the process used to draw conclusions rather than adopting an ends-oriented approach that begins with an understanding of the past that is pressed into the service of the present. The strength of the Middle-of-the-Road School is the focus on the primary materials, which allows (and actually forces) members to change their minds and draw different conclusions as new sources emerge. The strength of a classification that looks at the mindset of the researcher is that when it is used to analyse the debate on Nanjing, it clarifies and highlights the similarities between some members of the Great Massacre and the Middle-of-the-Road Schools. It can also be used to a far greater extent in examining the debate in English.

得益于这三个学派在日本根深蒂固的地位,以上的分类法对于在日本国内相关的讨论还是很有帮助。然而,在研究日本之外的讨论时,这些分类就不是那么有用了。我认为一个区分不同主张的更好方法是检验各个研究者的观念模式,并以此把他们分为“历史学家”与“迷雾制造者”。包括大屠杀学派,尤其是幻觉学派的双方,对于现今有着远远大于过去的兴趣。双方都用对于过去历史事件重重迷雾的解释与叙述,尝试着对现今的政治上,意识形态上以及情绪上的需要的满足。而中道学派,与其把其他两派的主张折中,更乐意强调基于第一手材料,既有根据,也有自我批判精神的,对于历史事实进行重新构造,解释的过程,尤其是注重这个过程中所呈现的完整性与可靠性。在这个三角对立的争论中,中道学派采取了用事实来得出结论的方法,而非采用一种以结论为目标,并且以用对过去的解释来服务现在要求的手段。中道学派的长处恰恰在于他们对于原始材料的专注,正因如此,他们能够不断根据新的原始材料的涌现而改变自己的论点以及推出新的结论。在有关南京事件的争论上,有关对于研究者观念模式的分类的长处在于它能够阐明,并且突出在部分大屠杀学派与部分中道学派成员之间的共同之处。在更大程度,这种分类法也可以被用来检验在英语研究当中关于南京事件的争论。

The individual methodologies used to discuss the Nanjing Incident have been summarised by Hata Ikuhiko according to the four methods by which he believes the number of victims in Nanjing can be counted: oral history, burial records, data sampling, and Japanese army field reports (Hata 1998b). I will next give a brief summary of my views of each.

根据用来统计受难者人数的四种方法,秦郁彦Hata Ikuhiko曾概括了在讨论南京事件上使用的各种方法论。而这四种方法分别是:口头流传的历史,埋葬记录,数据样本,以及日军战地报告(秦Hata 1998b)。接下来是我对于各个方法的一些简要看法。

Oral history has provided some important insights, but it must be emphasised that it is arguably the most problematic methodology in researching the incident. Those who rely mainly on Chinese sources (Iris Chang to a certain extent and Honda Katsuichi) produce one set of figures on the scale of the massacre and the brutality of the Japanese that cannot be substantiated by any other methodology, whereas some of those who rely solely on Japanese oral sources have denied that any massacre occurred, again a claim that cannot be substantiated. Given the fact that the Incident itself occurred over 60 years ago, the opportunities for new research in this area are quickly fading.[20]

尽管口头流传的历史提供了一些重要的见解,必需被指出的是这往往是研究南京时间中最有问题的一种方法论。 包括张纯如以及本多勝一Honda Katsuichi之内的一些研究者主要依赖于中文的口头叙述,他们制造出关于大屠杀规模以及日军残暴度的数字,则在事实上缺乏其他任何一种方法论的支持。而依赖于日文的口头叙述,并且否认曾发生过任何屠杀的研究者的主张也是无法得到任何的验证。基于此事件发生于60多年之前的事实,在这个领域(口头传说)进行新研究的机会正在迅速地消失之中。

The second methodology is to examine the burial records. Although any such examination is doubtless an important step in any overall reconstruction of the events in Nanjing, this methodology also has its limits, the main one being that the lack of complete contemporaneous records (primary materials) makes for much guess-work. In a previous paper, I have attempted such an examination, juxtaposing the various primary sources against the burial records in order to shed light on their reliability. Although these records are almost certainly not accurate, an examination of the primary sources does allow a far more objective picture of the burial effort in and around Nanjing to be drawn. My own research demonstrates that it can be shown with a great deal of reliability that roughly 17,500 plus or minus 2,500 Chinese bodies were buried in and around the city, and that there are some grounds for arguing that as many as 32,000 bodies may have been (although this later figure is based to a far greater degree on conjecture).[21] Apart from my own research, the only other author in the English language to spend any time on these records is Masahiro Yamamoto. [22] The most detailed pieces of research in Japanese have all been authored by Inoue Hisashi (1987; 1988).

而第二种方法论则是通过对埋葬记录的检验。在任何对于南京事件的全方面重建事实的尝试中,这样的检验无疑都是非常重要的,但这一方法论依然有着它的不足之处,即在于其忽视相关同步记录的(原始材料)所导致其不可避免的运用到猜想。在之前的一篇论文中,我曾尝试过那样的一个检验,即将不同的原始材料合并在一起并用来比较埋葬记录,以便检验这些埋葬记录的可靠性。尽管在很大程度上这些埋葬记录在起初也并不精确,对于原始材料的检验依然能让我们对于在南京城中与城边埋葬记录形成一个相对客观的了解。我自己的研究发现的一个比较可靠(埋葬记录)的数字在于17,500左右,并且有上下2,500数字浮动,即当时大致这么多的中国人尸体在南京城及周边被埋葬。而另外一种具有一定讨论余地的说法则是大致有32,000左右的尸体被埋葬(尽管这种说法在更大程度上是基于猜测)。除我本人以外,在英文的相关研究者中,只有山本昌弘Masahiro Yamamoto)一个人对于这些记录进行了研究。而在日文的相关研究中,最详细的一份则是由井上ひさしInoue Hisashi)所完成的。

The third methodology is data sampling, of which there is only one case. This was L. S. C. Smythe (1938), War Damage in the Nanking Area: December 1937 to March 1938. Smythe was an academic and sociologist, and conducted an extensive survey of Nanjing in early 1938 in the immediate aftermath of the Japanese atrocities. He was well qualified to conduct such a survey, having received his PhD in sociology from the University of Chicago, and with experience in conducting at least two similar surveys in 1931 and 1932. Smythe's survey was conducted in two areas: within the city walls of Nanjing and in the surrounding rural areas. In the City Survey, investigators surveyed every 50th inhabited house. The survey covered the whole of the city inside the walls, together with areas just outside some of the gates, and was conducted from 9 March 1938 to 2 April 1938, with some supplementary work from 19 to 23 April. The Agricultural Survey was conducted over 2,438 square miles in 4.5 xian (counties) around Nanjing. These surveys produced an enormous amount of data that has not yet been properly analysed. Needless to say, no other survey was carried out in and around Nanjing so soon after the city fell. Surprisingly few authors have made extensive use of this piece of documentation. Both the Great Massacre and the Illusion Schools - for obvious reasons, perhaps - tend to dismiss it, but why the historians have not made greater use of it is a puzzle.[23]

第三种方法论则是数据采样。这种方法至今只有被用过一次,是出现在L. S. C. SmytheL.S.C. 施迈瑟)(1938), War Damage in the Nanking Area: December 1937 to March 1938(南京地区的战争破坏:193712月到19383月). 施迈瑟是一位学者也是一位社会学家,他曾于1938年年初在南京进行过一次详细的关于日军暴行所造成的后果的调查。他在进行这个调查的权威性毋庸置疑,一是因为他在芝加哥大学所取得的社会学博士学位,二是他之前有至少在1931年与1932年进行过两次相类似调查的经验。而这次,施迈瑟的调查是在两所范围内进行的。在开展所谓的城中调查时,调查员调查了每个第五十所的居住的房子。这个调查覆盖了整个在城墙中的市区,以及正好在一些城门外的屋子,由193839号开始到同年42号结束,也包括了一些419号到23号期间的辅助调查。而其他的一个调查,所谓的“农业调查”,则覆盖了南京城周围总占地达到2438平方英里的4.5个县。这一系列的调查产生了一组巨量,且还没有被详细地分析过的数据。不必提及的是,除此之外再也没有任何在事件发生后如此迅速的调查被开展过。令人惊奇的恰恰是,很少的研究员大规模地采用了这调查成果。基于明显的原因,包括大屠杀学派以及幻觉学派的双方倾向于否定这项调查,而为何以中道学派为代表的职业历史学家也没有更好地使用这些数据则是的确相当令人费解。

The final methodology, the examination of Japanese army field reports, also has its limits. The Japanese military was very strict and objective with regard to some aspects of what it reported (how many rounds of ammunition were used on any particular day, for instance, or how many Japanese soldiers died), but at the same time individual units regularly inflated the number of enemy soldiers left killed on the battlefield (an examination of the rounds of ammunition expended may in some cases shed some light on the Chinese death toll). This methodology has been extensively utilised by Hata Ikuhiko, Masahiro Yamamoto, and the authors of Nankin Senshi.

最后的那个方法论,对于日军战地报告的检查,也有其弱点。当时日军对于其需要报告的内容的部分方面有着非常严谨与客观的要求(比如,在某一日中所使用的弹药的卷数,或者阵亡日军官兵的人数),但在同时,一些个别单位也经常夸大其在战场中所杀伤的敌军数量(对于日军弹药消耗量的一些检查或许在某些情况下指明中国受难者的人数)。而这一种方法论主要被秦郁彦(Hata Ikuhiko),山本昌弘(Masahiro Yamamoto),以及Nankin Senshi(南京战史)的作者(译者特地查了日文网站的资料,此书是编辑的丛书,具体作者叫做‘財団法人偕行社’)。

The above methodologies can be defined by the sources they use. The other primary sources that exist are the diaries, letters and other documents authored by members of the three major groups in Nanjing: the "bystanders", members of the international community in Nanjing, the Chinese "victims", and the Japanese "perpetrators" (Yang 2000: 138). Hata does not believe that a close analysis of this set of sources can provide a means by which the number of victims in Nanjing can be counted. I am however convinced that he is wrong. The various documents authored by members of the international community in particular provide a great deal of (reasonably objective) information, but again have not been adequately utilised in the English language literature. Indeed to the best of my knowledge, I am the first to have exactly identified the membership of the Western community in Nanjing at the time in any language[24]

以上涉及的方法论大致是被其所使用的情报源所定义。而现实中,也有一些其他的一手材料,包括日记,信件以及另外由当时在南京的“三个团体”所写的文件。所谓的三个团体即是:一,“旁观者”,主要是当时在南京的国际社团成员;二,“中国受难者”;三,“日本施暴者” (Yang 2000: 138)。秦郁彦(Hata Ikuhiko)不认为通过对以上情报源的分析能得出一个方便计算受难者人数的手段。而我确信他的主张是错误的。事实上,尤其是由“旁观者”即国际社团成员所著的一些文件,提供了大量的信息,它们但却偏偏在英文研究中没有被好好利用。在我的知识范围之内,我应该是在任何一种语言的相关研究中,第一个确定当时在南京的西方人的具体成员的研究者。

There are a number of accounts in Chinese that are said to be authored by Chinese individuals who were in Nanjing during the early occupation.[25] Some of these at least are clearly false in parts (reporting conversations with members of the International Committee who had left the city, for instance), and almost certainly were the products of Chinese government propaganda. More work needs to be done to identify the work that is genuine, and to make a greater use of it in telling the story of occupied Nanjing as experienced by the Chinese residents of the city. The diaries of a large number of Chinese military personnel have been brought together and published, and so for the first time it is now possible to review the Chinese military experience of fighting the Japanese. None of this material is available in English, and Yamamoto and myself are perhaps the only authors to have begun to use this treasure trove of information in reconstructing the history of Nanjing in English.[26]Japanese accounts only began to appear long after the event, and in many cases have to be treated with some caution: "diaries" are not always products of the winter of 1937-38, for instance, but reconstructions authored decades later with particular political objectives in mind.

在中文语言中,也有一些对此事件的叙述。这些叙述主要是由在日军占领刚开始时还留在南京的一些中国人所留下的。一些这样的叙述在部分上是明显伪造的(比如,与事实上已经离开了南京城的国际委员会成员的对话记录),并很有可能是之后中国政府宣传需要的产物。确认其中真实部分的叙述则需要更多的工作投入,同样的投入也适于关于如何更好地使用这些材料去还原当时在南京城中的中国居民的经历。鉴于大量的当时中国军队人员的日记已经被收集起来的事实,有史以来第一次这变得可能去追溯以及还原当时中国军队反抗日军的经历。然而这些(中文)材料从来也没有被翻译成相关英文研究,山本昌弘(Masahiro Yamamoto)跟本人或许是仅有的两人,用这些包含着宝贵信息的材料,在英文的研究中,来进行还原南京时间的历史原貌。日文的类似材料往往是在事件的多年以后才出现,因此在很多情况下应当被小心对待,一个例子即所谓的“日记”并不总是在19371938那个冬天期间的产物,而是数十年之后(作者)怀着一定政治目的对于历史的重新解读。

A final source is provided by the records of the Tokyo Trial (many of the burial records were in fact drawn up for the postwar military trials of the Japanese responsible for Nanjing).[27]

最后的一个情报源则是由“东京审判”记录所提供的(事实上,许多的埋葬记录来自于对身负南京事件责任的日军将领的战后军事审判)。

These records again have to be treated with some caution. The perpetrators, the Japanese on trial, obviously had very strong motives for giving false testimony, but some aspects of the testimony of other witnesses can also easily be shown to be false. This can be explained perhaps by the long lapse of time between the events and the trials, although a desire for revenge cannot be completely ruled out. As a result, secondary materials based solely or mainly on the postwar military tribunals held in Tokyo and Nanjing have to be treated with some caution and scepticism (the work of Hora Tomio, for example, is a case in point).

这样的情报源依然应该被小心对待。施暴者,也就是站在审判席上的日军,明显有着强烈的动机去提供伪造的证词,然而部分由其他目击者所提供的证词也可以轻而易举地被指出作假之处。尽管无法完全排除复仇的欲望,这一现象似乎能被事件与审判发生之间巨大的时间差所解释。正因为此,完全或者很大程度上基于战后在南京跟东京举行的军事审判结果的二手材料也理应被小心翼翼且具有警惕的对待(比如说对于洞富雄Hora Tomio的著作)。

 

(未完。。。)

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4006900000 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有