MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5 新たなアジア研究に向けて5号
14/112

doro uhe be gucu obumbi sehebi, dergi be eiterere, cisu be yabure be, adarame doro obuci ombi, o yang sio i doro sehengge, inu buya niyalmai doro dabala, ere leolen be araha ci ebsi, buya niyalma i gucu ohongge, gemu bahafi doro uhe sere gebu de aname, ini aisi be uhelere yargiyan de tusa obuhabi, mini gπnin de, ambasa saisa de gucu akπ, damu buya niyalma de bi sembi. tuttu bime o yang sio i leolen i songkoi oci, hokilame duhembuhengge be uthai ambasa saisa obure, facali samsifi hokilame duhembuhekπngge be nememe buya niyalma obure de isinambi. gucu hoki i tacin, badarafi ten de isinafi maribuci ojorakπ ohongge, yargiyan i o yang sio i deribuhe jobolon kai. aikabade o yang sio, ten i forgon de banjifi ere leolen be araci, bi urunakπ wafi terei jalan be hπlimbuha weile be tuwancihiyambi. Ouyang Xiu, in his Peng dang lun, which was written during the Song dynasty, first set forth the iniquitous doctrine that “factions of gentlemen are based on the ‘common Way.’ However, how can deceiving authority and acting arbitrarily ever be considered the Way? What Ouyang Xiu considers the Way is nothing more than the Way of petty men. Ever since this discourse was first preached, all those who form factions of petty men have simply acted as they pleased, claiming it is the common Way, and though they affiliate for mutual gain they have all the while pursued their own private interests. In my view “there is no such thing as a faction of gentleman; they only exist among petty men.” However, if Ouyang Xiu’s discourse is followed through to its logical conclusion, those who formed factions and maintained them until the very end would be regarded as gentlemen, and those who, having disbanded, did not maintain the faction they formed until the very end, would be regarded conversely as petty men. The fact that the practice of factional affiliation has now swelled to such an extent that it can no longer be pushed back is in truth a great woe, the seeds of which were first planted by Ouyang Xiu. If Ouyang Xiu had been born in this age and had put forth such a treatise, I would most surely have had him put to death as a way of righting his great crime of misleading the public.Secondly, the Chinese text.宋欧陽脩朋党論、創為異説曰、君子以同道為朋。夫罔上行私、安得謂道。脩之所謂道、亦小人之道耳。自有此論、而小人之為朋者、皆得仮同道之名、以済其同利之実。朕以為君子無朋、惟小人則有之。且如脩之論、将使終其党者、則為君子。解散而不終於党者、反為小人乎。設脩在今日而為此論、朕必飭之以正其惑。A comparison of the Manchu and Chinese versions reveals that the section in the Manchu text which reads “The fact that the practice of factional affiliation has now swelled to such an extent that it can no longer be pushed back is in truth a great woe, the seeds of which were first planted by Ouyang Xiu” is missing from the Chinese version. Furthermore, while the following sentence in the Manchu version uses harsh language, saying “If Ouyang Xiu had been born in this age and had put forth such a treatise, I would most surely have had him put to death as a way of righting his great crime of misleading the public,” the equivalent sentence in the Chinese version has a softer tone.Thus, the fact that the same content is presented in different languages makes it all the more essential to conduct a comparative analysis of the two languages. Indeed, as we have seen and in particular, viewing the Manchu text can reveal many new insights that would have remained obscure if only the Chinese text were studied.010MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5

元のページ 

10秒後に元のページに移動します

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です