摘要
作为史学大家 ,司马迁和班固的历史记述都保留了若干生态史的信息。对于灾异史的记录和灾异的理解 ,马班也各有见解。通过对《史》《汉》相关内容的比较分析 ,可以看到作者学术个性的差异。班固对于灾异的理解与司马迁自然主义的倾向不同 ,多有神秘主义的色彩。在关注生态和经济的关系以及生态和民俗的关系时 ,司马迁比较重视前者 ,而班固似乎更为重视后者。班固对民俗的关注 ,似乎是从强化政治管理的动机出发的。有关西汉生态保护意识的资料 ,《汉书》所提供的要更多一些。但是以考古资料对证 ,重要资料也并不是没有遗漏。历来学者进行马班的比较 ,或“甲班而乙马” ,或“劣固而优迁” ,近数十年则后一种意见明显占上风。其实就生态观念的比较而言 ,或许可以得出“马班二史互有得失”
Some information about ecological history left in the historical records by Sima Qian and Ban Gu,great historians.who held different ideas about the records and understanding of historcal disasters.After comparative analyses on the relative content in 'The Historical Records' and 'The Han Classics',the dissimilarity can be found in their authors academical indiveduality.Ban Gu's understanding of disasters,bearing,for the most part ,mysterious color,differed from Sima Qian's naturalistic tendency.when concerned about the relationship between ecology and economy,and evology and folkways,Sima valued higher the former and Ban the latter.But Ban's concern about the folkways seems out of the motive of consolidating political administration.'The Han Classics' provides us more materials about west Han's sense of ecological preservation,while some important materials may be left out in the light of confirmation with some archaeological discoveries.For a quite long time,when comparing Sima and Ban,scholars'either considered Ban was superior to Sima',or'vice versa',only in the past decades,has this kind of comparison become settled that the idea that Ban is not as superior as Sima is evidently pervasive.In fact,a conclusion may be drawn that historical records made by Sima and Ban,so far as the comparison of ecological ideas is concerned,have merits and faults respectively.
出处
《周口师范学院学报》
CAS
2003年第1期83-89,共7页
Journal of Zhoukou Normal University
