南京事件：最新研究及趋势（南京大屠杀学术研究情况）

bridged

南京事件：最新研究及趋势（部分一）Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends
[此博文包含视频] (2012-01-09 14:06:04)
转载▼
       

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

中文译者：YZ Zhu，负责翻译了“导言”部分；ZY Dong,负责翻译了“先行研究”部分。编辑及最终校对：YZ Zhu.



Introduction [1] 导言

The Nanjing (or Nanking) Incident (also known as the Rape of Nanjing, the Nanjing Massacre and the Nanjing Atrocities) remains a highly controversial episode in Sino-Japanese relations. Indeed, as this paper will make clear, it remains so controversial, especially in Japan, that a neutral definition has yet to be agreed upon.[2]However, most would perhaps agree on the following. The Nanjing Incident refers to the killing and raping of large numbers of Chinese over a relatively short period of time by the Japanese military after the city of Nanjing was captured on 13 December 1937. Sadly for the historian, however, the Nanjing Incident is not only an important episode in Sino-Japanese relations, but is also emerging as a fundamental keystone in the construction of the modern Chinese national identity. As a result, the historian's interest in and analysis of this event can be interpreted as an attack on the contemporary Chinese identity,[3] while a refusal to accept the "orthodox" position on Nanjing can be construed as an attempt to deny the Chinese nation a legitimate voice in international society - or, in Iris Chang's words, as a "second rape". Moreover, any demonstrated interest in Nanjing can be viewed in some circles in Japan as "Japan bashing" (in the case of foreign researchers) or "self-flagellation" (in the case of Japanese). In this environment, the debate can become highly emotionally charged, and the historian's struggle to maintain objectivity can quickly fall victim to the demands of contemporary politics.

在中日关系中，南京事件（又称为南京侵犯，南京大屠杀或者南京暴行）依然是一个具有高度争议的话题。基于这个事实，本文将试图展示，南京事变的争议程度是如此之大，尤其在日本，一个中性的定义甚至一直没有能得到广泛的认可。然而，大部分人或许会同意一下的一个定义：南京事变是指在1937年12月13号在南京城被攻陷之后发生在一段相对较短时间内，日本军队对中国人进行的大规模暴行（主要是杀戮与强奸）。令历史学者感觉悲伤的是，南京事件之于中日关系不仅仅是一段重要的历史事件，它也是所谓当代中国人民族身份的构成中最基本的一个关键之处。恰恰因为如此，历史学家对于这个事件的客观兴趣与分析，往往会被误解为对于当代中国人身份认知的一种攻击，特别是当一方拒绝接受所谓“正统”观念时，他们的这种行为往往会被当成一种试图否认中国在国际社会上应有地位的恶意，或者，在张纯如的笔下，这样的行为被认为是对“南京的第二次侵犯”。而在日本的某些圈子当中，任何对于南京的明显兴趣可以被认为是“对日本的攻击”（如果是外国研究者的话），或者是“自己打自己耳光”（如果是日本本国研究者的话）。在这样的一个环境下，双方关于南京的争论变得愈发的情绪化，而历史学家对此事件保持客观性的努力往往会被当代政治的诉求所掩盖。

The importance of the Nanjing Incident to contemporary Sino-Japanese relations can hardly be overstated. Nanjing forms one of the core historical issues on which Japan and China cannot agree, and continues to bedevil the bilateral relationship. It is reflected in the controversy over Japanese history textbooks. It certainly continues to poison Chinese opinion of Japan. Nanjing is also important in understanding contemporary domestic Japanese politics. The debate within Japan about Nanjing (and for that matter textbooks) is also a debate about the legitimacy of the findings of the postwar military tribunals held in Nanjing and especially Tokyo (the Tokyo Trial, or International Military Tribunal for the Far East). One side (the Great Massacre School: see below) is politically and ideologically committed to arguing for the validity of these tribunals and their findings. The Illusion School, on the other hand, is based at least to a certain extent on a rejection of these findings as "victor's justice". The debate in Japan is thus heavily influenced by a broader philosophical and ideological debate on history and historiography, and in particular the debate on the legitimacy of the historical narrative on prewar Japan that emerged from the postwar military tribunals.

然而，在当代中日关系中，南京事件的重要性是不能被低估的。作为中国与日本之间，无法互相认可的一个中心历史问题，南京事件提供了让双方继续互相抹黑对方的动力。日本教科书事件正是这样的一个例子，并且持续扭曲着中国对于日本的观念。对于当代日本国内政治的理解而言，南京事件也是一个重要的问题。在日本，关于南京的争论（比如教科书中）也是一场对于战败后在南京与（尤其）东京举行的军事审判（东京审判，或者叫做远东国际军事审判）中产生的最终结论合法性的争论。 有在政治上与意识形态上高度投入的一派（即“大屠杀学派”，见下），试图维护这些审判跟其结论的有效性。而在另外方面，所谓“幻觉学派”，至少在一定意义上，也是基于对于这些结论的不认可而将它们仅仅当做是“胜利者的正义”。因此，在日本国内，在很大程度上，对于南京的争论是被广义上哲学与意识形态之中对于历史跟历史学的争论所影响，尤其是在战后军事法庭上对战前日本历史描述的正当性问题上。

Nanjing is a topic that has attracted, especially in the West, and especially on the web, far more activists than historians. It remains a hot domestic and international political issue both in Japan and China. There are large organisations that seem to be involved solely in running anti-Japan and anti-Japanese campaigns about the Nanjing Incident; there are a number of magazines and numerous websites devoted to the Nanjing Incident; and Iris Chang (1997), The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, has enjoyed phenomenal sales.[4] Despite all the interest in Nanjing, however, the history of the incident remains a largely untold story. Indeed, one of the major problems with the historical research on Nanjing in Japan, where the research is most advanced, is that it has tended to collapse into largely meaningless semantics about whether the sum total of atrocities committed in and around Nanjing can be defined as a "great massacre", or what the definition of "Nanjing" is. Another problem is the obsession with numbers, where the moral and political implications of the discourse about Nanjing are engulfed in a reductionism that focuses solely on the number of victims. There are, however, some encouraging signs that the situation is changing for the better. This paper will attempt to clarify the current state of research on this incident and identify future areas of research.

在西方社会中，尤其在其网络世界中，南京是一个吸引了诸多活动分子而非职业历史学家的话题。同时在日本跟中国，南京也依然是一个火热且涉及国内跟国际政治的问题。基于南京事件，（在中国）有一些规模不小的组织甚至完全用此理由，来进行着反日的宣传与反日运动；（出版界）也有无数关于南京的杂志跟网络文章；于1997年出版的张纯如的《南京侵犯：二战中被遗忘的种族灭绝》更是拥有了现象界别的销售额度。尽管存在着种种对于南京的兴趣，南京事件的历史依然是一个没有被讲完的故事。确实，在日本，相关最先进的研究中，一个主要问题在于其往往很大程度上，演变成无意义的语义学上的讨论：比如，在南京城中及其周围所发生的暴行的总数目是否能被认为是“大屠杀”，或者“南京（城，地区）”的定义到底是如何划分。另外一个问题在于对于数字的纠结，在这个讨论之中，所有的道德上跟政治上的启发被最终吞噬于仅仅聚焦在受害者数字上的简化论。即便如此，依然有一些令人振奋的信号说明这样的情况似乎是在改变之中。这个文章试图归纳相关研究的现阶段成果与未来研究的方向及领域。



Current Research

先行研究

The majority of academic research on the Nanjing Incident is conducted in Japanese, English and Chinese. Of the three language groups, Japanese has produced the most sophisticated research, with the debate in English lagging decades behind. The most objective Chinese language materials are the collections of various primary sources, including the recollections of many of the Chinese military personnel in Nanjing.[5]

多数关于南京事件的学术研究使用日语，英语和中文。在这三种语言中，日语研究最为细致，包含了事件十年后的英语争辩。最为客观的中文资料则是各种来源的一手的资料，包括了许多中国军方人物在南京的回忆的收集。

However, these collections show no evidence of any vigorous critical attempt to distinguish between valid primary materials and other materials: photographs, for instance, which are known to be fabricated, or from different areas and different times, continue to be used to "prove" Japanese guilt in the winter of 1937-38 at Nanjing. Moreover, because of the limitations on free speech in mainland China, much of the secondary material merely parrots the government line of the day, and it would be difficult to describe the situation as a "debate".

然而，这些作品却无力证明其有效性：譬如那些已知为捏造的或是来自于不同时期不同地区的照片仍被用来“证明”日本在1937-38年冬天对南京犯下的罪行。更甚的是，由于在中国大陆自由言论的限制，许多辅助材料仅仅是机械地模仿官方言论，这种状况很难被形容为“争论”

Thus, for instance, the Westerners who remained behind in Nanjing to run the humanitarian Safety Zone have been vigorously criticised by the Chinese government in the past. To give just one example, a group of researchers at Nanjing University in the 1960s condemned the members of the Western community in Nanjing for turning a blind eye to the Japanese atrocities in the city, and "misused" the primary sources to suggest that they cooperated in the Japanese slaughter of Chinese. [6]

因此，在过去，那些留在南京人道主义安全地带的西方人士被中国政府大力批判。试举一例，南京大学的一部分研究人员在上世纪60年代谴责这些西方社区成员对日本在这座城市的暴行视而不见，并滥用资料以证明他们充当了日本在中国屠杀的帮凶

According to this group,

Not only were the foreigners unharmed, but amidst the echoing sounds of gunfire as the Japanese carried out their massacre, the foreigners entertained themselves with wine, song, and dance, celebrated Christmas, and ate their fill of roast beef, roast duck, sweet potatoes, and various other fresh food. When they had exhausted their appetites for pleasure they went home.[7]

根据这些人的言论，外国人不仅毫发无伤，而且在日本人大屠杀的枪声回荡之际，大肆饮酒歌舞庆祝圣诞，用烤牛肉，烤鸭，红薯以及其他新鲜食物满足他们的胃欲。当他们食欲得到充分的满足就各自返家。

It is of course true that the Westerners in Nanjing did work with the Japanese, but it was a reluctant cooperation, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it extended to deliberately helping the Japanese kill anyone.

As Chinese concerns about "American Imperialism" diminished, and as Japan became the target of official vitriol (partly at least because of the highly politicised and contentious issue of Japanese textbooks), views in China dramatically changed. Westerners were now depicted as active resistors rather than active collaborators. In another work frequently based on a vivid imagination rather than primary sources, Iris Chang (1997: 139) claimed that members of the international community jumped "in front of cannons and machine guns to prevent the Japanese from firing" on unarmed civilians.[8]

毫无疑问在南京的西方人士同日本人进行了合作，但也只是勉强的合作。绝无任何证据显示这种合作延伸到帮助日本人杀害他人。由于中国对于美帝国主义的顾虑减少，以及日本成为中国官方的攻击目标(至少部分是因为高度政治化并引起争议的日本教科书问题)，中国的看法戏剧性的改变了。西方人如今被描述为积极的抵抗者而非积极的合作者。在另一本更多基于生动的想象而非一手资料的作品中，张纯如声称国际友人纵身扑到大炮和机关枪前以防止日军向手无寸铁的平民开火。

However, although that did not happen - there is documentation of only one execution of one man that was witnessed by two members of the Western community who remained in Nanjing after the journalists left on 15 and 16 December - the work of the community is today highly lauded in all the literature on Nanjing and is one of the few areas about which all researchers of the Nanjing Incident can agree.

然而，尽管这样的事情并未发生-仅有文件证明两名西方社区成员在记者于10月15,16日离开后在南京目击了一起死刑，西方社区的贡献如今在所有关于南京事件的文学作品中被高度赞扬，并且这一点成为了所有南京事件研究者所能达成的少数共识。

Despite the fact that there seems to be little sign of internal debate in China, there are indications of an emerging discourse. Several Japanese works have been translated into Chinese, so readers have access to non-official points of view; the web provides a forum in which all points of view can be discussed freely; and the liberal world of free debate is open to those who can read and write in English. It is certainly possible that Chinese researchers will increasingly come to rely on the English publishing world to discuss Nanjing.

尽管事实上在中国内部关于南京事件鲜有争议，新的说法有产生的迹象。几部日语著作被翻译成中文，读者由此得以接触几种非官方的观点。网络提供了论坛以供所有观点得以自由讨论，辩论的自由之门向那些掌握英语读写的人们打开。有相当大的可能中国的研究人员会越来越依赖于英语出版界来讨论南京事件。

Although the research in Japanese remains superior to that in English and Chinese, this was not always the case. Ironically, perhaps, much of the primary material on Nanjing was originally written and published in English. The two central collections of primary materials consist of works published in English very soon after the incident itself: H. J. Timperley ed. (1938), What War Means: The Japanese Terror in China. A Documentary Record, and Hsū Shuhsi ed. (1939), Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone (this second work has been reprinted in Brook ed. 1999).

尽管日语研究仍凌驾于中文及英语研究，事事并非始终如此。讽刺意味的是，也许许多南京事件的主要材料最初是用英语书写并出版的。两部关于南京事件材料的重要作品就由事件发生不久后的英文出版物组成：H. J. Timperley（田伯烈）的（1938）《战争意味着什么：日本恐怖在中国 》和 徐淑希（1939）所著的《南京安全区档案》（于1999年再版）

This head-start has not however been maintained. The first major monograph on Nanjing to be published in English after Hsū was the problematic work by Iris Chang (1997), The Rape of Nanking, a work that can only be described as frequently fabricated and/or fictitious. Following the publication of Chang, historians have at last started to write in English about this important event in Sino-Japanese history. Joshua A. Fogel ed. (2000), The Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography, is by any standards an impressive work (albeit one that focuses on the historiography rather than the history of Nanjing). Although flawed, both Honda Katsuichi (1999), The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame, and Hua-ling Hu (2000), American Goddess at the Rape of Nanking: The Courage of Minnie Vautrin, are important contributions.[9]The latest in the long run of recent publications in English includes Masahiro Yamamoto (2000), Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity, a work that is easily the most objective historical account of Nanjing in the English-language literature to date.[10]

但这一领先优势并未被保持。在徐淑希后第一部英语出版的关于南京的主要专论是张纯如（1997）问题多多的《南京大屠杀》,一部被形容为频繁捏造或者妄想的作品。紧随张纯如作品的出版，历史学家终于开始用英语书写这一中日战争历史中的重要事件。Joshua A. Fogel（2000）的《历史编撰中的南京大屠杀》置诸各标准下都堪称令人印象深刻的作品（虽然此书关注史料甚于南京事件的历史）尽管有诸多瑕疵，本多胜一（1999）的《南京大屠杀始末采访录》和胡华玲的《南京大屠杀时期的美国女神：明妮·魏特琳的勇气》不失为对南京研究的重要贡献。这一长期英文出版的最新的成果包括了山本昌弘 Yamamoto Masahiro的《Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity,》，一部迄今为止最客观的记录历史的英文作品。

A recent and (from the viewpoint of the historian) very welcome development has been the publication of primary materials originally published in English but for decades now only readily available in Japanese (and to a certain extent Chinese) translation. Martha Lund Smalley ed. (1997), American Missionary Eyewitnesses to the Nanking Massacre, 1937 - 1938, Timothy Brook ed. (1999), Documents of the Rape of Nanking, and Zhang Kaiyuan ed. (2001), Eyewitnesses to Massacre: American Missionaries Bear Witness to Japanese Atrocities in Nanjing, are all collections of primary materials long unavailable in English. Finally, John Rabe's (1998) diary, The Good German of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe, is a crucial piece of documentation.

一项最近的并且（对历史学家而言）受欢迎的进步是那些原本用英文记录的材料但在数十年间仅可查于日文文献（以及一部分中文文献）的翻译的出版。Martha Lund Smalley(1997)的《美国传教士眼中的南京大屠杀，1937-1938》，Timothy Brook的《南京大屠杀史料新编》，章开沅的《天理难容：美国传教士眼中的南京大屠杀》这样的作品都长期欠缺英文版本。最后， John Rabe's (1998)的日记（拉贝日记）堪称一份极为重要的原始材料

The Japanese language literature is even more impressive. Unlike the debate in English, Japanese researchers have been debating - and truly debating - the incident for decades rather than only the past few years, so the Japanese language materials can only be summarised here. Recent popular interest in Japan about the Nanjing Incident has triggered a flood of books that together form a publishing industry. This was stimulated by the publication in English in 1997 of Iris Chang's book, together with the publication in Japanese of John Rabe's diary.[11]

日语文学相较之下更令人印象深刻。不同于英语研究界中的争议，日本研究者一直以来都在争论——的的确确地在争论南京事件而非仅仅最近几年，因此日语材料在本文中只能以概要形式出现。最近在日本关于南京事件的流行造就了大量书籍出版的浪潮。这是受1997年张纯如《南京侵犯：二战中被遗忘的种族灭绝》英文版和拉贝日记日文版的出版的刺激。

Moreover, a conservative political movement, the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform (Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho o Tsukuru Kai), together with theAssociation for the Advancement of a Liberal View of History (Jiyūshugi Shikan Kenkyūkai), has helped foster an intellectual environment in which the Japanese are no longer as willing as they have been in the past to have Japanese history interpreted for them from a set of assumptions known as the Tokyo Trial View of History. Chang's work in particular is unashamedly based on this view of history and, as is often the case with this particular historical tradition, is fatally flawed. The intellectual environment in Japan has changed to such a degree that Chang's work has found very little support, even among those who argue that a "great massacre" did occur. The reception of Rabe's diary has been, in general, much more positive. Together, these two works have served to reopen the debate in Japan on the Nanjing Incident.

此外，一家保守政治团体——新编历史教科书制作协会携同自由主义史观研究会一直以来努力促成一种学术环境——日本人不再像以前那样愿意接受东京审判的历史。基于这种新的历史观，张纯如的作品显得尤为厚颜无耻和缺陷致命，这对这种特别的历史传统而言已经成为了家常便饭。日本的学术环境改变如此之大以至于张纯如的作品难以寻求到支持，甚至是那些认为大屠杀确实发生了的学者当中。一般而言，对拉贝日记反应反而更为积极一些。总之，这两部作品发挥了重开日本关于南京大屠杀讨论的作用。

The best introductory work on the Nanjing Incident in any language probably remains Hata Ikuhiko (1986), Nankin Jiken - "Gyakusatsu" no Kōzō (The Nanjing Incident: The Structure of a "Massacre"). For recent monographs alone, see, for instance, Azuma Shirō san no Nankin Saiban o Sasaerukai ed. (2001), Kagai to Yurushi - Nankin Daigyakusatsu to Azuma Shirō Saiban (Harm and Forgiveness: The Great Nanjing Massacre and the Azuma Shirō Trial), Higashinakano Osamichi (1998), "Nankin Gyakusatsu" no Tettei Kenshō (A Thorough Investigation of the "Nanjing Massacre"), Higashinakano Osamichi and Fujioka Nobukatsu (1999), 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"), Igarashi Zennojō (2000), Ketteiban Nankin Jiken no Shinjitsu (The Truth of the Nanjing Incident: The Final Word), Itakura Yoshiaki (1999), Hontō wa Kō datta Nankin Jiken (The Truth about the Nanjing Incident), Kasahara Tokushi (1999), Nankin Jiken to Sankō Sakusen - Mirai ni Ikasu Sensō no Kioku (The Nanjing Incident and the Three Alls: Remembering the War for the Future), Kitamura Minoru (2001), "Nankin Jiken" no Tankyū - Sono Jitsuzō o motomete (An Enquiry into the "Nanjing Incident": The Search for the True Picture), Matsumura Toshio (1998), "Nankin Gyakusatsu" e no Daigimon (Serious Doubts about the "Nanjing Massacre"), Nankin Jiken Chōsa Kenkyūkai ed. (1999), Nankin Daigyakustsu Hiteiron 13 no Uso (Thirteen Lies by the Deniers of the Great Nanjing Massacre), Suzuki Akira (1999), Shin "Nankin Daigyakusatsu" no Maboroshi (The Illusion of the Great Nanjing Massacre: Further Thoughts), Takemoto Tadao and Ōhara Yasuo (2000), The Alleged "Nanking Massacre": Japan's Rebuttal to China's Forged Claims. Saishin "Nankin Daigyakusatsu": Sekai ni Uttaeru Nihon no Enzai, and Unemoto Masaki (1998), Shinsō Nankin Jiken - Raabe Nikki no Kenshō (The True Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Rabe Diary). Reflecting the high interest in Nanjing in Japan, several works have recently been republished. See, for instance, Tanaka Masaaki (1987/2001), Nankin Jiken no Sōkatsu - Gyakusatsu Hitei no Ronkyo (The Nanjing Incident Summed Up: The Grounds of the Denial of a Massacre), a work originally published in 1987 and no longer easily available, and Ara Ken'ichi (1987/2002), "Nankin Jiken" Nihonjin 48-nin no Shōgen (The "Nanjing Incident": The Testimony of 48 Japanese), again originally published in 1987. The latest work on Nanjing is Kasahara Tokushi (2002), Nankin Jiken to Nihonjin - Sensō no Kioku o meguru Nashonarizumu to Gurōbarizumu (The Nanjing Incident and the Japanese: Nationalism and Globalism in Memory of the War).

在各语言中关于南京事件最好的介绍性书籍也许是秦郁彦（Hata Ikuhiko） (1986), 《南京大屠杀真相 : 日本教授的论述》 。就最近的专论而言譬如支援东史郎案审判实行委员会(2001), 《东史郎诉讼案与南京大屠杀真相》东中野修道 （Higashinakano Osamichi） (1998), 《南京大屠杀的彻底检验》, 东中野修道（Higashinakano Osamichi ）与 藤刚信胜（Fujioka Nobukatsu） (1999), 《「ザ?レイプ?オブ?南京」の硏究 : 中国における「情報戦」の手口と戦略》, 五十岚善之机（Igarashi Zennojō）(2000),《 南京事件の真実 : 決定版》,板仓由明（Itakura Yoshiaki） (1999), 本当はこうだった南京事件, 笠原十九司, （Kasahara Tokushi ）(1999), 《南京事件と三光作戦 : 未来に生かす戦争の記憶》, 北村稔（Kitamura Minoru） (2001), 《「南京事件」の探究 : その実像をもとめて》, 松村俊夫（Matsumura Toshio） (1998), 《南京大屠杀大疑問》, 南京事件調查研究会（Nankin Jiken Chōsa Kenkyūkai） (1999), 《南京大虐殺否定論 13 のウソ》, 铃木明（Suzuki Akira） (1999), 《新「南京大虐殺」のまぼろし》, 竹本忠雄, （Takemoto Tadao） 以及大原康男（Ōhara Yasuo） (2000), 《再審「南京大虐殺」 : 世界に訴える日本の冤罪 : 日英バイリンガル》, 以及畝本正己（Unemoto Masaki ）(1998), 《真相南京事件 : ラーベの日記を検証して》.其中几本作品最近已经再版反映了日本对南京事件的浓厚兴趣. 比如, 田中正明(Tanaka Masaaki )(1987/2001), 的《南京事件の総括 : 虐殺否定十五の論拠》,于1987年出版并已经不再那么容易找到, 阿罗健一（Ara Ken'ichi） (1987/2002), 的《「南京事件」日本人48人の証言 》, 也是原于1987年出版. 最新关于南京事件的作品是笠原十九司（Kasahara Tokushi） (2002),《 南京事件と日本人 戦争の記憶をめぐるナショナリズムとグローバリズム》



One of the great limits of much of the research on the Nanjing Incident in English to date is that the debate in English has frequently been based on secondary historical resources. Indeed, one of the great differences between research in Japan and that in the English-speaking world, and one of the great strengths of the Japanese language literature, is that the Japanese tend to rely heavily on primary sources. Ironically, perhaps, a large number of materials originally written in English are in fact far more readily available today in Japanese than in English.

英语研究界关于南京事件研究最大的不足之一在于他们对事件的争论大多基于二手史料。的确，英语国家和日本研究界最大的不同，也是日语作品最大的优势在于日本研究者更倾向于原始资料。讽刺的是，大量原本用英文书写的资料事实上更容易在日文作品中找到而非从英文作品中。

For instance, the Nankin Jiken Chōsa Kenkyūkai ed. (1992), Nankin Jiken Shiryōshū (Materials on the Nanjing Incident), vol. 1, Amerika Kankei Shiryōhen (American Materials), collection contains 85 newspaper and magazine articles originally printed in English at the time of the Nanjing Incident but now readily available in English only to the dedicated researcher with access to a good library. In addition, this collection contains over 150 primary documents that shed much light on the events in Nanjing during the winter of 1937-38. Both Timperley and Hsū have long been available in Japanese. Rabe's diary appeared in Japanese before an English edition was published, and while a Japanese language edition of Minnie Vautrin's diary exists, researchers are still waiting for an English language edition. Kasahara (2001: 266-67) has in fact recently noted that "Nine different collections of historical materials on the massacre have been published [in Japan]. Rarely has so much documentation been compiled and published with regard to a single historical event".

例如，南京事件研究会（1992）《南京事件史料书》，vol. 1美国史料编中就包括了85份如今仅在大图书馆对专家学者开放的南京事件时英文出版的报纸和杂志。此外，这部作品还包括超过150份原始资料对1937-38年冬天的南京事件的情况进行了说明。Timperley和徐淑希的作品都长期不乏日文译本。拉贝日记的日文版先于英文版出版，并且在日文版的魏特林日记出版后，研究者还在苦盼英文版的问世。笠原正江（Kasahara Masae）(2001: 266-67)最近指出9本关于屠杀的历史材料在日本出版。对任一起历史事件而言，有如此多的文献被编辑出版都是鲜有的。

This tradition of publishing collections of primary materials in Japanese is still thriving: for recent works, see Minnie Vautrin (1999), Nankin Jiken no Hibi - Minii  Bōtorin no Nikki (Living the Nanjing Incident: The Diary of Minnie Vautrin), and Ishida Yūji ed. (2001), Shiryō Doitsu Gaikōkan no mita Nankin Jiken (Materials: The Nanjing Incident Witnessed by German Diplomats).

出版材料搜集的传统在日本仍旧兴盛，最近的作品可见明尼 魏特林（1999）《南京大屠杀纪实：魏特林日记》 石田勇治（Ishida Yūji）（2001）《资料ドイツ外交官の见た南京事件》

（未完。。。）



南京事件：最新研究及趋势（部分二）Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends
[此博文包含视频] (2012-01-09 14:21:07)
转载▼
       



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（代表人物板仓由明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，尽管山本昌弘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 満Ōi Mitsuru, 高池勝彦Takaike Katsuhiko, 藤刚信胜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 粲Nakamura Akira, 岡崎久彦Okazaki Hisahiko, 櫻井よしこSakurai Yoshiko, 田辺敏雄Tanabe Toshio and 原 剛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 跟高崎隆治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 跟东中野修道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 跟板仓由明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，40到50。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Nakamura和Unemoto），“一万”（冈崎 Okazaki, 樱井Sakurai,和田边Tanabe）到“两万左右”（原 Hara）（我依然会把原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跟吉田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跟高崎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 跟 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11月19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 "南京虐殺の徹底検証　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》（ザレイプオブ南京の研究―中国における“情報戦”の手口の戦略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《南京戦史》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 稔，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 跟大月書店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. Smythe（L.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：1937年12月到1938年3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1938年3月9号开始到同年4月2号结束，也包括了一些4月19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1937到1938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。。。）



南京事件：最新研究及趋势（部分三）Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends
[此博文包含视频] (2012-01-14 13:08:33)
转载▼
标签：
杂谈
       



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

译者：Ludwig_Lam

（英文部分在最后）



新近的趋势



随着《拉贝日记》的完整意涵得到完全的发掘,(Hata更称之为“拉贝效应”)日本国内的争论激烈程度似有相当程度的下降｡虽然相关的出版物依然层出不穷,新的共识却已逐渐显现｡拉贝干净利落地打破了大屠杀学派的论证据以成立的一系列基础,但亦坚决宣明他的立场,认为日军对搜掠､纵火､强奸及处决数以千计的､被确认为“曾服过兵役”的人民等等之类的事情负有责任[注释28]｡因此,他遭到了幻象学派的大力抨击,但是,须要说明的是,这件事(译者按：指《拉贝日记》的意涵被完整发掘)的重大影响,就长期看来,将为大屠杀学派的一众学者们所体认——他们之中已有人开始重估，并调低他们对于大屠杀遇难人数的估测｡Honda Katsuichi在其所著《南京大屠杀》(The Nanjing Massacre)的最新英译本中引人注目地降低了对于日军在南京城内及周边的一系列暴行之规模的估测｡正如Frank Gibney在其导论中所提及的,Honda现在相信“十万有余”这数字,乃是南京事件中所发生之大屠杀的真实规模(Honda 1999: xiii)｡这数字或许基于拉贝所估计的“五至六万的平民及士兵,包括战殁的士兵”再加上第二个“八万士兵”的数字而成(这一“八万士兵”的数字,是认为有九万士兵罹难,其中一万为战死,八万被处决)——虽然Gibney并未直接这么说｡换言之,至少有部分的大屠杀学派成员接受了拉贝所估测的数目——但仅将这数字应用于平民,而无视了拉贝所明确指出的,他自己的估测中至少有三万名战殁士兵的说法,亦无视了拉贝在其提交给德国使馆的一份官方报告中所估测的,平民死亡人数为“数千人”这一事实｡尽管经Honda修正过的数目乃是《拉贝日记》的产物,Honda自己的作品中却包含着一个更早的､在拉贝之前的估计｡Honda在此提出“我们需将于十一月至三月约三个月间发生在南京及其周边的一系列事件看作一个整体”——这提法十分契合他此后的论证——但是,在时间范围就此被拓宽后,他接着论述道,“我们正花费过多时间来确认死者的具体数目,但无人能否认大屠杀导致了数十万人的死亡”  (Honda 1999: 285)｡于是,Honda作品的英译本既在正文中涵括了“古老的”正统数目,即“数十万”的说法,亦涵括了新的正统数目“十万有余”｡



或许(在某种程度上)为了安抚中国人的敏感情绪,大屠杀学派的成员(包括Honda本人)逐渐表明其态度:愿秉持一开放的姿态,放宽他们对于“南京”的定义,使得这一概念可以涵盖更大的空间与时间,以便增加死亡数目的估测量｡例如，Kasahara所持之“超过十万,或许接近二十万,或许还有更多人”在“南京”遇难的立场,便可被视作一种既维护其作为历史学家之尊严,同时又不触及政治敏感议题的努力｡



日本国内的第二个研究趋势,是争论的国际化｡Honda的作品在争论中第一个被译为英语,但幻象学派的五大主将之一Tanaka Masaaki迅速跟进 (2000)｡一部有关南京事件的新作最近直接以英日两种语言出版 (Takemoto Tadao and Ōhara Yasuo 2000),则是争论国际化的另一标志｡不幸的是,尽管MasahiroYamamoto的立场“非常合理地”与Hata Ikuhiko相近,二位的著作却至今尚无译本｡



第三个研究趋势,是精通中日双语文本的西方学者于争论之中日益显示出他们的兴趣｡Joshua Fogel主编的一部著作,或许是这一趋势的最好例证,但其余如Timothy Brook及Bob Wakabayashi也做出了具高度原创性的研究成果,这些成果可说几乎必然改变西方学界对于南京事件的基本观感｡例如,Wakabayashi最近发表了一篇论文,对南京事件中著名的杀人比赛进行了探讨(Wakabayashi 2000)｡这场比赛,无论在汉语还是英语文献中,都是有关南京事件之杜撰的重要组成部分,但这个事件显然是虚假的｡Wakabayashi的论文乃是全世界最优秀的研究杀人比赛的学术著作,体现了日本本土之研究及出版著作之外的学者对于南京的研究水准｡正如前面所提及的,一个与之相关的趋势,是经过编辑成卷､并以英语出版的第一手资料的数目正在增加｡



第四个研究趋势,是一些学者最近试图对以往日本国内讨论南京事件及其罹难者数目之修正问题时被忽略的某些方面加以关注｡一个明显的例子,便是Timothy Brook在一篇尚未发表的论文中探讨了于南京成立的第一届“通敌卖国者政府”,更特别研究了政府成员Jimmy Wang的事迹(Brook, 未发表的手稿)｡此外,他亦对自治政府的后继者——维新政府进行了研究 (Brook 2001a)｡发生在日据南京的一系列故事,以及于日本统治者与中国被治者之间所建立起来的勾连,曾长期在争论中被忽略,Brook的工作可说开启了一扇新的窗户,拓展了我们对于南京事件的认知｡我本人已就相关的论题撰写了两篇论文,探讨南京安全区国际委员会及其在日本治下的种种经历｡[注释29]有关南京事件的整体性叙事及其与大屠杀叙事之比较的讨论——换言之,这讨论并非是一种“南京事件史”的分析,而毋宁说是一种“南京事件之历史编纂学“的分析（译者按：简单来讲，这句话的意思是，“叙事”不局限于“对于某个具体史实的考察”，而是在更宏观的层面上探讨这些“史实”应当如何被连贯地“组织起来”）——再度成为一个相对新颖的论题,提供了崭新且鲜活的洞见｡Daqing Yang(2000) 与Fogel(未发表的手稿)的相关著作尤为精深｡Kanemaru Yuichi(2000) 最近发表了一份具有开拓性的研究成果,探讨了华中地区的许多古籍与文物在战火中的命运,其中便包括南京的古籍与文物｡



一个相关的趋势,是最近试图克服先前探讨南京的文献背后所存在的一系列思维模式之局限性的努力｡例如,许多英文的南京研究文献具有一个常见的(可能是潜意识的)假设,其中“华人“的概念被“女性化”和“东方化”为“被动的”不作为者｡试举一例,南京大部地区在其刚被占领后的几个星期内便毁于火灾｡然而,这纵火案长期以来被各种论者或隐微或显白地全盘归罪于日本占领军,而无视或忽视了中国当局的焦土政策､南京城内尚有大量中方战斗人员存活､以及“占领南京后维系一个可以自给自足的城市中心,正是日军之目的”等等一系列事实(同样地,我们可以想见,中国政府一定想要防止日军借此巩固其滩头阵地)｡即令如此，有关中方在南京城内发动抵抗运动之可能性的探讨,仍是相关学术研究的处女地｡



既有的文献也非常不愿意探讨某些容易(我怀疑如此)成为争论焦点的议题｡例如,一个常见的基本假设是:日本人尽数邪恶,中国人尽数是无辜受害者——这假设当然非常契合某些人的情感需求，然而在历史学的意义上来看,却并不能提供一个完整的解释与说明｡为了加深对发生在南京城内及其周边的一系列事件的理解,我们将来或许不得不提出一些“挑拨性”甚强的问题:中方不顾无数平民被困城内，而放弃死守南京的做法,真的是正确的决策吗?中方使用“便衣士兵”(身着便装作战的士兵)的习惯,是否使得更多身着便装､且到达合法持有武器的年龄的男性平民遭到处决?中国军人在南京陷落后脱下军装,隐藏在平民之中的做法,是否亦对类似的处决起到了推波助澜的作用?日军处决身着便装､但被查出现携武器隐藏于平民之中者(至少在某些案例中如此)的决定是否合法?前文所述的英文文献的局限性,在以上这些问题中便凸显出来｡日本学者显然也极度不愿意对付这些问题,就此而言,不少类似的问题——至少在可见的未来——在汉语学界的南京叙事中依然会维持禁忌状态｡提出这样一些问题,并非是要否认曾发生在南京城内及其周边的一系列事件,而是为了阐明:南京事件的来龙去脉非常复杂,绝非先入为主的“黑-白”“好-坏”式立场宣示所能说清｡



总结



在这篇论文中,我尝试对南京事件的研究现状做一清晰的梳理｡在最后的总结中,我要提出一些自己的观点｡



其一,婉转地说,南京是一个争议性颇强的话题｡虽然我们对于南京事件的认知尚未开始接近我们对大屠杀的认知（译者按：这里的意思估计是，南京事件的提法，就性质上而言，尚没有大屠杀那么恶劣）,也显然可能将偏离原教旨立场的人认作与David Irving（译者按：英国历史学者，因否认纳粹大屠杀而颇受争议）无异的大屠杀否认者，而对其加以恶魔化｡问题在于,这“原教旨立场”在中日两国是迥异的,单就日本国内而言,便有三种不同的原教旨立”｡尽管日本国内确实发生不少争论,但至今无人同意“三十万遇难者”的数目具有哪怕一丁点的可信性;相比之下在中国,这“三十万遇难者”的数目被刻在南京大屠杀遇难同胞纪念馆入口的石碑上(译者按：双关语,除了“勒石铭耻”的表面意涵之外,还指“成为一种定见”)｡如果争论双方继续自说自话,而拒绝共同地建立一个更深刻,更完整且跨越国界的对于这一历史事件的认知,可能并非是一个令人乐见的局面｡从另一方面讲,若真要探讨“如何克服这问题”,却可能带来某种两难局面:由于相当多的争论受到意识形态话语的宰制,就此而言,历史学者的明智选择,可能是低调行事,转而研究其它话题,但无论如何,这并非一个可欲的结果——历史学者显然有义务与那些以南京事件为意识形态和国际争端之武器的取向作坚决的斗争｡



其次,南京事件无论如何已成为现代中国的自我认同建构之核心,而太多的日本学者对此事实不是茫然无知,便是根本无视：讨论南京事件,即是对这一自我认同进行威胁｡有鉴于此,所有参与类似争论的学者必须对此敏感性有充分的体认｡我无意争论中国的原教旨主义是否应当被无条件接受,若如此发问,很多人会感到受伤害｡平心而论,我本人深信人类不得不适应并接受“真实”的过去,又及,将国民认同建立于谎言之上,而非去发现真实并生活于真实之中,乃是更为危险的(至少长期来讲如此)｡无论如何,我们要努力(争论双方都要)避免挑衅性的语言,并对历史探询的道德意蕴表现出更大的关切与敏锐性｡



第三,作为历史学者,我们有义务秉持平和的态度,查明第一手材料,并基于这些资料的言述,来重现南京事件的历史真相｡有人显然试图为日本洗脱一切指责,同时也有人想要将日本彻底妖魔化｡这两类立场均不应成为有关南京事件之任何讨论的出发点,虽然它们都有可能成为相关研究的最终结论｡第一手资料的大量出版,乃是这条研究进路得以进行下去的起码条件,因此,我们需要鼓励大家尽力去发现这类资料,并付诸出版｡



最后,研究南京事件的历史学者需要广泛展开对话｡再一次地,我深切期望英语学界能够提供这类讨论的平台,在这类讨论之中,中日学者均可与来自第三方国家——如美国､加拿大或澳大利亚——的学者相互辩难｡汉语学界和日语学界的南京叙事中所蕴含的问题,是大多流于偏狭,且争论据以展开的政治气氛颇为紧张｡然而，惟有在“观念的市场”与反复的论辩(或许“中立的”第三方学者可以居中调停)中,我们才有达致真理的可能｡

Recent Trends

The debate in Japan appears to have quietened down to a certain extent as the full implications of Rabe's diary are digested (Hata among others speaks of the "Rabe effect"). Although the flood of publications continues, there are real signs of an emerging consensus. Rabe has clearly destroyed much of the basis for the arguments of the Great Massacre School, but also makes it absolutely clear that he was convinced that the Japanese army was responsible for looting, arson, rape and the execution of thousands of men identified as "ex-soldiers".[28] He has thus been most vigorously denounced by members of the Illusion School, but it must be said that the greatest impact in the long term will probably be felt among the ranks of the Great Massacre School, members of which have already begun to revise their numbers downwards. In the recent English translation of Honda Katsuichi's The Nanjing Massacre, Honda, for instance, has significantly reduced his estimate of the scale of the Japanese atrocities in and around Nanjing. As Frank Gibney notes in his introduction, Honda now believes that "a bit over 100,000" is the true figure for the scale of the massacre during the Nanjing Incident (Honda 1999: xiii). Although Gibney does not say so, this figure is probably based on Rabe's estimate of 50,000 to 60,000 for both civilians and soldiers, including soldiers killed in action, to which is then added a second figure of 80,000 soldiers (this assumes that 90,000 soldiers died, of whom 10,000 died in action, and 80,000 were executed). In other words, at least some members of the Great Massacre School appear to have accepted Rabe's estimate, but apply it to civilians only, despite the fact that Rabe clearly states that at least 30,000 of this estimate were soldiers killed in combat, and despite the fact that his estimates of the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy was "thousands". Although Honda's revised estimate is a product of the Rabe Diary, the text itself contains an earlier, pre-Rabe estimate. Honda here asserts that "we need to treat as a single phenomenon the approximately three months from November through January of the assault on Nanjing" - an assertion that matches his later arguments - but then goes on to state that, once the time-frame is thus broadened, "we are dealing with too much time to say anything specific about the numbers of people killed, but no one can deny that the victims of the massacre numbered in the hundreds of thousands" (Honda 1999: 285). The English translation of his work thus contains both the "old" orthodox figure of "hundreds of thousands" in the main text and the new orthodox figure of 100,000 plus.

Perhaps partly in an effort to placate Chinese sensitivities, members of the Great Massacre School (including Honda) are clearly becoming increasingly willing to openly broaden their definition of "Nanjing" so as to encompass a large enough space and long enough time to increase the death toll. Kasahara's position that "over 100,000, perhaps nearly 200,000 or even more" were killed in "Nanjing" can be viewed as an attempt to maintain his integrity as a historian, but at the same time to avoid offending political sensitivities.

A second trend in Japan is the internationalisation of the debate. Honda's work was the first to be translated into English, but was quickly followed by one of the major figures in the Illusion School, Tanaka Masaaki (2000). In another sign of the internationalisation of the debate in Japan, one of the recent works on Nanjing was originally published in both English and Japanese (Takemoto Tadao and Ōhara Yasuo 2000). Unfortunately, none of the historians has yet been translated, although Masahiro Yamamoto is reasonably close to Hata Ikuhiko's position.

A third trend is the increasing interest shown in the debate by Western academics who are aware of and well-versed in both the Japanese-language and Chinese-language literature. The work edited by Joshua Fogel is perhaps the best example of this, but others such as Timothy Brook and Bob Wakabayashi are also doing highly original research that is bound to change general perceptions of Nanjing in the West. Wakabayashi, for instance, has recently published a paper on the competition between two Japanese officers to see who could first kill (decapitate) a hundred Chinese with their swords (Wakabayashi 2000). This competition has become a major part of the myth of Nanjing in both the English and Chinese language literature, but is clearly false. Wakabayashi's paper is the best piece of academic research on this competition in any language, and demonstrates the advantages of having professional historians outside Japan research and publish on Nanjing. A related trend is, as noted above, the increasing number of edited volumes of primary materials that are being published in English.

A fourth trend has been the recent attempt by some to shed light on aspects of Nanjing long ignored in the Japanese debate and its fixation on the number of victims. An outstanding example of this is Timothy Brook who, in an as yet unpublished paper, examines the first collaborationist regime established in Nanjing, the Autonomous Government Committee, and in particular one of its members, Jimmy Wang (Brook, unpublished manuscript). Elsewhere, Brook examines the Reformed Government (Weixin Zhengfu) that replaced the Autonomous Government Committee (Brook 2001a). The story of occupied Nanjing, and the links established between Japanese rulers and Chinese ruled, has long been overlooked in the debate, and Brook's work opens new doors that expand our understanding of the event. I have written two papers on a related topic, the International Committee for the Nanking [Nanjing] Safety Zone and its experience of Japanese rule.[29] The discussion of the entire discourse on Nanjing and comparison with the discourse on the holocaust - in other words an analysis not of the history of Nanjing but of the historiography - is again a relatively new theme that is providing new and fruitful insights. The work of Daqing Yang (2000) and Joshua Fogel (unpublished manuscript) here is especially sophisticated. Kanemaru Yūichi (2000) has recently published a path-breaking piece of research on the fate of many of the books and other cultural treasures in areas of Central China, including Nanjing.

A related trend is the recent attempt to overcome some of the limits of the mindsets that underlie much of the previous literature on Nanjing. For instance, one common (if subconscious) assumption that can be seen behind much of the English-language literature on Nanjing is the notion of Chinese as feminised and Orientalised "passive" non-actors. To give a single example, a large part of Nanjing was destroyed by fire during the early weeks of occupation. Despite the official Chinese scorched-earth policy, the well-known existence within the walls of Nanjing of large numbers of Chinese military personnel, and the fact that it was in the interests of the Japanese to maintain a viable urban centre once they had captured it (just as much as it was in the interests of the Chinese government to deny the Japanese this centre), this arson has long been implicitly if not explicitly assumed to be the sole responsibility of the Japanese. The examination of the possibility of a Chinese resistance movement within Nanjing also remains virgin territory. [30]

The existing literature has been very reluctant to examine certain topics that will (I suspect) increasingly become the focus of attention. For instance, the basic assumption that the Japanese were all evil and the Chinese all innocent victims, while emotionally satisfying, does not provide for a complete historical account. To reach a deeper understanding of the events in and around Nanjing, a number of disturbing questions will have to be asked. Was the Chinese decision to make a stand at Nanjing, despite the large numbers of civilians trapped within its walls, the correct one? Did the Chinese custom of using units of what were known as "plain-clothes soldiers" (soldiers fighting in civilian clothes) contribute to the execution of plain-clothed male civilians of weapons-carrying age? Did the Chinese military decision to change out of military uniform after Nanjing fell and hide among the civilian population contribute to such executions? Was the Japanese decision to execute men in civilian clothes found (in some cases at least) with weapons hiding among the civilian population legal? The English language literature here may well come into its own. The Japanese clearly would be extremely reluctant to tackle these issues, and many of these questions will remain taboo in the Chinese-language discourse for the foreseeable future. To ask these questions is not to deny the events that occurred in and around Nanjing, but merely to demonstrate that the causes of this incident are more complex than a black-and-white good-versus-evil position might initially assume.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have attempted to shed some light on the state of research of the Nanjing Incident today. In conclusion, I would like to make a number of points about researching Nanjing.

First, to put it mildly, Nanjing is a controversial topic. Although our understanding of the events of Nanjing do not even begin to approach our understanding of the holocaust, it is certainly possible to demonise anyone who budges from the orthodox position as being a denier on par with a David Irving. The problem is that the orthodox position is completely different in China and Japan, and within Japan itself there are three distinct orthodoxies. Although there is real debate in Japan, no one there now accepts the figure of 300,000 victims as plausible, while in China the figure is set in concrete (in both senses of the word) at the entrance of the Memorial for the Compatriot [Chinese] Victims of the Japanese Massacre in Nanjing. Unless the debate is to continue to run on parallel lines, never to come together to produce a deeper, more complete and transnational understanding of this historical event, this is not a situation to be welcomed. How to overcome it, on the other hand, poses a dilemma. As long as much of the debate is dominated by ideologues, the sensible option for historians may well be to keep their heads low and research other topics. That, however, cannot be a desirable outcome. Historians surely have an obligation to combat the trend to use Nanjing as a weapon in contemporary ideological and international contests.

Secondly, too many Japanese researchers in particular are either completely ignorant of, or do not care about, the fact that Nanjing for better or for worse has become a central plank in the construction of the modern self-identity of the Chinese. To discuss Nanjing is to threaten this self-identity. Once aware of this fact, all who participate in the debate need to show some sensitivity to it. I am not arguing that the Chinese orthodoxy needs to be accepted without question because the feelings of so many will be hurt if it is questioned. Indeed, I strongly believe that human beings have to come to terms with the "real" past and accept it, and that it is more dangerous (at least in the long term) to found national identity on a lie than to discover the truth and live with it. However, some effort does need to be made (on both extremes of the debate) to avoid the use of inflammatory language, and to show a much greater awareness of and sensitivity to the moral implications of historical inquiry.

Thirdly, as historians, it is our obligation to examine calmly the primary materials and reconstruct the history of Nanjing on the basis of what those materials say. Some clearly want to absolve the Japanese of all blame, while others want to depict the Japanese as a uniquely brutal and ruthless race. Neither position should form the starting point of any discussion of the events in Nanjing - although, of course, either might be the conclusion of any such examination. The publication of as many primary materials as possible is clearly a basic condition for this approach, so we need to encourage the discovery and publication of as much as possible.

Finally, a dialogue between historians working on the Nanjing Incident needs to be promoted. Again, I have great hopes for the forum provided by the English language, where researchers from both Japan and China can debate with researchers from third-party countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia. The problem with the Chinese and Japanese language discourses is that they are both so insular and the political environments are so charged. It is in the market of ideas and through constant debate (and perhaps the mediation provided by "neutral", third-party historians), that the truth will be approached.