《百苗图》对《贵州通志·苗蛮志》(乾隆)的批判与匡正(下)

The Criticism and Rectification of the book Baimiao Paint on Guizhou Annals·Miao Annals(The Second Half Part)

《贵州通志.苗蛮志》①(乾隆)与《百苗图》两书写作的时间相近,所处社会背景相同,叙述的对象都是今贵州境内的各民族传统文化,所述内容也十分接近。不同者在于,前者是官方著述,采取的是官方立场,评议标准具有鲜明的官本位色彩,参与编修者一般未经实地查勘,大多靠摘编前人著述或凭当事人的转述材料成文,因而疏漏错讹在所难免。后者则是陈浩凭借本人的实地经历,参阅前人著述,编成的文图并茂的民族志专著。由于位卑言轻,陈浩对“乾志”的疏漏错讹和立场观点的不满,虽然多有批判和匡正,但言词委婉,手法隐讳,以至于后世研究者若不加细究,不免误以为《百苗图》仅靠摘编“乾志”成文,因而史料价值不大。本文在逐字对校两书相关记载的基础上,结合《百苗图》的附图,发现陈浩对“乾志”的批判极为严厉,所作的匡正也具有极高的史料价值。因而要了解当时贵州各民族的实情,理应看重《百苗图》,不能偏信“乾志”的记载。

Guizhou Annals＇ Miao Annals has much similarity with the book Baimiao Paint in aspects of written time, social background, objects and contents. However, the former was compiled by officials and adopted an official standpoint; the compilers, relying on the previous books or second-hand information, did not examine what they described in the annals in person, so mistakes abounded in the annals. The latter was written by Chen Hao according to his own experience. Traditionally, Chen Hao was regarded that he did not give clear criticism and rectification on the annals, and that his book Baimiao Paint did not have significant value in history. The author of the paper, by comparing the annals and Chen Hao＇s book carefully, finds that the book Baimiao Paint has a higher historical value than the annals, thus if one wants to know the social situations of Guizhou at that time, he should first choose Baimiao Paint.