「黃金時代」の構築 --一九〇〇～一九三〇年代の中國歷史敎科書における上古史像の變遷を中心に--

Abstract

History textbooks play a crucial role in fostering patriotism and cultivating ideal citizens. Ancient history, in particular, establishes the origins of a nation and its people, laying the foundation for citizens to recognize each other as compatriots. This paper examines the changing representations of Yao and Shun through the narratives of myth and history found in history textbooks from the late Qing and Republic of China eras. It also analyzes how the Nanjing Government attempted to use ancient history as a tool for maintaining power and promoting national unity. In section 1, the paper discusses the changes in descriptions of Yao and Shun in history textbooks during the late Qing and Republic of China periods. It notes that during these times, textbooks could be compiled without restrictions, allowing for varied depictions of Yao and Shun. After 1929, the Nanjing Government linked the Yao and Shun era to democratic systems, praising abdication as an “everlasting tale of beauty” and positioning the “Golden Age of Tang and Yu” as a time when the Huangdi lineage was superseded and the democratic ideals of “Tianxia Weigong” emerged. In section 2, the paper examines how the Kuomintang, represented by figures like Sun Yat-sen and Dai Jitao, perceived Yao and Shun. Sun Yat-sen initially praised Yao and Shun as those who “benefit all people, ” but after the death of the Empress Dowager Longyu, his portrayal of Yao and Shun shifted to focus on “republicanism, ” depicting them as leaders who governed with benevolence and led the people toward civilization, thus labeling their era as the “Golden Age.” After Sun's death, Dai Jitao emphasized Yao and Shun as the culmination of culture and moral order, theorizing the Three Principles of the People, and elevating Sun to a sacred position as the legitimate successor of the Yao-Shun-Confucian tradition. Section 3 addresses the 1929 prohibition of the book Ben Guo Shi 本國史 and reexamines the incident from the perspectives of its lesser-studied proponents of the ban, Cong Lianzhu 叢漣珠and Wang Hongyi 王鴻一. The chapter reveals how the denial of Yao and Shun conflicted with the Nanjing National Government's vision of constructing a “Golden Age.”