英文摘要
|
Discourses on orthodoxy in the Northern Song Dynasty were based on the "cycle of the Five Elements", or whether a character succeeded or failed in certain events. At that time, the orthodoxy of Cao-Wei was widely discussed. Ever since Zhu Xi views that Shu, instead of Wei, was the orthodox legacy of Han dynasty, and his praising of Liu Bei and reproaching of Cao Cao had become the mainstream ideology, these two historical figures had always been interrelated in many various discourses. This study explores whether such orthodoxy concepts affected the literati's comments about Cao Cao. Through reviewing and analyzing historical texts, this study identifies that literati did not oppose or even recognize the Cao-Wei orthodoxy due to political reasons or because they had to acknowledge "factual achievement" as historians. However, due to the rising of Confucianism once again in the Northern Song Dynasty, "ethics" became a crucial element on how the literati viewed history, although it was not highlighted in most discourses on orthodoxy. In this case, poems served as a vehicle in which scholars and intellectuals could express their emotions. These poems provided an alternative viewpoint on the Three Kingdom Dynasty from the literati’s perspective, which was excluded from the orthodox history. In these poems, the image of Cao Cao had been villainized because of his immoral actions, including his injudicious execution of talented intellectuals and disloyalty towards the Han regime. They did not portray the heroic side of him as compared to works written in the Tang Dynasty, and the poems written after the mid Northern Song Dynasty further portrayed him as being resented by both God and men. Therefore, Cao Cao was not positioned as a noble character in the Northern Song Dynasty, although the literati affirmed that the Wei Dynasty was a legitimate bearer of the Mandate of Heaven. These views promoted the gradual defiling of Cao Cao's image since the Tang Dynasty to the Southern Song Dynasty.
|
参考文献
|
-
王文進(2010)。論赤壁意象的形成與流轉──「國事」、「史事」、「心事」、「故事」的四重奏。成大中文學報,28,83-124。
連結:
-
王德毅(2007)。蕭常《續後漢書》及其影響。東吳歷史學報,17,1-23。
連結:
-
田浩(2002)。史學與文化思想:司馬光對諸葛亮故事的重建。中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊,73(1),165-198。
連結:
-
(1983).景印文淵閣四庫全書.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
(2011)。《全宋詩》分析系統,北京:北京大學數據分析研究中心、欣諾格科技有限公司,2011 年。網址:http://www.chinabooktrading.com/song/。http://www.chinabooktrading.com/song/
-
(元)脫脫(1977).宋史.臺北:鼎文書局.
-
(宋)王欽若(編),周勛初(校訂)(2006).冊府元龜.南京:鳳凰出版社.
-
(宋)司馬光,吉書時(點校)(1998).稽古錄.北京:北京師範大學出版社.
-
(宋)司馬光,李之亮(箋注)(2009).司馬溫公集編年箋注.成都:巴蜀書社.
-
(宋)司馬光,資治通鑑新注編纂委員會(編)(1998).資治通鑑新注.西安:陝西人民出版社.
-
(宋)李昉(1960).太平御覽.北京:中華書局.
-
(宋)歐陽修,李之亮(箋注)(2007).歐陽修集編年箋注.四川:巴蜀書社.
-
(宋)蘇軾,(宋)郎曄(選注)(1957).經進東坡文集事略.北京:文學古籍刊行社.
-
(宋)蘇軾,孔凡禮(點校)(1986).蘇軾文集.北京:中華書局.
-
(宋)蘇軾,劉文忠(評注)(2007).東坡志林.北京:中華書局.
-
(宋)蘇頌,王同策(點校)(1988).蘇魏公文集.北京:中華書局.
-
(唐)房玄齡(1977).晉書.臺北:鼎文書局.
-
(晉)陳壽,(劉宋)裴松之(注)(1977).三國志.臺北:鼎文書局.
-
(梁)蕭統(編),(唐)李善(注)(1987).文選.臺北:文津出版社.
-
(清)全祖望,李心莊(編),陳叔諒(編)(1959).重編宋元學案.臺北:正中書局.
-
(清)何焯(1987).義門讀書記.北京:中華書局.
-
(清)紀昀(2001).四庫全書總目提要.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
(清)章學誠,倉修良(編注)(2008).文史通議新編新注.浙江:浙江古籍出版社.
-
(清)彭定求(編)(1971).全唐詩.臺北:明倫出版社.
-
(清)錢大昕(1997).嘉定錢大昕全集.南京:江蘇古籍出版社.
-
(劉宋)范曄(1977).後漢書.臺北:鼎文書局.
-
王潤農(2013)。臺北,東吳大學中國文學研究所。
-
汪文學(1998)。再論中國古代政治正統論。貴州文史叢刊,6,30-31。
-
金沛霖(編)(1998).通鑑史料別裁.北京:學苑出版社.
-
凌雲峰(2007)。武漢,華中科技大學。
-
張檢(2015)。西安,陝西師範大學。
-
陳植鍔(1986)。宋詩的分期及其標準。文學遺產,4,20-29。
-
傅樂成(1977).漢唐史論集.臺北:聯經出版社.
-
傅璇琮(編)(1998).全宋詩.北京:北京大學出版社.
-
劉浦江(2017).正統與華夷:中國傳統政治文化研究.北京:中華書局.
-
劉國忠(編),黃振萍(編)(2004).中國思想史參考資料集‧隋唐至清卷.北京:清華大學出版社.
-
劉復生(1997)。宋代「火運」論略──兼論「五德轉移」政治學的終結。歷史研究,3,91-105。
-
劉復生(1991).北宋中期儒學復興運動.臺北:文津出版社.
-
藏明(2012)。西安,西北大學。
-
饒宗頤(1996).中國史學上之正統論.上海:上海遠東出版社.
|