Historical Narratives of West- and East-Jin Periods and The Construction of History of The Early Period of The Three Kingdoms

• Main Authors: Jyun-Wei Chen, 陳俊偉
• Other Authors: Wen-Chin Wang
• Format: Others
• Published: 2013
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/77794651062745475196

碩士 === 國立東華大學 === 中國語文學系 === 101 === Books of the Three Kingdoms history written during the Wei-Jin period have been greatly lost. It is thanks to the Commentary to the Records of the Three Kingdoms by Pei Songzhi (372–451), who consulted and referenced about 210 books and among them more than 150 history books, that today’s researchers may still have abundant materials for the studies of this period, along with other existent history books such as Records of the Three Kingdoms by Chen Shou (233–297), Chronicles of Huayang by Chang Qu (291–361), and Records of Later Han by Yuan Hong (328–376). Nevertheless, most of the previous researchers on the Three Kingdoms tended to handle materials from these different sources via dualism and then simply treated those appearing trustworthy as historical facts without considering historical books as man-made products for each and every historian represented different individuals and thus interpreted the same history differently based on their different and unique backgrounds. Thus, by carefully focusing on three shared topics among historians on the Eastern Han, the pre-Three Kingdoms period, history image of Zhuge Liang (181–234), and Debate on Orthodox Regime, the current study observes how those already passed or gradually passing historians recall the history in that period of time, explores the mindsets of the northerner/southerner as winner/loser in West Jin, and identifies how those East-Jin historians have recalled the Three-Kingdom heroes and brave men coming from their hometown or have employed the Three-Kingdom history to ease their depression while going through the collapse of the empire, trapped in the transition phase, and facing a relatively less-controlled writing regime. The current study analyzes the historical narratives in most of the major history books about the Three Kingdoms in the Jin Dynasty and explores the reasons behind the historians’ points of view. There are three focuses overlapping as well as complementing one another, “Pre-Three-Kingdom Period” (194-220), historical images of Zhuge Liang, and “Official Three-Kingdom History”, and probed into along the five chapters mainly involving literary as well as historical work about the first half of the Three Kingdoms (184-232). The study not only opens up the less concerned “Pre-Three-Kingdom Period”, but also digs out thoroughly how Zhuge Liang has been depicted by historians in the West- and East-Jin periods, and more importantly sheds light on what have been neglected while discussing “Official Three-Kingdom History” to present various characteristics of different historians. 　　　It is also not difficult to discover that although Chen Shou was trying so hard to ‘ease the pain’ and record the history in a peaceful mindset, historians have been striving for narrating their own historical memories. One of the great values people have recognized about Pei Songzhi’s Commentary to the Records of the Three Kingdoms is to preserve all those viewpoints different from that of Chen Shou. In addition to provide later generations with an opportunity to deconstruct as well as reorganize history, Pei’s book has also opened up an exit from which the following generations can depart their imaginations around the magnificent warring era of the Three Kingdoms. 　　　The fundamental difference of research perspective has given the process as well as outcome of this study a new meaning. Since the process involves placing the study materials within the historical network of the Wei-Jin period, it is easier to come across most of the Three-Kingdom historical writing in the West- and East-Jin periods through making comparison. In light of that, this study adopts the original title without further probing into certain core topics, the ideology, the characteristics, and the connections, of the vast network of historians and their books, such as Yu Huan’s Wei Lue and Dian Lue, Sima Biao’s Xu Hanshu, Jiuzhou Chunqiu, Zhanlue, Chen Shou’s Sanguozhi, Huaqiao’s Hou Hanshu, Zhan Fan’s Hanji, Wang Yin’s Shuji, Jinshu, Chang Qu’s Huayangguozhi, YuanHong’s Jinyangqiu, etc., some frequently referenced books including Sunwu historian Xie Cheng’s Hou Hanshu and Xue Ying’s Houhanji, and some other useful but less consulted materials, such as Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu, Zhang Bo’s Wulu, Hu Chong’s Wuli, and Yu Pu’s Jiangbiaozhuan, etc. While summarizing the outcome of this new research perspective, the current study also possibly explains several problems in Pei’s book, and serves as a crucial foundation for further related studies.