| Summary: | 碩士 === 玄奘大學 === 中國語文學系碩博士班 === 102 === Western theory of narrative was first deveoped in the 1960s.However,not until the last ten years did Taiwanese academic pay its attention on it. Since the school has the same strain of traditional historical biography,while it has a strong political and religious purposes,thus, we hope this paper could comparatively probe into the narrative approach of Chinese Historical Literature. The main objectives are: First, to find out a common narrative structure model, and compare similarities and diversity. Second, to analyze the historian's narrative perspective from the adopted parts,removed parts and historical data was used. Third, to dissect the connotative church-state logic in the historical biography by comparing the morphological narrative text function.
Due to limited contexts vailable,we would narrowing the scope of this paper to the main repeated character of the biography—including Yuweng Shu Tsung, Wang Lun in the third chapter, Zhang Bangchang and Liu Yu in the fourth chapter and comparative analysis of the biography of the literary world between the two history.The comparison of narrative texts includes: birth narrative comparison, posthumous title and patriarchal comparison, comments comparison , main character's words,special talents or deeds comparison and the morphology Narration cmparison.
The fifth chapter analyzes the "Jin history"and the "Song histroy" in the literary world.
Since the biography of the literary world pass into a specific tradition: "Only discussing about specialized aspects," literature perspective such as "Good for governing" or "determined or expressing","Those who with great fame would not be choosed”.When it comes to narrative analysis, the biggest difference would be further emphasis on comparisons of literary skills or literary talent rather than Feats.
According to our survey,we can found that the" Song history’s"and the"Jin history’s" mode of narrative structure and morphology of the narrative almost bear no difference.
Although the two history drawn with a slightly different point of view,they,however, fundamentally followed the tradition of official history since the Tang dynasty, corresponding with the church-state supporting and good for governing functions.
|
|---|
