published_or_final_version / abstract / Chinese Historical Studies / Master / Master of Arts

楊青. / "2013年8月". / "2013 nian 8 yue". / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 172-182). / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstract in Chinese and English. / Yang Qing.

No description available.

Chinese / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

No description available.

《隋書》及《北史》皆云南北朝經學「章句好尚，互有不同」，又述南北異同云：「江左《周易》則王輔嗣，《尚書》則孔安國，《左傳》則杜元凱。河、洛《左傳》則服子慎，《尚書》、《周易》則鄭康成。《詩》則並主於毛公，《禮》則同遵於鄭氏。」歷來論南北經學流派者，莫不以此文為據。學者或以為南北經學之好尚，《隋書》、《北史》「數言盡之」（皮錫瑞語），即謂同則趨同，異則迥異，涇渭分明。亦有學者不作絶對之論，稱南朝不無宗鄭玄者，北朝猶有習偽孔者。持此論者之所據，多為南北各朝史傳、《經典釋文》、《隋書》所載南北諸經立學、門戶承傳之概況，惟史料零碎，且個別細節語焉不詳。同時，學界不乏以輯本南北朝經學佚書鑽研經學史者，惜輯本內容佔原書幾何，不甚明確，貿然藉此立論，恐失之武斷。 / 目前，藉南北朝傳世文獻研究時人對諸經注解之好尚，暫未一見，本文以為研治南北經學好尚問題，當可在此着墨。南北朝傳世古注之具名引用諸經注解者，有南人裴松之《三國志注》、裴駰《史記集解》、劉孝標《世說新語注》、皇侃《論語義疏》，以及北人酈道元《水經注》五種。鑑於南北對於《周易》、《尚書》、《左傳》、《論語》四經注解之好尚差異最大，故本文旨在考覈上述傳世古注所引四經注解，以探求前列南北注家五人對經注之好尚，從而疏理南北朝南北經學之沿革，以為經學史研究開一嶄新門徑。 / 本文共分八章。第一章回顧南北朝南北經學好尚之研究步伐，並提出藉用南北朝傳世古注所引諸經注解為探討此問題之新方向。第二章略述南北朝傳世古注引諸經注解之特色，以鉤其引書之概念。第三至第六章，則逐一考索南北朝傳世古注所引《周易》、《尚書》、《春秋左傳》、《論語》四經注解，並議論南北經學沿革相關問題。第七章專講徐彥《春秋公羊傳疏》。徐《疏》舊題唐代，惟清代以降，學者或以為北朝之書，又或以為其書並非一時之作，而終成於唐，各具實據。無論如何，本文不排除徐《疏》包羅北朝經解成分，故設專章考述其引用以上四經注解之情況，以為餘論。卒章總結全文。 / According to Suishu隋書 and Beishi北史, the Southern and Northern Dynasties favored respectively different interpretations of the Confucian Classics (jing經). Taking Shangshu尚書 as an example, Zheng Xuan鄭玄’s annotation was preferred in the North, whereas the annotation with its authorship assigned to Kong An’guo孔安國 was preferred in the South. To study the divisions of jingxue經學 during the Southern and Northern Dynasties, reviewers have constantly regarded the above statement as a foundation. Some of them, such as Pi Xirui皮錫瑞, believed that Suishu and Beishi had precisely concluded the trend of orthodoxy, as coherent comments on jingxue can be observed respectively within the Southern and Northern Dynasties. However certain counterexamples exist, for instance, Zheng’s commentary was adopted in the South, whereas Kong’s annotation was also studied in the North. Dissenters’ arguments mainly based on the official history of the South and the North. Alternative sources include Jingdian Shiwen經典釋文, Suishu and the recovered texts (jiyishu輯佚書) of the related period, with the latter being piecemeal and incomprehensive. Nevertheless, few studies have succeeded investigating the interpretations of jing at that time with the aid of the transmitted notes (zhu注) of the Southern and Northern Dynasties, namely Sanguozhi Zhu三國志注, Shiji Jijie史記集解, Shishuo Xinyu Zhu世說新語注, Lunyü Yishu論語義疏 and Shuijing Zhu水經注, which serves as alternative corpora. Through a close examination of the notes’ citation, this thesis aims at investigating coexisting evaluations towards various notes of jing, as well as articulating jingxue’s development throughout that period. / This thesis comprises eight chapters. The first chapter reviews past studies and the inadequacy therein, declaring the transmitted notes of the Southern and Northern Dynasties as an alternative source for research. Chapter Two summarizes the rules of the citations of commentaries on Classics found in the transmitted notes above. Details for those of Zhouyi周易, Shangshu, Zuozhuan左傳 and Lunyü論語 are presented with analysis in the next four chapters respectively. Chapter Seven looks into the commentaries on the four Classics cited in Chunqiu Gongyangzhuan Shu春秋公羊傳疏, which to a certain extent shows the scholars’ preferences in the North due to the multiplicity of authorship. The final chapter serves as a conclusion. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 伍尚俊. / "2012年9月". / "2012 nian 9 yue". / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2012. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 290-308). / Abstract in Chinese and English. / Wu Shangjun. / 凡例 --- p.1 / Chapter 第一章 --- 南北朝經學好尚研究之回顧暨新方向之提出 --- p.5 / Chapter 第一節 --- 目前南北朝經學好尚相關研究成果述要 --- p.5 / Chapter 第二節 --- 概說南北經學好尚研究之新方向──南北朝傳世古注引諸經注解 --- p.7 / Chapter 第二章 --- 南北朝傳世古注引諸經注解之特色述略 --- p.14 / Chapter 第一節 --- 裴松之《三國志注》引諸經注解之特色 --- p.14 / Chapter 第二節 --- 裴駰《史記集解》引諸經注解之特色 --- p.14 / Chapter 第三節 --- 劉孝標《世說新語注》引諸經注解之特色 --- p.15 / Chapter 第四節 --- 皇侃《論語義疏》引諸經注解之特色 --- p.16 / Chapter 第五節 --- 酈道元《水經注》引諸經注解之特色 --- p.16 / Chapter 第三章 --- 南北朝傳世古注引《周易》注解考辨 --- p.22 / Chapter 第一節 --- 引言 --- p.22 / Chapter 第二節 --- 裴駰《史記集解》引《周易》注解兼採漢魏晉說考 --- p.22 / Chapter 第三節 --- 劉孝標《世說新語注》引《周易》注解獨取魏晉說考 --- p.30 / Chapter 第四節 --- 結語 --- p.33 / Chapter 第四章 --- 南北朝傳世古注引《尚書》注解考辨 --- p.37 / Chapter 第一節 --- 引言 --- p.37 / Chapter 第二節 --- 裴松之《三國志注》引《尚書》注解獨取漢說考 --- p.37 / Chapter 第三節 --- 裴駰《史記集解》引《尚書》注解兼採漢魏晉說考 --- p.47 / Chapter 第四節 --- 劉孝標《世說新語注》及皇侃《論語義疏》引《尚書》注解-分別獨取《偽孔傳》及鄭玄注叢考 --- p.103 / Chapter 第五節 --- 酈道元《水經注》引《尚書》注解兼採漢魏晉說考 --- p.110 / Chapter 第六節 --- 結語 --- p.123 / Chapter 第五章 --- 南北朝傳世古注引《春秋左傳》注解考辨 --- p.132 / Chapter 第一節 --- 引言 --- p.132 / Chapter 第二節 --- 裴松之《三國志注》引《左傳》注解兼採漢晉說考 --- p.132 / Chapter 第三節 --- 裴駰《史記集解》引《左傳》注解兼採漢魏晉說考 --- p.134 / Chapter 第四節 --- 劉孝標《世說新語注》及皇侃《論語義疏》引《左傳》注解-獨取杜預注叢考 --- p.160 / Chapter 第五節 --- 酈道元《水經注》引《左傳》注解兼採漢魏晉說考 --- p.166 / Chapter 第六節 --- 結語 --- p.180 / Chapter 第六章 --- 南北朝傳世古注引《論語》注解考辨 --- p.189 / Chapter 第一節 --- 引言 --- p.189 / Chapter 第二節 --- 裴駰《史記集解》引《論語》注解兼用何晏、江熙二家《集解》考 --- p.189 / Chapter 第三節 --- 劉孝標《世說新語注》引《論語》注解用何晏《集解》考 --- p.229 / Chapter 第四節 --- 南北朝傳世古注引漢魏晉《論語》注解好尚之異同及其原因 --- p.241 / Chapter 第五節 --- 結語 --- p.244 / Chapter 第七章 --- 徐彥《春秋公羊傳疏》引諸經注解考辨 --- p.249 / Chapter 第一節 --- 引言 --- p.249 / Chapter 第二節 --- 徐《疏》引《周易》注解獨取漢說考 --- p.250 / Chapter 第三節 --- 徐《疏》引《尚書》注解獨取漢說考 --- p.262 / Chapter 第四節 --- 徐《疏》引《春秋左傳》注解兼採漢晉說考 --- p.267 / Chapter 第五節 --- 徐《疏》引《論語》注解獨取漢說考 --- p.280 / Chapter 第六節 --- 結語 --- p.283 / 總結 --- p.287 / 參考文獻 --- p.291

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Chinese / Master / Master of Philosophy

No description available.

abstract / toc / Chinese / Master / Master of Philosophy

The Tuoba's success in the making of the Northern Wei as a conquest dynasty in fifth century northern China will be argued in this thesis as a result of their ability to cross between the traditions and practices of the Chinese sphere and those of the Eurasian steppe, through the construction of a "dual presence" in the Pingcheng period (398-494 CE). A negotiation of material culture in this formative phase of state-building allowed for new notions of kingship, dynastic identity, and representations of daily life to be (re)created. This was manifested separately through the application of mountain-side stone sculptures, tomb repertoires, as well as the conception of Pingcheng as a capital city. The material cultural expressions explored in this thesis reflect significant changes in the socio-cultural atmosphere at this point in history. In effect, these ritual, funerary, and commemorative discourses wove together to create new notions of "Chineseness" in fifth century northern China. In the following discussion, we will come to recognize the Tuoba’s maintenance of a "dual presence", not only as "Son of Heaven" to the conquered subjects, but also carrying over practices that befit a Khagan in the Central Asian tradition, as an act of ingenuity.