|
|
|
| From Biographies of Confucian Scholars (Rulin Zhuan) to Biographies of Recluses (Yinyi Zhuan): The Writing of Historical Biographical Texts and the Transformation of Confucian Classics Scholarship in the Medieval Period |
| Liu Yameng |
| School of Liberal Arts, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract As one of the most important documents for studying the development of Confucian classics during the Han, Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, Biographies of Confucian Scholars not only provides specific historical materials such as the life experiences and academic pursuits of Confucian classics scholars in its content, but also its changes in writing styles and discursive modes are closely linked to the evolution of the institutional system of Confucian classics since the Han Dynasty.The compilation of Biographies of Confucian Scholars in Book of the Han bears distinct characteristics of systematicity and institutionalization. It is not a mere continuation of Biographies of Confucian Scholars in Records of the Grand Historian, but a systematic consolidation and sorting of the Confucian scholars in the Western Han Dynasty and their interpersonal connections within the context of the academic official system of Doctoral Scholars. It follows the sequence of the Five Classics with the Book of Changes as the first set in Seven Summaries (Qi Lue) to arrange the biographies of Confucian scholars, and establishes a rigorous stylistic framework with formulations such as “a particular school of thought emerged for a certain classic” and “a specific branch developed from a given school” to depict the inheritance pedigrees of the teacher-transmitted and school-specific traditions of each classic. Such a well-regulated and structured writing style not only reflects the improvement and finalization of the institutional system of Doctoral Confucian classics scholarship after the reigns of Emperor Xuan and Emperor Yuan, but also embodies the discursive consciousness shaped under this institutional context.With the decline of the academic official system of Doctoral Scholars at the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty, the Confucian classics scholarship system founded on the rigorous transmission of teacher-specific and school-specific traditions collapsed, and the institutional writing model of Biographies of Confucian Scholars in Book of the Han was no longer applied in the historical works that followed. Starting with Biographies of Confucian Scholars in Book of the Later Han, the writing approach of this biographical genre in the historical records of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties grew increasingly sketchy and perfunctory. The textual structure based on the fixed sequence of the Five Classics was abandoned, and the accounts of the inheritance of Confucian teachings also became more concise. Not only did the rigorous pedigrees of transmission—those that could even be presented in tabular form in the Book of the Han—vanish entirely, but in some cases, there was not even a clear account of the teacher-specific traditions that the Confucian scholars followed or the classics that they specialized in studying. Biographies of Confucian Scholars thus gradually converged with other categorical biographies, merely serving as a collective record of the life stories of Confucian classics scholars, and lost its function of structuring and defining the guiding principles of Confucian classics scholarship of its time. Behind the demise of the writing format of Biographies of Confucian Scholars in the Book of the Han lay the decline of the existential form and transmission methods of Doctoral Confucian classics scholarship in the Western and Eastern Han Dynasties.Meanwhile, the classificatory criteria between Biographies of Confucian Scholars and Biographies of Recluses grew increasingly blurred. The Book of the Song and Book of the Southern Qi even omitted Biographies of Confucian Scholars entirely; instead, they compiled the biographies of many great Confucian scholars well-versed in the classics into collective biographies of recluses such as Biographies of Recluses and Biographies of the Eminent Recluses. Mastering or being proficient in the Confucian classics was no longer an exclusive trait of Confucian scholars alone; rather, it became a foundational attribute and an important part of the life experience of the scholar-official class.These new phenomena in the compilation of historical biographies reflect that after the Wei and Jin dynasties, the focus of Confucian classics education shifted from official academies to private studies. Two forms emerged as the most important modes of transmitting Confucian classics in the era of ancient learning: the scholarship of renowned masters centered on local great Confucian scholars, and the transmission of family learning centered on aristocratic clans. The transformation and overlapping of the identities of Confucian classics scholars and recluses indicate that while studying the classics remained a path to gaining fame, it was no longer a ladder to official career advancement. Scholars’ interpretation and practice of the classical meanings gradually became more individualistic and integrated into daily life.This paper attempts to break away from the research paradigm centered on figures and events in traditional academic history and the history of Confucian classics scholarship. It focuses on the characteristics and evolutions of the writing styles of Biographies of Confucian Scholars in the standard histories of the medieval period such as the Book of the Han and the Book of the Later Han, examines their intrinsic connections with the changes in Confucian classics thought and academic institutions since the Han Dynasty, and further explores the intellectual history significantly inherent in the writing modes of historical biographical texts—as a manifestation of the ideological context and discursive characteristics of an era.
|
|
Received: 04 March 2025
|
|
|
|
1 钱穆：《两汉经学今古文平议》，北京：商务印书馆，2001年。
2 徐兴无：《从“六经”到“七经”》，见《早期经典的形成与文化自觉》，南京：南京大学出版社，2023年，第118-151页。
3 司马迁：《史记》，裴骃集解，司马贞索隐，张守节正义，北京：中华书局，1982年。
4 班固：《汉书》，颜师古注，北京：中华书局，1962年。
5 朱睦?：《授经图》，见王云五主编：《丛书集成初编》，北京：中华书局，1985年。
6 班固撰、王先谦补注：《汉书补注》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2008年。
7 范晔：《后汉书》，李贤等注，北京：中华书局，1965年。
8 魏徵等：《隋书》，北京：中华书局，1973年。
9 高文：《汉碑集释》，郑州：河南大学出版社，1997年。
10 洪适：《隶释》，北京：中华书局，1986年。
11 魏收：《魏书》，北京：中华书局，1974年。
12 萧子显：《南齐书》，北京：中华书局，1972年。
13 沈约：《宋书》，北京：中华书局，1974年。
14 姚思廉：《梁书》，北京：中华书局，1973年。
15 房玄龄等：《晋书》，北京：中华书局，1974年。
16 汤用彤：《王弼之周易论语新义》，见《汤用彤学术论文集》，北京：中华书局，2016年，第264-279页。
17 颜之推撰、王利器集解：《颜氏家训集解》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1980年。
18 胡宝国：《知识至上的南朝学风》，《文史》2009年第4期，第151-170页。
19 郭永吉：《六朝家庭经学教育与博学风气研究》，台北：华艺学术出版社，2013年。
20 唐长孺：《读〈抱朴子〉推论南北学风的异同》，见《魏晋南北朝史论丛》，北京：商务印书馆，2010年，第345-376页。
21 楼劲：《魏晋南北朝隋唐时期的知识阶层》，兰州：兰州大学出版社，2017年。
22 焦桂美：《南北朝经学史》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2009年。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
