春秋戰國時期的歷史書寫與文化記憶

Abstract

本文以春秋戰國時期各類傳世、出土歷史散文為主要研究對象，探討其可能的撰作群體與文化淵源，體裁特質與敘事藝術，以及相關讀者／使用者對重要史事之接受、應用與意義。 文化記憶是關於一群體之起源、價值觀、認同的重要內容，其形式或媒介可表現為儀式、節慶、紀念物、口傳或文字經典等。就本文研究的時代言，歷史書寫堪稱最為顯目而重要的文化記憶表現形態。傳統歷史經典如《春秋》、《左傳》、《國語》等，莫不成於春秋戰國時期；隨著近年出土文獻大量現世，各種語類文獻、短篇事例、編年紀等材料，也為此時的歷史書寫勾畫了更完整的知識圖景。本文關注議題主要有三： 首先，春秋戰國時期的歷史書寫淵源於史官文化，但並不限於史職而開放給了更廣義的知識階層，則吾人如何理解此類撰作的文化背景與可能的作者群？本文將討論春秋戰國所見各種「史」職相關敘事，分析各種「史官故事」背後蘊含的文化意義，進而探討其與當時士階層的互動關係。 其次，春秋戰國時期成熟而勃發的書寫文化，對於當時歷史書寫的架構、內容與意義，造成何種影響？本文將探討歷史書寫的基礎架構—紀年法，比較傳世、出土所見各種紀年形式在運用方式、意義的異同。進一步，則針對各類歷史敘事體裁，就其修辭效用、敘事藝術進行分析，透過傳世、出土文獻的對讀，以及不同體裁的相互對照，反思傳統史學「記言」與「記事」分類的效用與意義，同時也呈現每種歷史敘事如何融會不同素材，並展現各自獨特的編纂目的與歷史觀點。 最後，春秋戰國時期不僅有豐富的歷史書寫，引用歷史典故之風氣亦極盛，換言之，若說歷史書寫是保存文化記憶的重要媒介，那麼時人廣泛應用此一媒介，又形成了什麼樣的記憶文化？本文將分析策士、諸子對「過去」如何重構、運用，並嘗試論述春秋戰國時期的歷史敘事與士文化的關聯。

On the topics of historical narrative and cultural memory in early China, this dissertation analyzed the authorship, forms, and narratives of historiography through transmitted and excavated texts, as well as the citation, interpretation, debating about historical anecdotes in the essays of Pre-Qiń strategists and philosophers. Based on the materials, method and former research of early Chinese historical writing introduced in Chapter I, the main research consists of five chapters corresponding to three subtopics of the authors, the texts and the readers of the Chūnqiū and Zhànguó historiography. Firstly, chapter II investigated three distinct types of historiographer: the historian family, the recorders of divination, and the‘heroic historian’; and indicated the latent conflict between ritual and rhetoric revealed in the ‘narrative of historiographers’. Also, applying the idea of ‘author-function’, this dissertation argued that despite the decreasing status and power, the historiographers gain the initial ‘author’ image by defencing their writing. Secondly, chapter III to V analyzed the genre and narrative of different historiography. Chapter III examined and compared the chronological forms in the transmitted and excavated texts, as well as the issue of cultural memory and identity politics implied in the chronological orders. Approaching by the case study of the ‘Jin conquered the Yu and Guo’, chapter IV observed how single anecdote display diverse utilities and meanings when it compiled into ‘records of the event’ and ‘records of discourse’, which traditionally composed the main category of Chinese historiography. Continuing the observation of structure and narrative, chapter V compared the dissimilar compilation, viewpoint, and historical interpretation represented in the ‘conflicts of Wú and Yuè’ of Zuǒzhuàn, Guóyǔ, and the Qinghuá Bamboo Slips respectively. Thirdly, chapter VI considered the aspect of the reader who recited, reused and even reformed historical anecdotes. By discussing the creative interpretation and the reflectivity toward history embodied in the discourses of the Zhànguó strategists and philosophers, this study deliberated on the feature and forming of cultural memory of ancient Chinese intellectuals.