{"title":"成为文:汉文帝、魏文帝“绝谕”中的修辞","authors":"Meow Hui Goh","doi":"10.1179/1529910413Z.0000000008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article argues that an emperor’s “final edict” (yizhao 遺詔, yiling 遺令, zhongling 終令, or zhongzhi 終制) should be read not simply as an emperor’s instruction for his funeral and burial, but as a piece of rhetoric meant to define his image and legacy. Through a comparative reading of Han Emperor Wen’s and Wei Emperor Wen’s “final edicts”—two of the longest pieces in the early development of the genre—the author discusses their different rhetorical strategies, their different visions of emperorship, and their different imperial “personae.” In conducting the comparison, the author also examines the authority of imperial rhetoric against skepticism about such rhetoric. As her analysis demonstrates, the tension between rhetoric and anti-rhetoric is present even within a “final edict” itself and can still be felt in modern interpretations of the genre.","PeriodicalId":41624,"journal":{"name":"Early Medieval China","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1529910413Z.0000000008","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BECOMING WEN: THE RHETORIC IN THE “FINAL EDICTS” OF HAN EMPEROR WEN AND WEI EMPEROR WEN\",\"authors\":\"Meow Hui Goh\",\"doi\":\"10.1179/1529910413Z.0000000008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article argues that an emperor’s “final edict” (yizhao 遺詔, yiling 遺令, zhongling 終令, or zhongzhi 終制) should be read not simply as an emperor’s instruction for his funeral and burial, but as a piece of rhetoric meant to define his image and legacy. Through a comparative reading of Han Emperor Wen’s and Wei Emperor Wen’s “final edicts”—two of the longest pieces in the early development of the genre—the author discusses their different rhetorical strategies, their different visions of emperorship, and their different imperial “personae.” In conducting the comparison, the author also examines the authority of imperial rhetoric against skepticism about such rhetoric. As her analysis demonstrates, the tension between rhetoric and anti-rhetoric is present even within a “final edict” itself and can still be felt in modern interpretations of the genre.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Early Medieval China\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1529910413Z.0000000008\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Early Medieval China\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1179/1529910413Z.0000000008\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Medieval China","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/1529910413Z.0000000008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
摘要:本文认为,皇帝的“绝谕”(yizobre詔,yiling, zhongling, or zhongzhi)不应该被简单地理解为皇帝对他的葬礼和葬礼的指示,而是一种旨在定义他的形象和遗产的修辞。本文通过对汉文帝和魏文帝的《末世诏书》(汉文帝和魏文帝的《末世诏书》是汉文体裁早期发展中最长的两份诏书)的比较阅读,探讨了汉文帝和魏文帝不同的修辞策略、不同的帝王观和不同的帝王“人格”。通过比较,作者也审视了帝国修辞的权威和对这种修辞的怀疑。正如她的分析所表明的那样,修辞与反修辞之间的紧张关系甚至存在于“最终法令”本身,并且仍然可以在对该类型的现代解释中感受到。
BECOMING WEN: THE RHETORIC IN THE “FINAL EDICTS” OF HAN EMPEROR WEN AND WEI EMPEROR WEN
Abstract This article argues that an emperor’s “final edict” (yizhao 遺詔, yiling 遺令, zhongling 終令, or zhongzhi 終制) should be read not simply as an emperor’s instruction for his funeral and burial, but as a piece of rhetoric meant to define his image and legacy. Through a comparative reading of Han Emperor Wen’s and Wei Emperor Wen’s “final edicts”—two of the longest pieces in the early development of the genre—the author discusses their different rhetorical strategies, their different visions of emperorship, and their different imperial “personae.” In conducting the comparison, the author also examines the authority of imperial rhetoric against skepticism about such rhetoric. As her analysis demonstrates, the tension between rhetoric and anti-rhetoric is present even within a “final edict” itself and can still be felt in modern interpretations of the genre.