英文摘要 |
Recent scholarship has viewed“reciprocal”移official documents of the Six Dynasties period as correspondence between officials of equal rank, an understanding which is largely based on selections and treatises from Wen xuan文選(Selection of Refined Literature) and Wen xin diao long文心雕龍(The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons). But the overall understanding of this form of document might be obscured by the notion of“differentiating forms”辨體in the Southern Dynasties, thereby failing to present the authentic picture of related literary history. Most reciprocal official documents included in Yiwen leiju藝文類聚(Classified Anthology of Literary Works) and Wenyuan yinghua文苑英華(Finest Blossoms in the Garden of Literature) are diplomatic documents from the Northern and Southern dynasties instead of those shared between officials of equal rank internally. The earliest record of reciprocal official documents adopted for use with diplomatic relations can be dated back to the Liu Song dynasty, and the document form was considered an important medium of official communication during the severance of diplomatic relations during the Northern and Southern dynasties. Reciprocal official documents for diplomatic affairs had their own standards in terms of form and how they were written, and the enforcement of said norms differed by administrative level, namely central and local. If the affairs in question were beyond the authority of the local level, the document had to be presented to the central authority; and after a decision was made, the administrations of border regions were the medium employed to transfer the document to the adversarial regime. The reciprocal official documents between Yuan Shijun元世儁(494-540) and He Jingrong何敬容(?-549) were selected by Wenyuan yinghua, written during the disunion of the Northern Wei dynasty which was later divided into Eastern and Western Wei. These same documents were then again recorded in Yiwen leiju, which was likely ghostwritten by Ren Xiaogong任孝恭(?-548). However, the two pieces were redacted differently, suggesting that the origins of the documents were potentially dissimilar and that the respective anthologies intended to reshape the contents of its selections. |