| 摘要: | 歷來對兩晉士人的評價多是負面，有者甚至認為他們是最具人格缺陷的群體。然而，若將他們所處的時代環境加以考慮，具以同情之理解來看待他們的行止，便會發覺其實未必然。本文題為「兩晉士風之省思與評論」，「省思」即視察與思辨之意。通過晉人對自己浸染於彼時風尚下之切身感受所作出的思考與反應，參以後人對他們的考察與評論，由此省察他們的思考與言行。全文主要就兩晉之清談玄風、出處顯隱及任誕風潮三者為研討重心。全文共分五章：
首章為緒論，主要是概述兩晉時代的士風與政風，以作爲以下主要章節之論述基礎。而後回顧前人之研究成果，並說明本文研究範圍與取材。
第二章為「清談玄風之相關探討與評論」。首述漢末士風及清談起源，並釐清清議、清談、玄談之意涵，而後探討時人對此風尚之省思與評論，並分析「清談誤國」論之是否客觀周延。
第三章為「出處之相關探討與評論」。首先梳理中國隱逸史裡的兩種主要隱逸形態：道家之隱與儒家之隱，並以兩種隱逸思想之合流以說明隱士的概念並非單一化。接著以嵇康、嵇喜兩兄弟為論述中心，考察他們在高壓政治下相異的出處選擇及其原因。進而從嵇康之子嵇紹身負殺父之仇，卻出仕司馬氏之行為，考察時人仕宦的心態。
第四章為「任誕之相關探討與評論」：考論唐修《晉書》將兩晉任誕名士納入列傳第十九之疑議。接著考察任誕名士以老、莊之徒自許，卻仍舊不拒絕出仕的原由，藉此凸顯任誕名士與權力者之間的關係。
結論一章則歸納本文之論述要點，並略評兩晉士人在中國文化史上的意義，以及本論文研究之局限。
;Evaluation of the Jin Dynasty intellectuals always more negative, there are those who even think that they were the groups with most personality disorder. However, if we consider their environment of the era, with the sympathetic understanding, we will find that those critics could be reevaluated. This study on the reflection of the ethos of the Jin’s intellectuals and discussion focuses on pure conversation, living in seclusion or being a scholar-official, and being dissipated and unruly behavior. The study is divided into five chapters as follows:
The first chapter is an overview of the ethos of intellectuals and political environment during Jin dynasty, as the background of discussion on the study in the following chapters and the revision to this topic, which include the elaborations of study’s field.
The second chapter, the Discussion on Pure Conversation. The ethos of Late-Han’s intellectuals and the origin of the pure conversation are carried out to clarify the differences of political criticism, pure conversation and metaphysical talks. Meanwhile, also to explore the trend of reflection on pure conversation discussion from Jin’s intellectuals, to examine the statement about pure conversation was sabotage the national interest.
The third chapter is the Discussion on being a hermit or a scholar-official. First, sort out the history of seclusion in Chinese tradition in two main forms: the seclusion of Taoism and Confucian. The research will take the example of Ji Kang and Ji Xi brothers, analyze their choice of being a hermit or a scholar-official could suffer as a result of political coercion. And also dissertating on the paradox situation of Ji Shao, who is Ji Kang’s son, with the death of his father caused by emperor of Jin yet served as a Jin’s scholar-official.
The fourth chapter is the Discussion on Being Dissipated and Unruly Behavior of Jin’s Intellectuals. To study wherefore nineteen dissipated Jin’s intellectuals were recorded in the History of the Jin Dynasty. They did not refuse to be a scholar-official even they belief in Taoism’s seclusion, hereby to highlight the relationship between the dissipated Jin’s intellectual and the rulers.
Chapter five is the conclusion, summarizing the whole study and dissertation of the Jin’s intellectuals in Chinese history, as well as the limitations of the study. |
