字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2012/10/28 15:01:16瀏覽106｜回應0｜推薦0 | |
| Lien-Sheng Yang, “Toward a Study of Dynastic Configurations in Chinese History”: The traditional historian occasionally comments on the appropriateness of the posthumous imperial designation. For instance, the Sung shih 宋史 remarks that in Jen-tsung’s 仁宗 (1023-1063) benevolence and Hsiao-tsung’s 孝宗 (1163-1189) filial attributes, they certainly lived up to their temple names. The Sung shih 宋史 also approves the temple name Li-tsung 理宗 (1125-1264) as suitable because the emperor made great efforts to promote the Neo-Confucianist thinking called li-hsiieh 理學. Such remarks on appropriateness are relatively few, obviously because the eulogistic words used in the imperial designations were in most cases excessive and cannot be taken literally. To grasp the true meaning of a temple name, it is sometimes necessary to check the precedent usages in earlier dynasties. For instance, Sung Shen-tsung 宋神宗 (1068-1085) and Ming Shen-tsung 明神宗 (1573-1619) are comparable because each of the two emperors trusted a minister who introduced reforms. Under the Ch’ing dynasty 清朝, had the Hundred-Day Reform 百日維新 in 1898 been more successful, the Kuang-hsii emperor 光緒帝 might have received the temple name Sheng-tsung 神宗 rather than that of Te-tsung 德宗. |
|
| ( 知識學習｜隨堂筆記 ) |
