Legitimität, Geschichtsschreibung und Erinnerung: Zur Verarbeitung des Todes von Kong Rong 孔融 (153–208) in den frühmittelalterlichen Überlieferungen zur Späteren Han-Dynastie

Whether consciously or unconsciously, the historian's life always has an impact on his views and thereby influences his writings. However, in the absence of parallel traditions, it is often unclear what significance this has for our level of information. Especially for the early Chinese empire, there are often only a few written sources that have survived in their entirety. The Three Kingdoms period is a special case. Thanks to Pei Songzhi's 裴松之 (372- 451) extensive commentary for Chen Shou's 陳壽 (233-297) Sanguo zhi 三國志, which gathered numerous parallel traditions, we gain deeper insights into the complex processes and discussions that preceded the solidification of memory. In particular, the records for Cao Cao 曹操 (155-220) differ greatly among the various authors of the Wei and Jin periods, and everything from praise to slander can be found in Pei Songzhi's commentary. The evaluation is usually dependent on the position that the respective historian took on the question of legitimacy. If the Wei dynasty founded by the Caos was considered legitimate, the figure of Cao Cao was portrayed positively. If, on the other hand, the Wei were denied legitimacy, he appears in the sources as a usurper. So far, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon that this different treatment of the figure of Cao Cao in the works of the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern dynasties influences the entire memory of the Three Kingdoms period, not only that of his person and his descendants. Cao Cao's followers and opponents are also portrayed differently depending on the historian's position on the legitimacy issue. This paper will demonstrate this by comparing the extant accounts of Kong Rong 孔融 (153-208) found in the historiographical works on the Later Han and the Three Kingdoms Period.