通过具体的个案研究，本文试图探讨以下三个问题：第一，东晋至隋唐，时人形成了许多涉及西晋的撰述，其中哪些可以被视为西晋史研究可信的基础材料，它们又产生了怎样的流变？第二，西晋制度的运作原理往往依靠南北朝隋唐的制度文献进行说明，这是否是西晋制度的真实样貌，西晋制度的运作又出现过哪些 无法解决的问题？第三，西晋史的撰述形成后，南北朝隋唐时人形成了怎样的历史记忆，其中又蕴含了哪些价值取向？第一章主要对《晋书》中的一则相似性叙事进行了考察，同时讨论了西晋史撰述的不利因素。《晋书》中多次出现的、互相矛盾的“见文王”叙事，其最早来源正是王隐《晋书》，并在东晋与隋唐不断重构。在叙事的演变中，王祥形象则愈发正面，而何曾形象越来越近似于佞幸。东晋修史的主导人是作为王祥后人的王导，其润色先祖的行为和这一时期家传、别传的时代性相匹配；而何曾负面形象的确定，则和唐修《晋书》与贞观政局紧密相关。官方档案有限，亲历者有限，润色先祖现象在南北朝时期的盛行，都使得西晋史撰述步履维艰，许多史事 也因此晦暗不明。第二章主要对西晋殿中武官与二卫制度展开讨论。《晋书·职官志》“二卫始 制”条并非是“二卫将军”条的附属，其本身是针对殿中武官的解释说明，有关二卫部分的记载实际上充当殿中武官设立的沿革部分，这体现出西晋殿中武官逐渐脱离二卫将军的趋势。西晋的“三部司马”，“三部”指以戟楯、弓矢和弩为作 战兵器的三个兵种，规模在四百人以内。至迟在晋武帝托孤时，三部司马的归属发生调整。一部分三部司马由殿中将军和殿中司马督直接管辖，另一部分三部司马由二卫设司马督继续管辖。明确由二卫直接领导的禁军有活跃于殿外宫内的三部司马、熊渠虎贲、佽飞虎贲、持椎斧虎贲和五部。西晋时殿中将军为第六品， 其余殿中中郎将、校尉、都尉、司马督均以“殿中监”形式被划入第七品。二卫司马督掌握兵权，在八王之乱等一系列宫廷政变中起到重要作用。殿中司马督自 曹魏以来地位不断上升，刘宋时最终得与殿中将军同为六品。第三章主要对“郡国互称”这一历史现象进行研究。周家禄指出《晋书》中郡太守与国內史经常混用，通过考察，两晋的郡太守与国內史实为一体。两晋史 料中多次出现的“吴国内史”非有此官，而是“吴郡太守（內史）”的讹写。晋宋时期，传世的正史文献与当时的石刻史料普遍将“吴郡”误作“吴国”，这才导致“吴国内史”被无中生有的制造出来。“郡国互称”产生的直接原因，应当与晋武帝时宗王徙封现象密切相关。这一现象同时也意味着，从东晋到刘宋，职官知识已进入了混乱期，时人包括史家对于职官制度的了解已相当薄弱。《宋书·王准之传》中，王彪之深谙典仪掌故便可成“王氏青箱学”进而受人尊敬，正是因为制度知识已难为普通人掌握。第四章主要考察两晋时赞文体史学性上升这一现象。东汉时期，赞文体内部的文学性远远大于史学性，赞文受到文人重视，汉晋时纸本赞文与石刻碑铭可互相转化，班固《十八侯铭》实际上是以十八侯为中心的序赞式赞文。进入魏晋，赞文体的史学性有所增加，杨戏《季汉辅臣赞》在创作中严格按四字韵文进行写作，其中的人物小传成为陈寿《三国志·蜀书》修纂的重要资料来源。两晋之际，赞文体的史学性不断凸显，傅畅《晋诸公赞》人物小传与制度小传篇幅浩大，同时具备向纪传体史书发展的趋势。赞文体在魏晋的发展，使其在南朝时首次被归入史部类著作。从文学体裁到史部作品，汉晋间赞文的演变，恰可看做是汉唐间史部概念扩张的一个缩影。

Through specific case studies, this article attempts to explore the following three questions: First, from the Eastern Jin Dynasty to the Sui and Tang Dynasties, numerous works involving the Western Jin Dynasty were produced. Which of these can be considered reliable foundational materials for Western Jin Dynasty history research, and how have they evolved? Second, the principles of operation of the Western Jin Dynasty's institutions often rely on the institutional literature of the Southern and Northern Dynasties and the Sui and Tang Dynasties for explanation. Are these the true reflections of the Western Jin Dynasty's institutions, and what unsolved issues have emerged in their operation? Third, after the formation of Western Jin Dynasty history compilations, what kind of historical memories were formed by people during the Southern and Northern Dynasties and the Sui and Tang Dynasties, and what value orientations are contained in them?The first chapter mainly examines a narrative of similarity in the Book of Jin, and discusses the disadvantages of writing history in the Western Jin Dynasty. The narrative of "meeting King Wen" that appears repeatedly and contradictorily in the Book of Jin, its earliest source is Wang Yin's Book of Jin, and it was continuously reconstructed during the Eastern Jin Dynasty and Sui and Tang dynasties. In the evolution of the narrative, Wang Xiang's image became increasingly positive, while He Zeng's image became more akin to a flatterer. The dominant figure in historical writing during the Eastern Jin Dynasty was Wang Dao, who was a descendant of Wang Xiang, and his embellishment of his ancestor's actions matched with the contemporaneity of "Jiazhuan" and "Biezhuan" during this period. The establishment of He Zeng's negative image was closely related to the historical writing of the Book of Jin and the political situation during the Zhenguan era. The limited official archives, the limited number of eyewitnesses, and the prevalence of embellishing ancestors during the Northern and Southern Dynasties made writing history in the Western Jin Dynasty difficult, and manyhistorical events were therefore obscured.Chapter 2 primarily discusses the military officials in the palace of the Western Jin Dynasty and the institution of the "Er Wei". The section titled "Er Wei Shi Zhi" in the "Book of Jin: Records of Officials" is not a subsidiary to the section titled "the general of Er Wei". Instead, it serves as an explanation for the military officials in the palace. The records on the "Er Wei" actually serve as a historical account of the establishment of the palace military officials, reflecting a trend where palace military officials gradually separated from the "Er Wei". In the Western Jin Dynasty, there were "San Bu Si Ma", with each section being led by a different weapon type: halberds, bows and arrows, and crossbows. These commanders were under a maximum of 400 personnel. At the latest when Emperor Wu of Jin was critically ill, the ownership of the "San Bu Si Ma" had already been adjusted. Some "San Bu Si Ma" were directly under the jurisdiction of "general in palace" and "Sima Du in palace", while others continued to be under the jurisdiction of the "Sima Du in Er Wei". The imperial guards explicitly led by the "Er Wei" included the "San Bu Si Ma" active in the palace,"Xiongqu Huben", "Cifei Huben","Chizhuifu Huben" and "Wu Bu". In the Western Jin Dynasty,"general in palace" were ranked Sixth Grades, while other palace commanders were classified as "Dian Zhong Jian" and ranked Seventh Grades. "Sima Du in Er Wei" wielded military power and played a significant role in a series of palace coups such as the Revolt of the Eight Princes. Since the Wei Dynasty, the status of "Sima Du in palace" had been continuously elevated, and by the Liu Song period, they finally ranked Sixth Grades alongside "general in palace".Chapter Three primarily delves into the historical phenomenon of "mutual use of prefectures and states". Zhou Jialu pointed out that in the Book of Jin, the terms "Taishou" and "Neishi" were often intermingled. Through examination, it is found that the "Taishou" and "Neishi" of the two Jin dynasties were essentially one and the same. The repeated appearance of the term "Wu State Neishi" in the historical materials of Jin dynasties was not existed, but rather an erroneous transcription of "Wu Jun Taishou (Neishi)". During the Jin and Song dynasties, the handed-down official historical documents and the stone inscriptions of the time commonly mistakenly referred to "Wu Jun" as "Wu State", which subsequently led to the creation of the term "Wu State Neishi". The direct cause of the phenomenon of "mutual use of prefectures and states" is believed to be closely related to the phenomenon of enfeoffment of royal princes during Emperor Wu of Jin's reign. This phenomenon also signifies that from the EasternJin Dynasty to Liu Song, institutional knowledge entered a period of confusion, and the understanding of officials, including historians, was rather weak. In the Book of Song, Biography of Wang Zhunzhi, Wang Biaozhi established the "Wang's Study of Green Box" by being well versed in the classics and rituals, which earned him respect. It was precisely because institutional knowledge was difficult for ordinary people to master.Chapter 4 primarily examines the phenomenon of the elevation of the historical nature of the "Zan Literary" in Jin Dynasty. During the Eastern Han Dynasty, the literary nature within the "Zan Literary" was significantly greater than its historical nature, and "Zan Literary" were highly valued by literati. During the Han and Jin dynasties, paper-based "Zan Literary" and stone inscriptions could be transformed into each other. Ban Gu's "The Inscription of the Eighteen Marquises" was actually a preface style "Zan Literary" centered around the Eighteen Marquises. Into the Wei and Jin periods, the historical nature of the "Zan Literary" increased. Yang Xi's "Zan Literary of the Officials in Shu Han" was written strictly in four-character verses, and its character biographies became an important source of reference for Chen Shou's "the Book of Shu of Three Kingdoms". During the Eastern Jin period, the historical nature of the "Zan Literary" increasingly became prominent. Fu Chang's "Zan literary of the Nobility In Western Jin" features extensive character and institutional biographies, with a trend towards developing towards a biographical history. The development of the "Zan Literary" in the Wei and Jin dynasties led to its first inclusion in the historical works during the Southern Dynasties. The evolution of praise poetry from literary genre to historical works during the Han and Jin dynasties can be seen as a microcosm of the expansion of the concept of historical works during the Han and Tang dynasties.