Siku tiyao entry for Shiji

Aaron Balivet，Yang Gu，Min An

（威斯康辛大學麥迪遜分校東亞系，美國威斯康辛麥迪遜，53705；華中師范大學文學院，湖北武漢，430079）

Shiji史記 （The Grand Scribe's Records），130juan.Neifu 內(nèi)府［Imperial Treasury］edition.

Compiled by Sima Qian司馬遷 （c.145－c.86B.C.）of the Han，supplemented by Chu Shaosun褚少孫 （fl.30B.C.）.Sima's deeds are provided by［“Sima Qian zhuan”司馬遷傳 （Memoirs of Sima Qian）］inHanshu漢書 （History of the［Former］Han）.According to Zhang Shoujie's張守節(jié) （fl.736A.D.）Zhengyi正義 ［Corrected Meanings］，which quotes Zhang Yan's張晏explanation，Shaosun was thought to be a native of Yingchuan 潁川 and had become an erudite at the time of Emperor Yuan （r.49－33B.C.）and Emperor Cheng （r.33－7B.C.）of the Han.［Zhengyi］also quotes Chu Yi's褚Jiazhuan家傳 ［Family Chronicles］，which claims Shaosun to be the grandson of the prime minister of the Liang梁，Chu Dadi褚大弟，and was appointed as an erudite at the time of Emperor Xuan（74－49B.C.）.He went to live in Pei，learned from the great scholar Wang Shi王式，and was thereby named“Xiansheng”先生 ［Master］.These two explanations are different［1］.However，the end of Emperor Xuan's reign and the beginning of Emperor Cheng's reign were apart by no more than seventeen or eighteen years；the difference between the two is not great［2］.

［Editor's Comment：］Sima's“Postface to theShiji”自序，［lists］a total of twelve“Benji”本紀 （Basic Annals），ten“Biao”表 （Tables），thirty“Shijia”世家（Hereditary Households），and seventy“l(fā)iezhuan”列傳 （Memoirs），one hundred and thirty chapters in all.The “Sima Qian zhuan”inHanshustates that ten chapters are missing；there are records of these chapters but no text.Zhang Yan's annotation claims that after Sima's death，the chapters“Jingdi Ji”景帝紀 （Basic Annals of Emperor Jing［r.157－141B.C.］），“Wudi Ji”武帝紀 ［Basic Annals of Emperor Wu（r.141－87B.C.）］，“Li Shu”禮書 （Treatise on Rites），“Yue Shu”樂書 （Book of Music），“Bing Shu”兵書 （Book on the Art of War），“Hanxingyilai jiangxiang Nianbiao”漢興以來將相年表 ［Chronology of Generals and Ministers Since the Rise of the Han Dynasty］，“Rizhe liezhuan”日者列傳（Memoirs of Diviners），“Sanwang hijia”三王世家 （Hereditary Households of the Three Kings），“Guice liezhuan”龜策列傳 （Memoirs of Divine with Tortoise and milfoil），“Fu Jin liezhuan”傅靳列傳 （Memoirs of Fu［Kuan］傅寬Jin［Xi］靳歙 ［and Zhou Xie］周 渫）were lost［3］.Liu Zhiji's 劉知幾 （661－721A.D.）Shitong史通 （Generalities on History）claims that the ten chapters were not completed，only recorded in the table of contents.He refuted Zhang Yan's opinion as incorrect.Today we observe that both “Rizhe liezhuan”and “Guice liezhuan”contain“Taishi gong yue”太史公曰 （The Grand Astrologer says）and also“Chu Xiansheng yue”（Master Chu says），which is obvious evidence that they were supplemented into the incomplete text，therefore ［we］think Zhiji's observation was right［4］.However，the category ofChunqiu春秋 ［Springs and Autumns］in the“Yiwenzhi”藝文志［Records of Art and Literature］ofHanshurecorded that the one hundred and thirty chapters inShijidid not mention any of the missing chapters［5］.It is because at that time the official edition had already been combined with Shaosun's appendix.We can see that at these two memoirs both contain the words“Chen wei lang shi”臣為郎時 ［When I was a minister］［6］.He must have at one time presented［the text］to the emperor；that is why these words are stated.The phrase of“Chu Xiansheng yue”was probably added by later generations，in order to distinguish［these sections］［7］.

Zhou Mi's周密QidongYeyu齊東野語［8］［Words of Nonsense from Qidong］extracts from “Sima Xiangru zhuanzan”司馬相如傳贊 ［Comments on Memoirs of Sima Xiangru］，within which are the words：“Yang Xiong thinks that，in the resplendentfu賦，the effect of encouragement is a hundred times greater than the effect of admonition，”and also from “Gongsun Hong zhuan”公孫弘傳［Memoir of Gongsun Hong］，within which are the words“In the Yuanshi period of Emperor Ping （r.1－5A.D.），an imperial edict bestowed the rank of nobility upon the descendants of Hong.”［9］Jiao Hong's焦竑（1540－1620A.D.）“BiSheng”筆乘 （Historical Records）［10］extracts from “Jia Yi zhuan”賈誼傳 ［The Memoirs of Jia Yi］，in which are the words“Jia Jia賈嘉 was the most studious of men，ranked among the nine ministers until the time of Emperor Xiaozhao.”None of these records could be seen by Sima Qian.Wang Maohong's王懋竑 （1668－1741 A.D.）Baitianzazhu白田雜著［11］［Miscellaneous works of Baitian］also says“Shijionly recorded chronologically and didn't have the year names.Now，the“Shier zhuhou Nianbiao”十二諸侯年表 ［Chronological table of twelve feudal lords］，has one row listing the words“Gengshen”庚申 “Jiazi”甲子etc，which was added by later generations.Not only are there omissions，but there were also alterations.［The text was written］so many years ago that，even now，it cannot be verified.Although the words and sentences are disordered，we cannot lose them；in regards to the complete scripts，they still ［preserve］Sima Qian's original version.According to Ru Chun's 如淳commentaries in “Zhangtang zhuanzan”張湯傳贊 （Commentaries on Memoirs of Zhangtang），Jiao Hong's“Bi Sheng”claims that later contributors were Feng Shang馮商（c.53B.C.－18A.D.）and Meng Liu孟柳.According to “Yang Zhong zhuan”楊終傳［12］［Memoirs of Yang Zhong］inHouHanShu后漢書（History of the Later Han），［Jiao Hong］also claimed that more than 100，000words have been deleted from Sima's book，pointing out that the currentShijiversion is not the original；we think this is not the reality［13］.

Since the Jin and the Tang dynasties，the editions of this book in circulation have no big differences between each other［14］.Not until the twenty－third year of Kaiyuan period （713－741A.D.）in the Tang Dynasty，did the emperor order“Laozi liezhuan”老子列傳 （Memoirs of Laozi）to be moved in front of“Boyi liezhuan”伯夷列傳［15］（Memoirs of Boyi）.Qian Zeng's 錢曾（1629－1701A.D.）Dushuminqiuji讀書敏求記 ［Records of Pursuing Knowledge by Reading］mentions another Song edition，［but］now we do not see any records［16］.Also，Zhang Yu 張杅from the Southern Song Dynasty once deleted Chu Shaosun's supplements.Zhao Shanfu 趙山甫 （？）criticized it as incomplete.He collected Shaosun's supplements into another book，of which there are no records today［17］.The one which is in circulation now is［Zhao Shanfu's］edition.

Mengzishu孟子疏 ［Subcommentary on Mencius］，forged by Sun Shi孫奭［18］（962－1033A.D.），quotes “the story of paying to see Xi Shi 西 施”［19］inShiji.The current edition does not have this story，probably because the Song people deceitfully promoted it as［coming from］the ancient book.［It］is not an omission of the current edition［20］.Also，Xuehaileibian學海類編 ［Collections of Books］records one volume ofShijiZhenbenFanli史記真本凡例［21］［Guide to the GenuineShiji］，forged by Hong Zun 洪 遵 （1120－1174A.D.），which subjectively omits and supplements the original book.He states that it was an old manuscript hidden by Sima Qian on a famous mountain.It is similar to the story of King Boyang 鄱陽王 （498－549A.D.）of Liang's authentic text ofHanshu，which is too absurd to be proven（as an authentic text）.

Of the scholars who made commentaries toShiji，only［the works of］three people，Pei Yin裴骃，Sima Zhen司馬貞，and Zhang Shoujie張守節(jié)are still left today.In the beginning，the three editions were circulated in separate volumes.In the Northern Song Dynasty，they started to be combined together.［22］The Imperial Academy edition from the Ming Dynasty［23］has revisions and modifications.The Nanjing Imperial Academy edition［24］put Sima Zhen's supplemental“Sanhuang benji”before“Wudi benji，”［25］which greatly violated the former arrangement.Compiling the various commentaries makes［it］easy for review，and so［we］recorded the combined edition［26］，in order to be convenient for reading.In addition，［we］still record the“three commentators'editions，in order to preserve a complete version.

Original Chinese Text of the Siku tiyao entry

《史記》一百三十卷 內(nèi)府刊本

漢司馬遷撰，褚少孫補。遷事跡具《漢書》本傳。少孫，據(jù)張守節(jié)《正義》引張晏之說，以為穎川人，元、成間博士；又引褚 《家傳》，以為梁相褚大弟之孫，宣帝時為博士，寓居沛，事大儒王式，故號“先生”，二說不同。然宣帝末距成帝初不過十七八年，其相去亦未遠也。

案：遷《自序》，凡十二本紀、十表、八書、三十世家、七十列傳，共為百三十篇。《漢書》本傳稱其十篇闕，有錄無書。張晏注以為遷歿之后，亡《景帝紀》、《武帝紀》、《禮書》、《樂書》、《兵書》、《漢興以來將相年表》、《日者列傳》、《三王世家》、《龜策列傳》、《傅靳列傳》。劉知幾《史通》則以為十篇未成，有錄而已，駁張晏之說為非。今考《日者》、《龜策》二傳并有“太史公曰”，又有“褚先生曰”，是為補綴殘稿之明證，當以知幾為是也。然《漢志·春秋家》載《史記》百三十篇，不云有闕。蓋是時官本已以少孫所續(xù)，合為一編。觀其《日者》、《龜策》二傳并有“臣為郎時”云云，是必嘗經(jīng)奏進，故有是稱。其“褚先生曰”字殆后人追題，以為別識歟。

周密《齊東野語》摘《司馬相如傳贊》中有“揚雄以為靡麗之賦勸百而諷一”之語，又摘《公孫弘傳》中有“平帝元始中，詔賜弘子孫爵”語，焦竑《筆乘》摘《賈誼傳》中有“賈嘉最好學，至孝昭時列為九卿”語，皆非遷所及見。王懋竑《白田雜著》亦謂“《史記》止紀年而無歲名，今《十二諸侯年表》，上列一行載庚申、甲子等字乃后人所增”，則非惟有所散佚，且兼有所竄易。年祀綿邈，今亦不得而考矣。然字句竄亂，或不能無，至其全書，則仍遷原本。焦竑《筆乘》據(jù)《張湯傳贊》如淳注以為續(xù)之者有馮商、孟柳，又據(jù)《后漢書楊［終］（經(jīng)）傳》以為嘗刪遷書為十余萬言，指今《史記》非本書，則非其實也。

其書自晉唐以來，傳本無大同異。惟唐開元二十三年。敕升《史記·老子列傳》于《伯夷列傳》上。錢曾《讀書敏求記》云尚有宋刻，今未之見。南宋廣漢張杅又嘗刊去褚少孫所續(xù)，趙山甫復病其不全，取少孫書別刊附入，今亦均未見其本。世所通行，惟此本耳。

至偽孫奭《孟子疏》所引《史記》西子金錢事，今本無之，蓋宋人詐托古書，非今本之脫漏。又《學海類編》中載偽洪遵《史記真本凡例》一卷，于原書臆為刊削，稱即遷藏在名山之舊稿。其事與梁鄱陽王《漢書》真本相類，益荒誕不足為據(jù)矣。

注其書者，今惟裴骃、司馬貞、張守節(jié)三家尚存。其初各為部帙，北宋始合為一編。明代國子監(jiān)刊版，頗有刊除點竄，南監(jiān)本至以司馬貞所補《三皇本紀》冠《五帝本紀》之上，殊失舊觀。然匯合群說，檢尋校易，故今錄合并之本，以便觀覽。仍別錄三家之書，以存其完本焉。

注釋：

［1］According to Chen Shangjun陳尚君 and Zhang Jinyao張金耀，these two quotations do not come from Zhang Shoujie's張守節(jié)Zhengyi正義 but from Sima Zhen's司馬貞 （679－732A.D.）Shijisuoyin史記索隱 ［Expounding the Obscure in the Grand Scribe's Records］.

［2］Chen and Zhang argue that the editors of the“Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao”四庫全書總目提要 ［Imperial Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature］did not fully evaluate these two statements.According to Yu Jiaxi's余嘉錫 （1884－1955A.D.）“Tai shi gong shu wangpian kao”太史公書亡篇考 ［A Study of the Missing Articles of the Book of the Grand Astrologer］，Chu Shaosun褚少孫became an erudite near the end of Emperor Yuan's元帝reign and died during Emperor Cheng's成帝reign.Since this text also records Shaosun少孫becoming an erudite during the reigns of Emperor Cheng 成帝and Emperor Yuan元帝，Chen and Zhang have concluded that Zhang Yan's張晏information is correct，and theJiazhuanis incorrect.

［3］According to annotations in the“Yiwen zhi”inHanshu，“Zhang Tang zhuanzan”張湯傳贊 ［Commentaries in the Memoirs of Zhang Tang］inHanshu，“Ban Biao zhuan”班彪 傳［Memoirse of Ban Biao］inHouHanshu后漢書 （History of the Later Han），Chu Shaosun褚少孫 only supplemented four sections：“Rizhe liezhuan，”日者列傳 “Sanwang Shijia，”三王世家“Guice liezhuan，”龜策列傳 “Wudi benji”武帝本紀 （Basic Annals of Emperor Wu（141－87B.C.），Among them，“Wudi ji” 武帝紀 has been lost.The other six sections were probably supplemented later by Feng Shang馮商（c.53B.C.－18A.D.）and Meng Liu孟柳.According to Chen and Zhang，what's left of“Wudi ji”武帝紀in the current text was probably created by people during the Jin Dynasty to take the place of the lost chapters.

［4］Chen and Zhang claim that the editors of the Siku follow the same mistake as Liu Zhiji劉知幾.In“Taishi gong zixu”太史公自序，the total number of words and the list of chapters are provided，indicating that theShiji史記 was already finished at that time.Incomplete chapters could not have existed.Therefore，Liu Zhiji's劉知幾statement is incorrect and the Siku editors followed his mistake.

［5］The original text of“Yiwen zhi”藝文志inHanshu漢書does not mention“one hundred and thirty chapters of Shiji.”史記 Instead，it says “one hundred and thirty chapters of Taishi gong.”Sima Qian's司馬遷Shiji史記 was known variously as Taishi gong太史公［The Grand Astrologer］，Taishigongshu太史公書［Book of the Grand Astrologer］，Taishigongji太史公記 ［Records of the Grand Astrologer］and other names，until about the time of Emperor Huan桓帝 of the Eastern Han Dynasty，when the book was renamedShiji史記.In addition，the annotation of“one hundred and thirty chapters”in “Yiwen zhi”藝文志 clearly says that：“The ten chapters are only recorded in catalogue but there is no text.”The Siku editors comment thatShiji史記 “did not mention any missing chapters”is not correct.

［6］According to Chen and Zhang，“Chen wei lang shi”臣為郎時does not indicate that the book had once been presented to the emperor.They think that“chen”臣 ［Minister］could also have been used as a humble way to refer to oneself，not specifically used a personal pronoun for a minister to use only in the emperor's presence.

［7］The phrase “Chu Shaosun yue”褚少孫曰 was added to differentiate between Chu Shaosun's褚少孫comments and Sima Qian's original text.

［8］Refer to Qidong Yeyu齊東野語，vol.10，note on“Many Mistakes in the Grand Scribe's Records.”

［9］This quotation is not actually from“Pingjin hou zhufu liezhuan”平津侯主父列傳［Memoirs of Marquis Pinjin and Zhufu （Yan）］inShiji，but can be found in “Gongsun hong Bushi Erkuan zhuan”公孫弘卜式兒寬傳 ［Memoirs of Gongsun hong，Bushi，Erkuan］.Zhou Mi probably misattributed the quotation fromShijisuoyintoShiji.

［10］Refer to Jiao Hong，Jiaoshi bisheng xuji焦氏筆乘 續(xù)集 ［Sequel to the Jiao Clan's Historical Writings］，vol.3，note on“Feng Shang”馮商（c.53B.C.－18A.D.）.

［11］Refer to Wang Maohong 王懋竑（1668－1741A.D.），Baitian zazhu 白田雜著［Miscellaneous works of Baitian］，vol.3.

［12］HouHanshurecords the name as Yang Zhong 楊 終.The Siku editors erroneously record it as Yang Jing楊經(jīng).

［13］Jiao Hong焦竑 concluded thatShiji史記 was not the original text by Sima Qian司馬遷 because it contained so much editing and abridgement.Chen and Zhang agree with the editor of the Siku notice，however，arguing that although there are many mistakes and inconsistencies，the work as a whole still preservers Sima Qian's司馬遷original version.

［14］Chen and Zhang claim that the Jin and the Tang editions no longer exist.Japan currently preserves the so－called remnant sections，which are said to be from the Six Dynasties and the Tang selections，and also a few remnant transcripts are left in Dunhuang 敦煌 scripts.According toShijibanbenyanjiu史記版本研究 ［Beijing：Shangwu yinshu guan，2001］，Zhang Yuchun張玉春argues that the remnant texts are greatly different from the current one.

［15］In order to strengthen their legitimacy，the Imperial House of the Tang Dynasty regarded Laozi老子 as their ancestor，and so they put“Laozi liezhuan”老子列傳 before“Boyi liezhuan”伯夷列傳.

［16］Chen and Zhang claim that one of Qian Zeng's block－printed editions of the Song Dynasty can be found in Taiwan's Fu Sinian's傅斯年library in“Zhongyang yanjiu yuan”“中央研究院”.

［17］Siku editors did not see Zhang Yu 張 杅 and Zhao Shanfu's趙山甫 block－printed editions.Today，we know that sixty volumes of Zhang Yu's張杅 block－printed edition remained，which are preserved in the Chinese National Library.

［18］Chen and Zhang suggest that people have thoughtMengzishu孟子疏 was not written by Sun Shi孫 奭.Zhu Xi朱熹 （1130—1200A.D.）claimed it to be a forgery of the people of Shaowu邵武.

［19］According toMengzishu孟子疏，Xishi西施，the“beauty of Yue，越之美女”was so beautiful that“every time she came to the city，anyone who wanted to see her had to pay one wen.每入市，人愿見者，先輸金錢一文”。

［20］The notice in the Siku states that this version of theShiji史記 was a Song Dynasty forgery.Yu Jiaxi余嘉錫（1884—1955A.D.）thinks that this so－calledShiji史記 was quoted from other popular books.SeeSikutiyaobianzheng四庫提要辯證 （Kunming：Yunnan renmin chubanshe，2004）.Hu Yujin胡玉縉（1859—1940A.D.）also thought that this compiledShiji史記 was not Sima Qian's司馬遷version.SeeSikuquanshuzongmutiyaobuzheng四庫全書總目提要補正，（Shanghai：Shanghai shudian chubanshe，1998）.Wang Liqi王利器（1911—1998A.D.）also suggests that thisShiji史記isn't necessarily Sima Qian's司馬遷 writing because all early historical records could be called asShiji，see“Taishi gong shu yu shiji”太史公書與史記，inXiaochuanshuzhaiji曉傳書齋集 （Shanghai：Huadong Shifan Daxue chubanshe，1997）

［21］InDingzhengShijizhenben訂正史記真本 ［Correction of the Authentic Shiji］，vol.1，Hong Zun洪遵 claim to have found an “authentic”version of Sima Qian's 司馬 遷 writing a famous mountain.The Siku editors thought that this version lacked proof of authenticity；they thought it was a forgery from the Ming Dynasty.

［22］In the beginning，the three commentators'editions were circulated separately.In the Song Dynasty，a version which combined the three commentaries appeared.The earliest extant“three commentators edition”was edited by Huang Shanfu 黃善夫in the early Qingyuan 慶元（1195or 1196）period of the Southern Song.

［23］The Imperial Academy of the Ming Dynasty produced multiple copies of the three commentaries edition.The“guozi jian”國子監(jiān) was the highest education institution in ancient times，and，after the Five Dynasties period，it also became an important institution for book printing.The books they printed are called as “jianben”監(jiān)本，which is always regarded as a standard and authoritative version.

［24］After the capital of the Ming moved to Beijing，the books printed by the Nanjing Imperial Academy were called “Nan jianben”南監(jiān)本，and the books printed by the Beijing Imperial Academy were called“Bei jianben”北監(jiān)本.

［25］In addition，the“Nan jianben”南監(jiān)本also put the“Sanhuang benji”三皇本紀into the body ofShiji史記，before the“Wudi benji”五帝本紀，which Chen and Zhang view as incorrect.

［26］It isn't until the Ming Dynasty that we have the Imperial Academy's “combined version”合并之本，Although the Imperial Academy version is defective in having deletions and interpolations，the “Neifu”version 內(nèi)府 ofShiji史 記 still follows the Imperial Academy version，and the Siku version was based on the “Neifu”version.In addition to the “Neifu”version，the Siku also includes theShijijijie史記集解，Shijisuoyin史記索隱，andShiji zhengyi史記正義.