身份与言说:太史公、中书令与《史记》书写——以《文选·报任少卿书》篇首异文为中心
|
摘要
司马迁详述作史缘由的《报任少卿书》,是《史记》接受史上的一篇基础性文献。然而后人疏于辨识的是,信中自称太史公的司马迁,实际身份却是"尊宠任职"的中书令。身为中书令的司马迁对武帝颇为忠诚,这也影响了《史记》的颂汉书写,但由于中书令为时人所轻,故司马迁更愿以在史官文化传统中颇为人重的"太史公"自称。《汉书·司马迁传》在标举司马迁中书令身份的前提下,径行省去篇首"太史公"一语;萧梁时期,太史公的文化身份得以凸显,故《文选·报任少卿书》补录了与书信内容相呼应的"太史公"一语。《汉书》之省与《文选》之录,皆未能体察中书令司马迁自称太史公的内心隐曲。
Sima Qian's"A Letter to Shaoqing Ren"is a fundamental document in the reception history of Historical Records,in which he elaborately expounded on the reasons for history compiling. Yet one puzzle remains to be solved,i. e. why did Sima Qian proclaimed himself as Taishi Gong while his real identity was Zhongshu Ling,a favored eunuch by the Emperor. As Zhongshu Ling,Sima Qian was loyal to the Emperor Wu,which accounts for his eulogy to Han Dynasty in Historical Records,but Zhongshu Ling was not respected by his contemporaries,so he would prefer the title of "Taishi Gong"which was much more respected in the tradition of historian culture. In "Biography of Sima Qian"in The Book of Former Han,Sima Qian was simply presented as Zhongshu Ling,and the beginning words by "Taishi Gong"was simply omitted. In the period of Liang Dynasty( 502-557),the cultural identity of Taishi Gong was respected,so Taishi Gong's words were restored in"A Letter to Shaoqing Ren"in Selected Works,thus making it consistent with the content. However,neither the omission of The Book of Former Han nor the restoration in Selected Works observed Sima Qian'inner struggles and "Taishi Gong complex".
Sima Qian's"A Letter to Shaoqing Ren"is a fundamental document in the reception history of Historical Records,in which he elaborately expounded on the reasons for history compiling. Yet one puzzle remains to be solved,i. e. why did Sima Qian proclaimed himself as Taishi Gong while his real identity was Zhongshu Ling,a favored eunuch by the Emperor. As Zhongshu Ling,Sima Qian was loyal to the Emperor Wu,which accounts for his eulogy to Han Dynasty in Historical Records,but Zhongshu Ling was not respected by his contemporaries,so he would prefer the title of "Taishi Gong"which was much more respected in the tradition of historian culture. In "Biography of Sima Qian"in The Book of Former Han,Sima Qian was simply presented as Zhongshu Ling,and the beginning words by "Taishi Gong"was simply omitted. In the period of Liang Dynasty( 502-557),the cultural identity of Taishi Gong was respected,so Taishi Gong's words were restored in"A Letter to Shaoqing Ren"in Selected Works,thus making it consistent with the content. However,neither the omission of The Book of Former Han nor the restoration in Selected Works observed Sima Qian'inner struggles and "Taishi Gong complex".
引文
[1]六臣注文选[M].北京:中华书局,2012:764.
[2]吴仁杰.两汉刊误补遗[M].文渊阁《四库全书》本.
[3]钱锺书.管锥编[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007:625,624.
[4]游庆学.走狗?牛马走?先马走?[J].汉字文化,2006(3):39-40.
[5]范春义.“牛马走”补说[J].汉字文化,2007(3):88-89.
[6]张大可.太史公释名考辨——兼论《史记》书名之演变[J].人文杂志,1983(2):95-103.
[7]程远芬,等.“太史公”考释[J].山东教育学院学报,1997(5):23-25.
[8]班固.汉书[M].北京:中华书局1962.
[9]阎振益,锺夏.新书校注[M].北京:中华书局,2000:249-258.
[10]司马迁.史记[M].北京:中华书局1959.
[11]田瑞文.司马迁对太史令职责的理解与《史记》写作[J].史学月刊,2009(5):113-120.
[12]齐召南.汉书考证[M]//班固.汉书//文渊阁四库全书.
[13]祝总斌.有关《史记》歌颂汉王朝的几个问题[M]//材不材斋史学丛稿.北京:中华书局,2009:53-55.
[14]袁传璋.从任安的行迹考定《报任安书》的作年[J].淮北煤师院学报,1987(2):138-145.
[15]王利器.盐铁论校注[M].北京:中华书局,1992:584.
[16]郭沫若.关于司马迁之死[J].历史研究,1956(4):26.
[17]梁玉绳.史记志疑[M].北京:中华书局,1981:278.
[18]余嘉锡.太史公书亡篇考[M]//余嘉锡论学杂著.北京:中华书局,2007:17-19.
[19]范晔.后汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1965:1325.
[20]陈寿.三国志[M].北京:中华书局,1959:418.
(1)今之所见《汉书》景祐本(宋祁校本、庆元本、明监本、清殿本等)和汲古阁本(清局本等)两大版本系统中(参见中华书局标点本的《出版说明》、倪小勇《〈汉书〉版本史考述》,《西北大学学报》2013年1期),均无此语;而《文选》五臣注卷二十一(朝鲜正德四年本)、六家注卷四十一(日足利学校藏宋刊明州本、韩国奎章阁本)、白文本卷二十一(杨守敬过录本、九条本)等皆有此语,可知《汉书》之略与《文选》之录非后人转钞所致。
(1)郭沫若:“《报任安书》是充满了‘怨言’的。”《关于司马迁之死》,《历史研究》1956年第4期。
[2]吴仁杰.两汉刊误补遗[M].文渊阁《四库全书》本.
[3]钱锺书.管锥编[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007:625,624.
[4]游庆学.走狗?牛马走?先马走?[J].汉字文化,2006(3):39-40.
[5]范春义.“牛马走”补说[J].汉字文化,2007(3):88-89.
[6]张大可.太史公释名考辨——兼论《史记》书名之演变[J].人文杂志,1983(2):95-103.
[7]程远芬,等.“太史公”考释[J].山东教育学院学报,1997(5):23-25.
[8]班固.汉书[M].北京:中华书局1962.
[9]阎振益,锺夏.新书校注[M].北京:中华书局,2000:249-258.
[10]司马迁.史记[M].北京:中华书局1959.
[11]田瑞文.司马迁对太史令职责的理解与《史记》写作[J].史学月刊,2009(5):113-120.
[12]齐召南.汉书考证[M]//班固.汉书//文渊阁四库全书.
[13]祝总斌.有关《史记》歌颂汉王朝的几个问题[M]//材不材斋史学丛稿.北京:中华书局,2009:53-55.
[14]袁传璋.从任安的行迹考定《报任安书》的作年[J].淮北煤师院学报,1987(2):138-145.
[15]王利器.盐铁论校注[M].北京:中华书局,1992:584.
[16]郭沫若.关于司马迁之死[J].历史研究,1956(4):26.
[17]梁玉绳.史记志疑[M].北京:中华书局,1981:278.
[18]余嘉锡.太史公书亡篇考[M]//余嘉锡论学杂著.北京:中华书局,2007:17-19.
[19]范晔.后汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1965:1325.
[20]陈寿.三国志[M].北京:中华书局,1959:418.
(1)今之所见《汉书》景祐本(宋祁校本、庆元本、明监本、清殿本等)和汲古阁本(清局本等)两大版本系统中(参见中华书局标点本的《出版说明》、倪小勇《〈汉书〉版本史考述》,《西北大学学报》2013年1期),均无此语;而《文选》五臣注卷二十一(朝鲜正德四年本)、六家注卷四十一(日足利学校藏宋刊明州本、韩国奎章阁本)、白文本卷二十一(杨守敬过录本、九条本)等皆有此语,可知《汉书》之略与《文选》之录非后人转钞所致。
(1)郭沫若:“《报任安书》是充满了‘怨言’的。”《关于司马迁之死》,《历史研究》1956年第4期。