Siku tiyao entry for Shiji

Aaron Balivet，Yang Gu，Min An

（威斯康辛大学麦迪逊分校东亚系，美国威斯康辛麦迪逊，53705；华中师范大学文学院，湖北武汉，430079）

Shiji史记 （The Grand Scribe's Records），130juan.Neifu 内府［Imperial Treasury］edition.

Compiled by Sima Qian司马迁 （c.145－c.86B.C.）of the Han，supplemented by Chu Shaosun褚少孙 （fl.30B.C.）.Sima's deeds are provided by［“Sima Qian zhuan”司马迁传 （Memoirs of Sima Qian）］inHanshu汉书 （History of the［Former］Han）.According to Zhang Shoujie's张守节 （fl.736A.D.）Zhengyi正义 ［Corrected Meanings］，which quotes Zhang Yan's张晏explanation，Shaosun was thought to be a native of Yingchuan 颍川 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家传 ［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”本纪 （Basic Annals），ten“Biao”表 （Tables），thirty“Shijia”世家（Hereditary Households），and seventy“liezhuan”列传 （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”景帝纪 （Basic Annals of Emperor Jing［r.157－141B.C.］），“Wudi Ji”武帝纪 ［Basic Annals of Emperor Wu（r.141－87B.C.）］，“Li Shu”礼书 （Treatise on Rites），“Yue Shu”乐书 （Book of Music），“Bing Shu”兵书 （Book on the Art of War），“Hanxingyilai jiangxiang Nianbiao”汉兴以来将相年表 ［Chronology of Generals and Ministers Since the Rise of the Han Dynasty］，“Rizhe liezhuan”日者列传（Memoirs of Diviners），“Sanwang hijia”三王世家 （Hereditary Households of the Three Kings），“Guice liezhuan”龟策列传 （Memoirs of Divine with Tortoise and milfoil），“Fu Jin liezhuan”傅靳列传 （Memoirs of Fu［Kuan］傅宽Jin［Xi］靳歙 ［and Zhou Xie］周 渫）were lost［3］.Liu Zhiji's 刘知几 （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”艺文志［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”臣为郎时 ［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齐东野语［8］［Words of Nonsense from Qidong］extracts from “Sima Xiangru zhuanzan”司马相如传赞 ［Comments on Memoirs of Sima Xiangru］，within which are the words：“Yang Xiong thinks that，in the resplendentfu赋，the effect of encouragement is a hundred times greater than the effect of admonition，”and also from “Gongsun Hong zhuan”公孙弘传［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”笔乘 （Historical Records）［10］extracts from “Jia Yi zhuan”贾谊传 ［The Memoirs of Jia Yi］，in which are the words“Jia Jia贾嘉 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白田杂著［11］［Miscellaneous works of Baitian］also says“Shijionly recorded chronologically and didn't have the year names.Now，the“Shier zhuhou Nianbiao”十二诸侯年表 ［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”张汤传赞 （Commentaries on Memoirs of Zhangtang），Jiao Hong's“Bi Sheng”claims that later contributors were Feng Shang冯商（c.53B.C.－18A.D.）and Meng Liu孟柳.According to “Yang Zhong zhuan”杨终传［12］［Memoirs of Yang Zhong］inHouHanShu后汉书（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”老子列传 （Memoirs of Laozi）to be moved in front of“Boyi liezhuan”伯夷列传［15］（Memoirs of Boyi）.Qian Zeng's 钱曾（1629－1701A.D.）Dushuminqiuji读书敏求记 ［Records of Pursuing Knowledge by Reading］mentions another Song edition，［but］now we do not see any records［16］.Also，Zhang Yu 张杅from the Southern Song Dynasty once deleted Chu Shaosun's supplements.Zhao Shanfu 赵山甫 （？）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孙奭［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学海类编 ［Collections of Books］records one volume ofShijiZhenbenFanli史记真本凡例［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 鄱阳王 （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司马贞，and Zhang Shoujie张守节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

《史记》一百三十卷 内府刊本

汉司马迁撰，褚少孙补。迁事迹具《汉书》本传。少孙，据张守节《正义》引张晏之说，以为颖川人，元、成间博士；又引褚 《家传》，以为梁相褚大弟之孙，宣帝时为博士，寓居沛，事大儒王式，故号“先生”，二说不同。然宣帝末距成帝初不过十七八年，其相去亦未远也。

案：迁《自序》，凡十二本纪、十表、八书、三十世家、七十列传，共为百三十篇。《汉书》本传称其十篇阙，有录无书。张晏注以为迁歿之后，亡《景帝纪》、《武帝纪》、《礼书》、《乐书》、《兵书》、《汉兴以来将相年表》、《日者列传》、《三王世家》、《龟策列传》、《傅靳列传》。刘知几《史通》则以为十篇未成，有录而已，驳张晏之说为非。今考《日者》、《龟策》二传并有“太史公曰”，又有“褚先生曰”，是为补缀残稿之明证，当以知几为是也。然《汉志·春秋家》载《史记》百三十篇，不云有阙。盖是时官本已以少孙所续，合为一编。观其《日者》、《龟策》二传并有“臣为郎时”云云，是必尝经奏进，故有是称。其“褚先生曰”字殆后人追题，以为别识欤。

周密《齐东野语》摘《司马相如传赞》中有“扬雄以为靡丽之赋劝百而讽一”之语，又摘《公孙弘传》中有“平帝元始中，诏赐弘子孙爵”语，焦竑《笔乘》摘《贾谊传》中有“贾嘉最好学，至孝昭时列为九卿”语，皆非迁所及见。王懋竑《白田杂著》亦谓“《史记》止纪年而无岁名，今《十二诸侯年表》，上列一行载庚申、甲子等字乃后人所增”，则非惟有所散佚，且兼有所窜易。年祀绵邈，今亦不得而考矣。然字句窜乱，或不能无，至其全书，则仍迁原本。焦竑《笔乘》据《张汤传赞》如淳注以为续之者有冯商、孟柳，又据《后汉书杨［终］（经）传》以为尝删迁书为十余万言，指今《史记》非本书，则非其实也。

其书自晋唐以来，传本无大同异。惟唐开元二十三年。敕升《史记·老子列传》于《伯夷列传》上。钱曾《读书敏求记》云尚有宋刻，今未之见。南宋广汉张杅又尝刊去褚少孙所续，赵山甫复病其不全，取少孙书别刊附入，今亦均未见其本。世所通行，惟此本耳。

至伪孙奭《孟子疏》所引《史记》西子金钱事，今本无之，盖宋人诈托古书，非今本之脱漏。又《学海类编》中载伪洪遵《史记真本凡例》一卷，于原书臆为刊削，称即迁藏在名山之旧稿。其事与梁鄱阳王《汉书》真本相类，益荒诞不足为据矣。

注其书者，今惟裴骃、司马贞、张守节三家尚存。其初各为部帙，北宋始合为一编。明代国子监刊版，颇有刊除点窜，南监本至以司马贞所补《三皇本纪》冠《五帝本纪》之上，殊失旧观。然汇合群说，检寻校易，故今录合并之本，以便观览。仍别录三家之书，以存其完本焉。

注释：

［1］According to Chen Shangjun陈尚君 and Zhang Jinyao张金耀，these two quotations do not come from Zhang Shoujie's张守节Zhengyi正义 but from Sima Zhen's司马贞 （679－732A.D.）Shijisuoyin史记索隐 ［Expounding the Obscure in the Grand Scribe's Records］.

［2］Chen and Zhang argue that the editors of the“Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao”四库全书总目提要 ［Imperial Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature］did not fully evaluate these two statements.According to Yu Jiaxi's余嘉锡 （1884－1955A.D.）“Tai shi gong shu wangpian kao”太史公书亡篇考 ［A Study of the Missing Articles of the Book of the Grand Astrologer］，Chu Shaosun褚少孙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少孙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张晏information is correct，and theJiazhuanis incorrect.

［3］According to annotations in the“Yiwen zhi”inHanshu，“Zhang Tang zhuanzan”张汤传赞 ［Commentaries in the Memoirs of Zhang Tang］inHanshu，“Ban Biao zhuan”班彪 传［Memoirse of Ban Biao］inHouHanshu后汉书 （History of the Later Han），Chu Shaosun褚少孙 only supplemented four sections：“Rizhe liezhuan，”日者列传 “Sanwang Shijia，”三王世家“Guice liezhuan，”龟策列传 “Wudi benji”武帝本纪 （Basic Annals of Emperor Wu（141－87B.C.），Among them，“Wudi ji” 武帝纪 has been lost.The other six sections were probably supplemented later by Feng Shang冯商（c.53B.C.－18A.D.）and Meng Liu孟柳.According to Chen and Zhang，what's left of“Wudi ji”武帝纪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刘知几.In“Taishi gong zixu”太史公自序，the total number of words and the list of chapters are provided，indicating that theShiji史记 was already finished at that time.Incomplete chapters could not have existed.Therefore，Liu Zhiji's刘知几statement is incorrect and the Siku editors followed his mistake.

［5］The original text of“Yiwen zhi”艺文志inHanshu汉书does not mention“one hundred and thirty chapters of Shiji.”史记 Instead，it says “one hundred and thirty chapters of Taishi gong.”Sima Qian's司马迁Shiji史记 was known variously as Taishi gong太史公［The Grand Astrologer］，Taishigongshu太史公书［Book of the Grand Astrologer］，Taishigongji太史公记 ［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史记.In addition，the annotation of“one hundred and thirty chapters”in “Yiwen zhi”艺文志 clearly says that：“The ten chapters are only recorded in catalogue but there is no text.”The Siku editors comment thatShiji史记 “did not mention any missing chapters”is not correct.

［6］According to Chen and Zhang，“Chen wei lang shi”臣为郎时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”褚少孙曰 was added to differentiate between Chu Shaosun's褚少孙comments and Sima Qian's original text.

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

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

［10］Refer to Jiao Hong，Jiaoshi bisheng xuji焦氏笔乘 续集 ［Sequel to the Jiao Clan's Historical Writings］，vol.3，note on“Feng Shang”冯商（c.53B.C.－18A.D.）.

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

［12］HouHanshurecords the name as Yang Zhong 杨 终.The Siku editors erroneously record it as Yang Jing杨经.

［13］Jiao Hong焦竑 concluded thatShiji史记 was not the original text by Sima Qian司马迁 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司马迁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史记版本研究 ［Beijing：Shangwu yinshu guan，2001］，Zhang Yuchun张玉春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”老子列传 before“Boyi liezhuan”伯夷列传.

［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 张 杅 and Zhao Shanfu's赵山甫 block－printed editions.Today，we know that sixty volumes of Zhang Yu's张杅 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孙 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，人愿见者，先输金钱一文”。

［20］The notice in the Siku states that this version of theShiji史记 was a Song Dynasty forgery.Yu Jiaxi余嘉锡（1884—1955A.D.）thinks that this so－calledShiji史记 was quoted from other popular books.SeeSikutiyaobianzheng四库提要辩证 （Kunming：Yunnan renmin chubanshe，2004）.Hu Yujin胡玉缙（1859—1940A.D.）also thought that this compiledShiji史记 was not Sima Qian's司马迁version.SeeSikuquanshuzongmutiyaobuzheng四库全书总目提要补正，（Shanghai：Shanghai shudian chubanshe，1998）.Wang Liqi王利器（1911—1998A.D.）also suggests that thisShiji史记isn't necessarily Sima Qian's司马迁 writing because all early historical records could be called asShiji，see“Taishi gong shu yu shiji”太史公书与史记，inXiaochuanshuzhaiji晓传书斋集 （Shanghai：Huadong Shifan Daxue chubanshe，1997）

［21］InDingzhengShijizhenben订正史记真本 ［Correction of the Authentic Shiji］，vol.1，Hong Zun洪遵 claim to have found an “authentic”version of Sima Qian's 司马 迁 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 黄善夫in the early Qingyuan 庆元（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”国子监 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”监本，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”南监本，and the books printed by the Beijing Imperial Academy were called“Bei jianben”北监本.

［25］In addition，the“Nan jianben”南监本also put the“Sanhuang benji”三皇本纪into the body ofShiji史记，before the“Wudi benji”五帝本纪，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 内府 ofShiji史 记 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史记集解，Shijisuoyin史记索隐，andShiji zhengyi史记正义.