中国史学传统中的“实录”意涵及其现代意义

“Factual Record” in Traditional Chinese Historiography and its Modern Meaning

“实录”是中国史学传统中的重要概念 ,最早见于两汉文献 ,指司马迁史学的特点之一 :即史文之“直” ,史事之“核” ,史义之“不虚美 ,不隐恶”。北朝学者进而指出 :史官的职责“非但记事而已 ,盖所以为监戒也” ,目的是“彰善瘅恶 ,以树风声” ,那些专职记事的 ,则“徒闻后世 ,无益当时”。到了唐代 ,“彰善显恶”的“实录史学”成了普遍接受的观念 ,“实录”也成了中国史学传统中的核心术语和概念。“作者性”和“当世性”是“实录史学”的核心。它的首要意涵 ,不在于“过去”的“记录” ,也不在于对“过去”的学术研究 ,而在于一种“当世”精神 ,一种能令其在“当世”呈现“彰善显恶”之意义的精神。然而近代史学对此却多持贬义 ,以为史官之笔 ,不当有主观之评断涉入。传统史学的“实录” ,同时兼赅“真实”与“现实” ,近代史学则重视对“过去”的学术研究取向 ,强调的是“过去的真相”而非“现在的真相”。传统史学的实录精神在近代史学中被遮蔽了。近代史学与传统史学是两套不同的史学世界 ,回归传统史学是当今需要的大方向 ,强调“当世”意涵的“实录”在史学或编史学 (historiography)中被彰显出来的要义 。

盇ctual record”, as an importance concept in the traditional Chinese historiography, first appeared in the documentation of Han Dynasty, referring to one of the features of SIMA Qian Historiography. A scholar in Bei Dynasty pointed out that the responsibility of historians was ”not merely to record facts, but for the purpose of current reference and warning”, that is, ”to uphold virtue and condemn vice so as to educate and persuade”, and those who were professionals”could not benefit the time, but the afterworld only.” By the time of Tang Dynasty, the practice of ”factual recording historiography”, i.e. ”to praise good and display evil,” had been widely accepted. It is then evident that ”authoriality” and ”current-ness” are the core of ”factual record”. The primary significance does not lie in the ”record” of ”the past”, nor in the academic research of ”the past”, but in a ”current” significance, a significance ”to praise good and display evil” for ”the current”. However, a negative view was popular by those before the present, who thought that historians should not involve themselves with subjective judgments. Since traditional historiography of ”factual record” embraces both ”real” and ”current” facts, they paid attention only to the academic orientation of ”the past” and laid emphasis on ”the truth of the past”, not ”the truth of the present”. The traditional spirit of actual record was then defiladed. It is therefore clear that there have been two different lines of research. But nowadays to resort to the traditional methodology is what should be holistically commanded; in other words, the significance of the ”current” subjectivity in ”factual record” in today's historiography must be duly recognized.