摘要
关于公孙弘第二次贤良对策的时间,学界存在着以《汉纪》、《资治通鉴》为代表的元光五年说和以梁玉绳《史记志疑》为代表的元光元年说两种不同观点。文章认为班固是以元光五年为公孙弘第二次对策之年的,元光元年说错误。但由于《汉纪》、《资治通鉴》在利用史料时存在漏洞,无意中为本来无误的元光五年说制造了硬伤,而导致了后来以《史记志疑》为代表的错误的元光元年说的盛行。
As for the year of GongSunhong＇s second countermeasure, there are two different standpoints in academic circles： 134BC, 130BC. The supporters of 130BC are Han ji and Zi zhi tong jian, the supporter of 134BC is Shi ji zhi yi written by LiangYusheng. I think BanGu thought the countermeasure was written in 130BC, and the standpoint of 134BC was faulty. However because of some mistakes in historical materials utilization of Han ji and Zi zhi tong jian, the correctness of 130BC was doubted. And 134BC, the mistaken idea, has been popular.
出处
《湖南科技学院学报》
2009年第3期64-67,共4页
Journal of Hunan University of Science and Engineering
