“事有必至,理有固然”——司马迁、班固著史优劣辩

"Inevitable Truth"——Debates on Si Maqian's & Ban Gu's Records of History

我国对正史的态度历来不一,对一些史学家的著史也有不同的评价,如对司马迁、班固这两位正史源头作家就有谁优谁劣的争论。从司马迁、班固的生活年代、著史背景、创作好尚等角度去分析并加以考辩,可知司马迁、班固都是我国古代正史著名作家,他们著史各有所长。司马迁主要贡献在"通史"体例上,班固则体现在"断代史"体例上。在创作方面,他们都十分艰辛,意志坚强。争论他们著史谁优谁劣实没必要,能写出《史记》、《汉书》这样的史著实在是"事有必至,理有固然"。

The views on the official dynastic histories have long been different in China, and so are the comments on the records of those histories, especially on Si Maqian＇s and Ban Gu＇s records of history. This thesis attempts to demonstrate their achievements and strong points in the records of history on the basis of their backgrounds and preferences. The contribution of Si Maqian is mainly on creating the format guideline of general history, and that of Ban Gu is on creating the scattered history. They both have devoted themselves to history writing. There is no need to argue who is better than the other. In fact, the works written by them are the ＂inevitable truth＂.