评袁传璋“司马迁生于前135年说”之新证

Review of the New Evidences Sima Qian's Birth Year in 135 B.C. by Yuan Chuanzhang

支撑袁传璋先生的"司马迁生于公元前135年说"有两大核心论点:一是"《报任安书》必作于征和二年十一月无疑",并以此作为推算司马迁生年的基准点;二是司马迁"壮游用了一二年时间,他担任郎官时不过二十一二岁","司马迁的入仕为郎与壮游在时间上前后相承,南游归来后即因父仕为郎中","于是迁仕为郎中"的"于是"二字,表示两者在时间上"没有间隔",无缝连接。袁先生的两大核心论点,纯为个人主观臆测,而绝非历史事实,是不能成立的。

There are mainly two arguments to support Yuan Chuanzhang’ s new evidence that Sima Qian was bom in 135 B. C. One is that “ Letter to Ren ’ an written in the November of the second year of Zhenghe period is thought as the basic inference for Si-ma Qian ’ s birth year” ; another is that “ Sima Qian took one or two years for travel and acted as Langzhong （ a court position in at-tendant service of the Emperor） at the age of 21 or 22”. In Yuan’ s opinion,the time for Sima Qian’s appointment as Langzhong was in succession with his travel,that i s,after his travel to the South,h e,then, was appointed as Langzhong due to his inheriting his father’s title. So the word “then”,for Mr Yuan,suggested a “continuous” temporal concept between travel and appointment. As a matter of fact,Yuan’ s two arguments stand groundless with his own subjective surmise instead of historical facts.