《史通》卷十八“别传”末条臆定

Speculation on the Last Section of the Supplementary Part in the 18th Volume of Shitong

《史通》有《杂说》三卷,主旨是分类逐条批评一些史书在体裁体例、史料采撰、品藻鉴识等方面的疏误。其中《杂说下》"别传"一类,分条批评多种"别传"的记事之误。其末条文字,在考论《与苏武书》非李陵所作之后,今传《史通》的两个较早版本的结语都存在语义不全等文字错误。清代学者试图予以疏通是正,也做出了一定成绩,但因思虑不周,未能全面把握《杂说》和"别传"类的内容及行文体例,又生出其他错误,使原文仍不得通解。遵循《杂说》的主旨和体例,借鉴清人的成绩,该条结语应为"遷史缺而不载,良有以焉。《通史》编于《李传》中,斯为缪矣"。其意共有三层,一是考论《与苏武书》非李陵所做,二是肯定司马迁《史记》不收《与苏武书》的做法,三是批评梁武帝《通史》收录《与苏武书》的错误之举。三层意思不但一环紧扣一环,而且也正与该条文字所在类别、所在全篇,体例、主旨完全相合。

There were three volumes of Miscellanies in Shitong which offered critical reviews on the errors of writing style, historical record compilation and identification. In the supplementary part of the 3rd volume of Miscellanies, it pointed out the various errors of historical record keeping. Its last section stated that Letters to Su Wu was not written by Li Ling and discovered the writing errors in the concluding part of the two early versions of Shitong. The scholars in the Qing dynasty attempted to correct those errors but failed. After the study of the Miscellanies, this paper has reached the following conclusions: 1) it proved that Letters to Su Wu was not written by Li Ling;2) it confirmed that Sima Qian was right not to include Letters to Suwu in his Shiji;3) it was erroneous for Liang Wudi to include Letters to Suwu in his writing Tongshi. The finding of this paper is well based on the category, full text, style and theme of the last section of the Supplementary.