“司马谈作史”说质疑

Does Sima Tan Write History?

司马谈作史,初唐时提起,之前并无此说。此后直到清代以前,学者只凭想当然,予以断定。清人方苞、俞正燮等根据对《太史公自序》的理解,从《史记》中寻找司马谈遗文,开考证之先河。王国维根据《刺客列传》等三篇的赞中提到公孙季功、董生、他广、平原君子俱与“余”有交往,而此数人行辈“远在司马迁之前”,推测文中的“余”是司马谈。以顾颉刚为代表,后世学者据此认定司马谈作史,并不断推衍,持论也更加肯定。其实,此说立论的文献依据有问题:其一,《太史公自序》“请悉论先人所次旧闻”,其中的“先人”所指并非司马谈,而是世为史官的司马氏先祖和孔子。其二,“卒述陶唐以来至于麟止”,只能是司马氏先祖和孔子“所次旧闻”,并非司马谈作史之断限,更非《史记》著述的目标。其三,即使《刺客列传》等赞中的“余”就是司马谈,也不能证实司马谈作史,而只能说明司马迁引父语入赞,班固著《汉书》即依此例。总之,“司马谈作史”说,因文献不足征,只可存疑,不能确定。

There was no such saying before the Tang Dynasty as that Sima Tan used to write history. But between the Tang and the Qing dynasty, some scholars imagined without firm evidence that Sima Tan wrote history. In the Qing period, however, Fang Bao and Yu Zheng-xie proved the above proposition by trying to find out the evidence in Shiji,which initiated a new method to verify the proposition. From then on some other scholars offered more evidence in Shiji to confirm the conviction. This essay argues that the evidence used by the scholars is not as firm as they expected. First, the xianren-the predecessors Sima Qain tried to succeed-in the epilogue of Shiji does not refer to his father Sima Tan, but rather to his far ancient ancestors and Confucius, who were historians at that time. Secondly, the saying in Shiji that writing a history starting from Tao and Tang till the end of finding the relics of a strange animal was the very work of Confucius and the Sima's far ancient ancestors, rather than that of Sima Tan. Thirdly, Sima Tan's words are said to appear in the conclusions of some chapters in Shiji. This does not necessarily and definitely verify the proposition, for it is natural in those days that a father' s words are quoted by his son in latter's book. So the proposition that Sima Tan wrote history cannot be confirmed for it lacks sufficient evidence.