史學與文化思想：司馬光對諸葛亮故事的重建

History and Culture: Sima Guang's Reconstruction of Zhuge Liang's Story

田浩(Hoyt Cleveland Tillman)

《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》 73本1分 (2002/03) Pp. 165-198

摘要

本文以個索研究來探討傳統中國歷史著述中文獻運用的自由度與限制闊的張力，並彰顯其中的複雜性。因為《資治通鑒》的敘事結構著重於事件的展闕，所以司馬光（與劉欲、劉恕、范祖禹）在重新途綴早期史家支離脫節的敘事時便有相當的自由度。這種自由在他重構陳壽的《三國志》和農松之的注時，尤其顯著。司馬光重建諸葛亮故事時，他刻意選擇以前文獻中的某些詞彙，而同時在變動的地方自由添加自己的文字。一些學者或許會覺得司馬光改變之處僅僅出於文字風格和方便敘事的考慮，但本文作者卻企圖尋繹司馬光的論述模式，並以此例說，胡傳統歷史學家既欲忠實傳統，又試圖把自己的價值鐫刻在歷史與文獻傳統之中。

關鍵字

司馬光 ； 《資治通鑒》 ； 史學史 ； 諸葛亮 ； 《三國志》

並列摘要

Contemporary scholars often regard traditional Chinese historians as having either liberally 'invented traditions' or conservatively pasted together quotations from earlier sources. In response, I undertake a case study not only to explore the tension between textual freedom and restraint within traditional Chinese historical writing but also to suggest some of its complexity. The study focuses on the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government (Zizhi tongjian) because it has endured as an exemplary achievement in Chinese historiography. Sima Guang (1018-1086) was entrusted by the Song emperor to compile this grand historical narrative, and his veracity and judicious use of sources has earned him a reputation as one of China's greatest historians. Sima Guang was fortunate to obtain the assistance of three outstanding historians: Liu Bin (1023-1089), Liu Shu (1032-1078), and Fan Zuyu (1041-1098). Although these colleagues organized the materials and played major roles, Sima Guang articulated the guidelines, closely supervised the project, and was ultimately responsible; thus, I will simply speak of the work as his. What matters is not which member of the team might have initiated a particular change of wording, but rather the impact of changes between source texts and the grand narrative. I scrutinize the text, compare it against its sources, and analyze apparent patterns evident in the selection and exclusion of words from earlier sources. The focus of the case study is Zhuge Liang (181-234), the principal advisor and administrator of Liu Bei's (162-223) Shu-Han (221-263) state in the Three Kingdoms period (220-265). Besides being an intriguing subject in himself, Zhuge Liang was chosen because historical materials from his era had been preserved and evaluated by two exceptional dynastic historians. With access to the archives and libraries of all three states, Chen Shou (233-297) had compiled the officially sponsored history, the Chronicle ofthe Three Kingdoms (Sanguo zhi). Pei Songzhi (372-451) collected over two hundred additional sources, incorporating them into his commentary to Chen Shou' s official history. Although some of Pei Songzhi's supplemental sources had obviously been rejected by Chen Shou and were even criticized by Pei Songzhi himself, these sources provided a treasure trove for Sima Guang. Despite some apparent inconsistencies within Sima Guang's narrative, my reading looks for internal consistency-especially regarding certain words that he chose to omit when copying from earlier officially endorsed texts and the words that he apparently added to complete his narrative construction. At the onset, I should concede that many of these changes may appear either as too minor to have been discussed in Sima Guang's Kaoyi (Investigation of Discrepancies) or as merely stylistic changes to enhance the flavor and strength ofthe narrative. Nonetheless, I look for patterns into which such seemingly small changes fit together to form a big picture. Indeed, I show that the larger context of his portrayal of Zhuge Liang enables us to understand and make sense even of passages and language about Zhuge Liang that, at first, seem at odds with our widely held impression that Sima Guang had a positive view of Zhuge Liang. Sima Guang apparently manipulated his sources to enhance Zhuge Liang's responsibility for three deaths: Liu Feng's in 220; Yong Kai's in 225; and Ma Su's in 227. Zhuge Liang's enhanced role in those deaths, as well as Sima Guang's account of Zhuge Liang's stance toward Fa Zheng and Li Yan, might appear on first reading to serve no particular purpose or even to convey a dark side of Zhuge Liang's character. Closer analysis shows Sima Guang's departures from known sources are compatible with his own depiction of Zhuge Liang as a stem administrator of justice who meted out punishments both for society's greater good and for the military's.enhanced discipline. Another significant contrast with Chen Shou's work is Sima Guang's tone and language dealing with Zhuge Liang's military campaigns. By drawing from Pei Songzhi's commentary such stories as Zhuge Liang's capturing and releasing Meng Huo seven times, Sima Guang elevated the visibility of these stories and placed them in an .authoritative position in the official grand narrative. By avoiding some of Chen Shou's language, such as ＂Liang fled in defeat,＂ Sima Guang presented Zhuge Liang as more actively pursuing his military objectives. Thus, his narrative probably encouraged later Chinese impressions that if Zhuge Liang had not died so soon, he might have won. Sima Guang's portrayal of Zhuge Liang as a Confucian scholar-general reflects the military challenges that Chinese faced in his era. Projecting a figure, like Zhuge Liang, as a ＂Confucianized＂ model for dealing with problems of governance, strategy, and the administration of law also perhaps served to counter Wang Anshi(1021-1086) and to make Wang's methods appear more like the Realpolitik Legalists. Although I concur with Professor Ming K. Chan that Sima Guang's history was influenced by the factional politics of his day, my case study counters his view of Sima Guang having a passive stance in military matters. Moreover, even though Professor Chan emphasized Sima Guang's commitment to maintaining ＂order＂ and hierarchy within the government, my case study suggests that law and punishments played a much larger role than was evident in Professor Chan's image of Sima Guang as upholding an ideal of a passive and conservative government. Nevertheless, I am not arguing that Sima Guang's history was merely dictated by his political agenda. Rather, the compatibility-at least in the case of his writing on Zhuge Liang-between Sima Guang's historical writing and his sociopolitical standpoint suggests a consistency in viewpoint informed his approach to textual sources and historiography. Even though Sima Guang's conservative adherence to earlier texts and his liberal interpolations may appear diametrically opposed or even contradictory, I think that his two methods, when combined, yielded a far more effective historical work than either method used in isolation would have done, especially because many Chinese readers had access to, and considerable familiarity with, Chen Shou's history and Pei Songzhi's additional sources. In short, if we could borrow Peter Novick's phrase describing many American historians as having ＂that noble dream＂ of objectivity, we might say that this analysis of one major part of Sima Guang's narrative suggests that his dream or aspiration was sincerity and seriousness in re-constructing the past from textual sources. The standardhonesty with texts and sincerity in approaching the past-is (as evident in our excursion into Sima Guang's history has shown) really quite rigorous and difficult to practice. Yet, if one's historical writing strives for that standard, others might regard it, as they have Sima Guang's, as a useful ＂mirror＂ or ＂admonition＂ to aid in addressing problems in society and polity. Projecting a figure, like Zhuge Liang, as a ＂Confucianized＂ model for dealing with problems of governance, strategy, and the administration of law also perhaps served to counter Wang Anshi(1021-1086) and to make Wang's methods appear more like the Realpolitik Legalists. Although I concur with Professor Ming K. Chan that Sima Guang's history was influenced by the factional politics of his day, my case study counters his view of Sima Guang having a passive stance in military matters. Moreover, even though Professor Chan emphasized Sima Guang's commitment to maintaining ＂order＂ and hierarchy within the government, my case study suggests that law and punishments played a much larger role than was evident in Professor Chan's image of Sima Guang as upholding an ideal of a passive and conservative government. Nevertheless, I am not arguing that Sima Guang's history was merely dictated by his political agenda. Rather, the compatibility-at least in the case of his writing on Zhuge Liang-between Sima Guang's historical writing and his sociopolitical standpoint suggests a consistency in viewpoint informed his approach to textual sources and historiography. Even though Sima Guang's conservative adherence to earlier texts and his liberal interpolations may appear diametrically opposed or even contradictory, I think that his two methods, when combined, yielded a far more effective historical work than either method used in isolation would have done, especially because many Chinese readers had access to, and considerable familiarity with, Chen Shou's history and Pei Songzhi's additional sources. In short, if we could borrow Peter Novick's phrase describing many American historians as having ＂that noble dream＂ of objectivity, we might say that this analysis of one major part of Sima Guang's narrative suggests that his dream or aspiration was sincerity and seriousness in re-constructing the past from textual sources. The standardhonesty with texts and sincerity in approaching the past-is (as evident in our excursion into Sima Guang's history has shown) really quite rigorous and difficult to practice. Yet, if one's historical writing strives for that standard, others might regard it, as they have Sima Guang's, as a useful ＂mirror＂ or ＂admonition＂ to aid in addressing problems in society and polity.

並列關鍵字

Sima Guang ； ＂Zizhi tongjian＂ ； historiography ； Zhuge Liang ； ＂Sanguo zhi＂

參考文獻

Bol, Peter(1992).'This Culture of Ours': Intellectual Transitions in T'ang and Sung China.Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Chittick, A.(1997).Pride of Place: The Advent of Local History in Early Medieval China.University of Michigan.

Cohen, P.(1996).History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth.New York:Columbia University Press.

Fujitani, T.(1996).Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan.Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Hartwell, R. M.(1971).Historical Analogism, Public Policy, and Social Sciences in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century China.American Historical Review.76(3)