從《史記》到《漢書》──轉折過程與歷史意義

From Historical Records to History of Han Dynasty :The Transition and Historic Significance

呂世浩(Shih-Hao Lu)

指導教授 ： 阮芝生

國立臺灣大學/文學院/歷史學研究所/博士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.10095

摘要

本論文的題目為「從《史記》到《漢書》──轉折過程與歷史意義」，研究目的在以《史記》到《漢書》的轉折過程為中心，藉此對兩漢之際史學和政治的互動情形，作一全面而詳細的分析，進而闡明其在中國史學發展上之歷史意義。並期望此一研究，可以對傳統史學形成與演變之大關鍵，進行更深入的探討，並為學者考較《史》、《漢》異同闢一新途。
本論文的第一章，首先針對研究範圍與關鍵名詞作一界定，接著進行相關研究文獻的回顧，最後則對本論文之研究目的、方法與全文結構作一介紹。
第二章先由《史記》對漢代造成的衝擊和挑戰開始談起。自春秋戰國以下，由於王權的衰弱與戰亂的影響，致使「史記放絕」，史學傳統面臨了衰亡的危機。至秦朝統一天下，又因統治者深惡「是古非今」，使這樣的趨勢達到了頂點。除了少數「文略不具」的簡單記載外，秦人幾乎刻意的滅絕了一切史籍。西漢開國，承秦之制，雖不如秦人打擊學術之甚，但對於史學亦未重視。致使西漢一代既無先秦修史之官，亦無先秦官修之史，史學幾近中絕。
而另一方面，秦人以詐力得天下，又以刑法治天下。漢又承秦道而不改，至武帝更復始皇之所為，孔子之道淪為緣飾其暴政之工具。故自先聖先王至周公、孔子以來所傳承之禮樂大道，因而瀕臨絕滅之危機。太史公生於此時，有興亡繼絕之志，故以父子兩代之力著作《太史公》（即《史記》）一書，上欲重續中國史學中斷之傳統，下欲繼承孔子《春秋》「撥亂反正」之志，以俟後世之聖人君子。其重要特徵之一，便是繼承書寫當代史的傳統，強調「通古今之變」以論治之思想。但這樣的傳統，無可避免的要對承秦制而不改的漢代統治者提出針貶，故被漢廷視為「微文譏刺，貶損當世」，形成史學對當代政治的新挑戰。
政治受到以《史記》開端的新史學的挑戰，則必然受到統治者以各種手段來加以回應。。漢代統治者一開始並未意識到這一點，但隨著《太史公》一書的散播日廣，對漢廷統治的負面影響日益浮現，漢代官方開始採取了不同的防制措施。其後歷經兩漢之際兩百一十二年，共四個階段的前後轉折過程，終於在東漢明帝時找出了最佳的解決方法。這個方法就是，撰述一部完全站在朝廷立場說話，又足以取代《太史公》的史書，這就是班固的《漢書》。本論文的第三、四兩章，便是就此四個時期的演變過程詳細加以考述。
第一時期自《太史公》成書至其外孫楊惲宣布傳本，為抑禁與傳抄時期。蓋此時期《太史公》尚未引起朝廷的特別注意，然中秘之《太史公》藏本，因受朝廷對秘府藏書的嚴厲抑禁政策所限制，凡觸犯者幾近死罪，故其內容未見流傳在外。傳本則由史公傳於女婿和女兒，其部分篇章並在此時期流出，在民間逐漸引起少數人的喜好和傳抄。
第二時期自楊惲宣布《太史公》傳本至成帝賜班斿秘書之副，為公布與刪削時期。此一時期《太史公》傳本因楊惲的宣布，加速了向民間的傳播，同時引發了學者如褚少孫等對《太史公》的注意和愛好。而最晚到成帝時，漢廷已開始注意《太史公》一書對統治的負面影響，因此命人刪削其中十篇。而此「十篇缺」之本，成帝又賜其副於外戚班氏，形成在藏、傳兩本外的第三個重要抄本。
第三時期自成帝賜班斿秘書之副至班彪作《太史公》之《後傳》，為補續與褒揚時期。蓋成帝時，朝廷為嘗試解決《太史公》帶來的問題，一面命人刪削十篇，一面又命馮商撰續其書，希望能將此書之影響導向對官方有利的方向。而此時《太史公》之傳播已廣，續《太史公》者亦人才輩出，有名可考者自楊惲、褚少孫下，前後計十八人之多。而在西漢中期以後的「厭漢」思潮中，內容多為「譏刺漢室」的《太史公》更是扮演著重要的角色，西漢之亡即與此相關。此後的新莽則一改漢廷之態度，改採發揚史學和尊顯太史公之作法。
第四時期自班彪作《太史公》之《後傳》至《漢書》成書，為論罪與取代時期。此時期東漢朝廷鑒於西漢之亡，力圖以強烈之政治手段干預學術，尤以圖讖和史學二途最為明顯。首先以前所未見之「私改作國史」罪名，將史權收歸官方。其次，在明帝重重考核和指導後，命班固著作「頌漢功德」之《漢書》取代《太史公》，並推廣之以消除《太史公》之不良影響。最後，再命楊終對《太史公》原書進行大規模刪削。三管齊下，終於大功告成。
隨著《史記》的傳播與統治者的政策變化，兩漢之際史家也有著前後不同的反應。本論文的第五章，將就兩漢之際諸子對《史記》的評價、補續《史記》諸家、史學新著作的出現等三方面作一補充。
在瞭解兩漢之際《史記》到《漢書》的發展過程後，本論文的第六章將由此認識出發，重新探討《史記》和《漢書》的轉變問題及其歷史意義。蓋班固承明帝之意，為達「尊顯漢室」之目的，割離古今而作《漢書》。從此中國史學走上了只述古而不論今的道路，成為殘缺不全之史學。又採取「避重就輕」、「增繁刪要」、「勸百諷一」之筆法，三者巧曲交錯，遂扭轉《史記》所欲論漢室之亂制，為個人一己道德之得失。《史記》所立之史學大法，遂因而衰微，於是後世中國史學，遂失面對當代以論治之真傳統與真精神。此外，觀察《漢書》之「天人」觀及「古今」觀，亦隨當世之時宜，處處為尊顯漢室而服務。最後回顧班固一生，其早年不甘寂寞，力求功名而不得見用。至其青年時，賴明、章二帝賞識其才，故一意逢迎帝王，為漢歌頌，然自以才高而位低，常懷怨望之心。晚年則阿附權兇，為虎作倀，尚自以為榮。其所作所為，實皆為貪利慕榮而發也。
本論文的第七章則是結論。將綜合上述的研究，嘗試歸納出從《史記》到《漢書》在兩漢之際的轉折過程，並探討此種轉折之歷史意義。我中華之史學本為論治行道而作，其本旨與六藝無異，證諸《史記》一書可知。而在太史公原來的規劃中，完整的史學是包括「古」與「今」在內，兩者缺一不可。因此後世史學之繼其書者，當代代「下至于茲」，不斷撰作新的當代史，將古今結合為一體，方可對當世政治有所指導，以維繫理想於不墜。但自班固為迎合人主，篡亂《史記》之法後，後世史學代代法《漢書》而為斷代史，遂使中國史學之當代史傳統不復重現。《史記》所傳「通古今之變」之大義，至此衰矣。

關鍵字

史記 ； 漢書 ； 司馬遷 ； 班固 ； 史學史

並列摘要

As the title indicates, the subject of this book centers on the transition that took place from Historical Records to History of Han Dynasty. Using the interaction of historiography and politics in the Western and Eastern Han periods to conduct a general yet detailed investigation, the historical significance of developments in Chinese historiography of this era will be explained. This study also intends to further understand the important key factors in the formation and development of traditional historiography as well as to forge a new path for scholars through a comparative examination of the two above books.
The first chapter of this book therefore deals with defining the concepts and scope involved, which is then followed by a retrospective study on previous literature dealing with the subject. Afterwards come the goals, methods, and a synopsis of the structure of the study as a whole.
The second chapter first deals with the challenges presented by Historical Records in the Han period, specifically how the Grand Historian boldly dealt with the hundred years of history from the Qin into the Han dynasty. Following in his father’s footsteps and representing the efforts of both father and son, Sima Qian completed the book known as Historical Records, establishing an important model in Chinese historiography. Furthermore, Historical Records continues in another important tradition, The Spring and Autumn Annals of Confucius, dealing with modern history by emphasizing the notion of “connecting the changes of past and present” to discuss politics. This tradition, however, unavoidably touches on negative aspects towards the Qin conventions adopted without change by the Han rulers, which is why the Han court viewed it as “indirect writing of mockery, injurious to the present ruler,” thus forming a new challenge in historiography towards contemporary politics.
When politics was confronted by the dawn of a new historiography in the form of Historical Records, rulers had to formulate certain policies in response. The third and fourth chapters of the present study deal with the policies of the court in dealing with Historical Records along with the responses of historians at the time, being divided into four periods of change for further examination.
The first period extends from the time when the Historical Records book was completed to the announcement by Sima’s grandson Yang Yun of a surviving copy, representing a time of suppression and copy-making. It was then that the Historical Records had not yet come to the attention of the court, but when the palace library got hold of a copy, it came under restrictive and suppressive policies. All those in violation were as good as given the death penalty, which is why the contents of the Historical Records were not circulated outside the court. A surviving copy, however, was passed down to the Grand Historian’s son-in-law and daughter, and it was at this time that part of the contents were circulated, gradually raising the interest of a few people and being copied.
The second period is from the announcement of Yang Yun’s surviving copy of the Historical Records to Emperor Chengdi’s bestowal of a copy to Ban You of the Palace Library, representing an era of announcement and deletion. Yang Yun’s announcing of a copy of the Historical Records fueled its circulation among the people, at the same time also grabbing the attention and admiration of such scholars as Chu Shaosun. This period goes up to the reign of Emperor Chengdi, when the Han court had already begun to notice the negative influence towards its rulers created by the Historical Records, which is why the deletion of ten chapters was ordered from it. Emperor Chengdi gave a copy of this edition with “ten missing chapters” to his relative in the Ban clan, making it a third important manuscript edition in addition to the Library and Yang ones.
The third period extends from Emperor Chengdi’s presentation of a copy to Pan You of the Palace Library to the compilation of the Later Transmission of the Historical Records, representing an era of addition and praise. In Chengdi’s reign, the court attempted to resolve the problems created by the Historical Records, on the one hand deleting ten chapters and on the other ordering Feng Shang to compose an addition in the hopes of redirecting the influence of the book towards a direction more beneficial to the ruling government. The circulation of the Historical Records had already gained by leaps and bounds at this time and those continuing the Historical Records rose in great numbers, the most famous and verifiable being from the hands of Yang Yun and Chu Shaosun, totaling as many as eighteen authors. In the trend of “growing weary of the Han” that started from the middle Western Han period, the contents of the Historical Records for the most part were “mocking of the Han House.” Playing an important role in this respect, it therefore was related to the fall of the Western Han itself. The new Xin court, with an attitude towards reforming the Han court, took the means of praising historiography and actually commending the Grand Historian’s efforts.
The fourth period goes from the time when Ban Biao wrote his Later Transmission for the Historical Records to the completion of History of Han Dynasty, representing a time of offense and replacement. This was when the Eastern Han looked back on the demise of the Western Han and strove to use strong political means to interfere with scholarship, with the two methods of prophetic writings and historiography standing out most of all. First was the unprecedented offense of “privately revising imperial history,” in which the authority of history writing was taken back into the hands of the government. Then there was the order for Ban Gu to compile History of Han Dynasty with its “praising the merits of the Han” replacing the Historical Records and eradicating its negative influence. Finally, Yang Zhong was ordered to make major revisions and deletions to the original Historical Records. These three channels provided the Eastern Han house with an ideal method of finally resolving the impact of the Historical Records.
With the circulation of Historical Records and policy changes of rulers, historians of the two Han periods took different approaches in response. The fifth chapter of the present study discusses this era from the viewpoint of three directions: evaluations of historians towards Historical Records, later additions to the book, and the appearance of new writings.
After understanding the process of change from Historical Records to History of Han Dynasty during the Western and Eastern Han, the sixth chapter of the present study builds upon it to reevaluate the transformation that took place between these two books and its historical significance. Ban Gu, following the idea of Emperor Mingdi, wrote History of Han Dynasty in order to “honor in manifest the Han House.” Honoring the Han House and separating the past from the present meant that from thereafter Chinese historiography would narrate the past but not discuss the present, becoming essentially incomplete. In addition, observing the notions of the “Heavenly One” and “the past and present” in History of Han Dynasty, in view of the times, was in the service of promoting and honoring the Han House. Finally, in reviewing Ban Gu’s life, his character and actions were thus all in the interest of self-promotion.
The seventh chapter of the present study is the conclusion. Starting with the original plan of the Grand Historian, later books in historiography would follow suit, with each period “coming down to the present day” as they continually composed new forms of contemporary history. However, Ban Gu’s blind upholding of the Han effectively cut off the past from the present as he skillfully orchestrating the Historical Records into turmoil. Later historiography would then use History of Han Dynasty to divide history into periods, gradually leading the tradition of contemporary history in Chinese historiography to disappear and thus making it incomplete as historians dared not face actual historiography. The grand notion of “connecting the changes of past and present” in the Historical Records thus was weakened thereafter.

並列關鍵字

Historical Records ； History of Han Dynasty ； Sima Qian ； Ban Gu ； Historiography

參考文獻

（13） 文史哲雜誌編輯部編，《司馬遷與史記》，中華書局，1957。

（64） 雷家驥，《中古史學觀念史》，台北：台灣學生書局，1990。

（25） 阮芝生，〈《史記•河渠書》析論〉，《國立台灣大學歷史學系學報》15期，1990。

（40） 阮芝生，〈三司馬與漢武帝封禪〉，《國立台灣大學歷史學系學報》第20期，1996。

（43） 阮芝生先生，〈論史記中的孔子與春秋〉，《台大歷史學報》第二十三期，1999。