史記索隱

Shǐjì suǒyǐn 史記索隱

A Guide to the Obscurities of the Records of the Grand Scribe by 司馬貞 (Sīmǎ Zhēn, fl. 720s–740s)

About the work

The second of the sānjiā zhù 三家注 on the Shǐjì (KR2a0001), in 30 juǎn. Sīmǎ Zhēn was a Cháosàn dàfū 朝散大夫 and Hóngwénguǎn xuéshì 弘文館學士 in the Kāiyuán era. The work consists of 28 juǎn of explanatory notes, plus a final pair of juǎn containing 130 verse shùzàn 述贊 (one for each chapter of the Shǐjì) and a Bǔ Shǐjì tiáolì 補史記條例 (proposed reorganization of the Shǐjì’s structure). The exemplar entered into the Wényuāngé is the rare Suǒyǐn-only single-text impression — first cut by the Northern Sòng Mìshěng 祕省 in large characters, recut by Máo Jìn 毛晉 in the Jígǔgé 汲古閣 — preserving the original independent transmission rather than the dispersed-into-the-text Ming arrangement.

Tiyao

By Sīmǎ Zhēn of the Táng. Zhēn, a man of Hénèi, in the Kāiyuán era held the offices of Cháosàn dàfū and Hóngwénguǎn xuéshì. He had first received instruction in the Shǐjì from Zhāng Jiā 張嘉, a Chóngwénguǎn xuéshì. He was distressed by the disordered character of Chǔ Shàosūn’s 褚少孫 supplements to Sīmǎ Qiān’s text; the yīnyì of Péi Yǐn’s Jíjiě had long since been scattered and lost; and the yīnyì of Yán Dū 延篤 (read: Zhāngyǐn 章隱), Zōu Dànshēng 鄒誕生, and Liǔ Gùyán 柳顧言 were also no longer transmitted; while Liú Bǎizhuāng 劉伯莊 and Xǔ Zǐrú 許子儒 were full of lacunae and oversights. He therefore took Péi Yǐn’s Jíjiě as his foundation and compiled this work. He prefaces the whole with a complete annotated text of Péi’s preface (Jíjiě xù); his notes on Sīmǎ Qiān’s text follow Lù Démíng’s Jīngdiǎn shìwén in citing only the head-character of the lemma — the ancient way of giving commentary apart from the main text. The whole runs to 28 juǎn, with the last two juǎn containing 130 shùzàn and a Bǔ Shǐjì tiáolì.

The Tiáolì proposes to demote the Qín běnjì and Xiàng Yǔ běnjì to shìjiā; to elevate Empress Lǚ and Hàn Huìdì each to běnjì; to add new shìjiā for Cáo Cān 曹參, Xǔ 許, Zhū 邾, Wú Ruì 吳芮, Wú Bì 吳濞, and the kings of Huáinán; to demote Chén Shè 陳涉 to lièzhuàn; to give Xiāo Hé 蕭何, Cáo Cān, Zhāng Liáng 張良, Zhōu Bó 周勃, the Five Lineages, and the Three Kings each a separate zhuàn; to subjoin Guó Qiáo 國僑 and Yángshé Xī 羊舌肸 to the GuǎnYàn biography, Yǐn Xǐ 尹喜 and Zhuāng Zhōu 莊周 to the Lǎozǐ biography, Hán Fēi 韓非 to Shāng Yāng, Lǔ Zhònglián 魯仲連 to Tián Dān 田單, Sòng Yù 宋玉 to Qū Yuán 屈原, and Zōu Yáng 鄒陽 to Méi Chéng 枚乘 and Jiǎ Yì; further, that the Sīmǎ Xiāngrú and JíZhèng biographies should not stand after the Southwestern Barbarians, and the Dàyuān biography ought not to be wedged between the Wandering Knights and the Cruel Officials. His proposals all have their internal logic. As to the contention that Sīmǎ Qiān’s zàn are unsatisfactory and so warrant Sīmǎ Zhēn’s own substitution — that fails to grasp the implicit intent. And to append his own Sānhuáng běnjì with self-written notes is also at odds with the principle of “transmitting in doubt and trusting where transmission is sound.”

This work originally circulated separately from the Shǐjì itself. From the Ming Directorate-of-Education edition, Péi Yǐn, Zhāng Shǒujié, and this commentary were combined and dispersed into interlinear notes under each lemma, with arbitrary excisions. Examples: the Gāozǔ běnjì discussion of mǔ ǎo 母媪 versus mǔ wēn 母温, an important point of kǎozhèng, was removed simply because it diverged from the older view; in the Yān shìjiā, on Qǐ’s attack of Yì 益, Zhēn had noted “no record in the classics or commentaries; the source is unknown” — though this fails to consult the Zhúshū jìnián (the present Zhúshū in fact does not record this; this comes from the citation in the Jìn shū, Shù Xī zhuàn) — yet even so the original text should have been preserved; the Ming editors deemed it superfluous and excised it. Cases of this sort are numerous; the omissions are appalling. Yet the dispersed Ming text has been treated as the standard ever since — like Chéng Jǔ’s printing of Zhū Xī’s Zhōuyì běn yì — everyone knows it is wrong, and yet the cumulative weight cannot be reversed. This single-text impression is the Northern Sòng Mìshěng large-character print, recut by Máo Jìn; we record and preserve it here, that the old Sīmǎ form may still be seen and the Ming careless errors corrected.

(Submitted Qiánlóng 46, 9th month, 1781. Chief compilers Jǐ Yún, Lù Xīxióng, Sūn Shìyì; chief collator Lù Fèichí.)

Abstract

Sīmǎ Zhēn’s Suǒyǐn is the first systematic effort, after the loss of Péi Yǐn’s yīnyì tradition, to reconstruct sound and meaning glossing for the Shǐjì on a comprehensive footing. It is built directly atop Péi’s Jíjiě (a complete annotated Jíjiě preface stands at the head of the work), and its method is the jīngdiǎn shìwén style — listing the head-character of each lemma rather than printing the main text — which preserved the older convention of separately-circulating commentary. By the Sīkù compilers’ day this independent format had survived only in a handful of impressions descending from a Northern Sòng Mìshěng large-character print, of which the Máo Jìn Jígǔgé recut is the source of the WYG exemplar.

The work’s most controversial element is the appended Sānhuáng běnjì 三皇本紀, a freshly composed account of Fú Xī, Nǚ Wā, and Shén Nóng prefaced to the Shǐjì — not present in Sīmǎ Qiān’s original. The Ming Nánjiàn 南監 edition placed it before the Wǔdì běnjì and the Sīkù editors strongly disapproved of its assimilation to Qiān’s text. The 130 shùzàn are sìyán 四言 verses summarizing each chapter; they survive uniquely in this edition.

Composition window: Sīmǎ Zhēn’s official career is documented in the early Kāiyuán era; his preface to the Suǒyǐn refers to Tiānbǎo 天寶 (742–756) reign-era or its precursor Kāiyuán institutions, and modern consensus dates the completion of the Suǒyǐn to ca. 720s–740s. The terminus post quem is the death of his teacher Zhāng Jiā (last attested in 717); the terminus ante quem is conventionally his own death by mid-740s.

The standard modern reference for the Suǒyǐn is the Zhōnghuá Shūjú Shǐjì (1959 / 1982 / 2014 Xiūdìngběn), where the Suǒyǐn notes are printed interlinearly. The independent Suǒyǐn (i.e. the WYG exemplar) was reissued in facsimile by the Shanghai Gǔjí Chūbǎnshè in 2008 as part of the Sòng Yuán shànběn facsimile series.

Translations and research

No independent translation. Standard scholarly studies: Yīng Sānyù 應三玉, Shǐjì sānjiā zhù yánjiū 史记三家注研究 (Fenghuang, 2008); Zhāng Yùchūn 張玉春 and Yīng Sānyù, Shǐjì bǎnběn jí sānjiāzhù yánjiū (Huawen, 2005). On the Sānhuáng běnjì problem and Sīmǎ Zhēn’s place in Tang historiography: Hans van Ess, “Sima Qian and the San huang ben ji of Sima Zhen,” AS/EA 67.1 (2013): 9–29 (broader treatment in his Politik und Geschichtsschreibung im alten China, Harrassowitz, 2014). On the shùzàn: Wáng Mǔngǒng 汪夢公, “Shǐjì suǒyǐn shùzàn yánjiū” (Wén shǐ zhé 2005.5).

Other points of interest

The Suǒyǐn’s detailed proposals for restructuring the Shǐjì — never actually carried out — constitute one of the earliest substantial works of Chinese narrative-historiographical critique. They influenced later Sòng kǎojù historians (notably Wú Rénjié in KR2a0011 and Ní Sī in KR2a0008).

Links

• Kyoto Zinbun Sìkù tíyào 0097501
• Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual §59.2.6.2.