關於《史記．大宛列傳》真實性的一些補證

Abstract

有關《史記‧大宛列傳》的真實性，歷來皆有爭議，如唐代司馬貞與 清代崔適都曾疑其為偽作，而將此種質疑推向高峰的，則是荷蘭萊登大學 的何四維（A. F. Hulsewé）教授。當然學界有更多的學者不同意此種看法， 認為《史記‧大宛列傳》應是司馬遷之原作。本文即是在學界先前討論的 基礎上，提出自己發現的一些新證據，論證《史記‧大宛列傳》應出自太 史公之筆。本文首先以《史記》中的習用詞「其明年」為例，說明從該詞 的使用比例來看，〈大宛列傳〉與《史記》其他篇章一樣都頻繁地使用該 詞，該傳應不是從《漢書》中重建出來的，因為在〈張騫、李廣利傳〉與 〈西域傳〉中皆未出現「其明年」這個用詞。其次則呈現個人閱讀漢代西 域史時所發現的幾個問題點：一是有關「西城」一詞的問題；二是烏孫故 地問題；三是大月氏西遷過程的史事爭議問題。從這幾個問題點所呈現的 文本關係考察，可證明《史記‧大宛列傳》應是司馬遷之原作，至於何四 維所堅持的《漢書》重建說，就目前的證據而言，其論證尚難以成立。

The authenticity of the Shih-chi (The Grand Scribe’s Records) 123 “Ta-yüan lieh-chauan (Memoir on Ta-yüan)” has always been controversial, such as Professor A. F. Hulsewé claims this chapter is no longer in the original form but a later compilation or a reconstruction based on the Han Shu. Of course, more scholars do not agree with this view and suggested that “Ta-yüan liehchauan” should be the original. This article is based on the previous scholars’ efforts and provides some new evidences to support for the authenticity of the “Ta-yüan lieh-chauan”. In this paper we found the term “the next year” (the following year) was an idiomatic usage of Ssu-ma Ch’ien’s writing style, this term in “Ta-yüan lieh-chauan” like other chapters was frequently used. In addition we found some problems about the Western Region history in Han period also prove the authenticity of the “Ta-yüan lieh-chauan”: First, the term “The City in the West” is the problem; Second, the issue of Wu-sun’s homeland; Third, the process of the Greater Yueh-shih’s migration when they moved westward to Central Asia. As a result of the above examination of textural criticism, there is no conclusive evidence, either external or internal, to support Professor Hulsewé’s hypothesis on the spuriousness of “Ta-yüan lieh-chauan”.