Reflections on the Han View of Truth and Historicity with a Translation of Ban Biao’s “Essay on Historiography”

 

Anthony E. Clark

The University of Alabama

 

While Han 漢 (206 B.C. – A.D. 220) historiography has recently attracted increased scholarly attention, little interest has been given to the theoretical views held by historians who occupied the intellectual milieu during and immediately after the Wang Mang 王莽 (45 B.C. – A.D. 23) usurpation of the Western Han 西漢 (206 B.C. – A.D. 9) court.  It was during this period that the historiographical traditions were being codified into what became Standard Histories 正史 produced during each subsequent dynasty.  In a rather informal approach to this lacuna, the foregoing consideration consists of several reflections, rather than a more exhaustive discourse, on the historiographical sensibilities of two Han historians, Ban Biao 班 彪 (A.D. 3 – 54) and his son, Ban Gu 班 固 (A.D. 32 – 92).  By insisting that this discussion consists of “reflections,” I am allowing myself a modicum of interpretive freedom – though, the sources I cite below lend considerable support to my suggestions regarding the nature of how Ban Biao and Ban Gu envisioned the project of recording history.

 

I shall try to answer, in a general sense, what the expectations of truth and historicity were during the transition from the Western to the Eastern Han 東漢 (A.D. 25 – 220).[1] I should point out two recent works, in particular, that consider the problem of truth and historicity in historical texts: Jacque Le Goff’s French study, Histoire et Memoire, and On-cho Ng and Q. Edward Wang’s Mirroring the Past.  Both monographs, to some extent, include provocative discussions regarding the impulses to record history in both the Western and Chinese traditions, and discuss the impetus to preserve historical accuracy in the writing of history.[2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As if to refute Edward Said’s (A.D. 1935 – 2003) assertion that objective historical documentation is impossibly confined within the constructivist and representational impulses of the contemporary historian, Le Goff defends the possibility of historical objectivity precisely because these impulses are now understood.  He suggests that, “the continual advances in unmasking and denouncing mystifications allow us to be relatively optimistic in that regard.”[3] Le Goff, throughout his study, defends the possibility of, and the necessity to, adhere to the traditional Western ideals of historical truthfulness in all historical records.  On the other hand, Ng and Wang remind us that Western exegetes have criticized Chinese historians for merely cutting-and-pasting together previous sources into an uninterpretive litany of facts and events.[4] Ng and Wang demonstrate that Western intellectuals have been quite at odds regarding their judgments of Chinese historiography, one side contending that the Chinese sacrifice historicism for moral didacticism, and the other complaining that Chinese works are too data-centered without historical judgment.  My goal, then, is to mitigate the apparent antagonism between these two observations and critiques.  That is, I shall consider whether Han dynasty Chinese historiography was most interested in history (accuracy and details) or hermeneutic (interpretation).

 

I shall begin with a few comments on two paintings that may help shed some light on the disparate views of truth and realism in both the West and China.  In 1815, John Constable (A.D. 1776 – 1832) painted a view of his father’s gardens, fields, and rural buildings from the upstairs window of his family estate.  Constable set out to represent the very landscape as it appeared on the very day he painted it.  As the Western art critic, Brian Lukacher, has noted, Constable displays here “a guileless sincerity and a dogged faithfulness in establishing an unmediated rapport with nature.”[5] In other words, Constable has preserved a “true” image of a “real” day.  Objects appear as they as they did; perspective is accurate, and light is rendered as the sun cast its rays in England in 1815.  All of these factors highlight the visual “truth” of the scene represented.

 

The Chinese painter, Li Cheng 李 成 (A.D. 919 – 967), also set out to capture a landscape in his painting, “A Solitary Temple Amid Clearing Peaks,” rendered circa 950.  Viewing the massive craggy peaks that overwhelm the human subjects depicted within an impossibly rugged and confounding landscape, the Western observer is forced to ask if Li’s painting is equally “truthful.” Or rather, does it conjure in the viewer what the modern critic would understand as “real”?  This work was, in the estimations of its painter and contemporary viewers, just as “truthful” as the Western landscape by Constable.  While Western critics might accept the “realism” of Constable’s painting, they would most likely not concede the same about Li Cheng’s rendering of a Chinese landscape.  In Li’s painting, for example, we notice that while the viewer is above the temple, he has rendered its eves as if viewed from below, and there is no attempt to illustrate shadows.  In discussing the viewer’s reaction to landscape painting, Guo Xi 郭 熙 (A.D. c. 1020 – c. 1100) suggests that to look at such a landscape “puts you in the corresponding frame of mind, as though you were really on the point of going there.”[6] What makes Li’s painting “real” is that it conjures the mood of being present in the landscape, rather than convinces the eye of the image’s authenticity.

 

Before I apply these ideas to Han historiography, let me state that I am not employing the term “real” in the medieval Scholastic sense as it functions as the antithesis to Nominalism.  I am more closely following the Post-Romantic use of the term “Realism” to help describe what I believe to be the modern Western historiographical ideal.  Most historians today would unhesitatingly assert that a historical record should tell the truth; it should describe events as they really occurred.  This expectation is not too far amiss from the ideals of such mid-nineteenth-century French Realists as Honoré de Balzac (A.D. 1799 – 1850), Emile Zola (A.D. 1840 – 1902), and Gustave Courbet (A.D. 1819 – 1877).  The impulse of these great people to depict the “real” is well expressed in Courbet’s comment: “I cannot paint an angel because I have never seen one.”  A Chinese painter would not, I suggest, make such a claim, for “reality” is not best depicted through such an “accurate” representation.

 

Before applying this comparison between Constable and Li Cheng to my discussion of Han historiography I shall need to review a celebrated historical episode that occurred before the Han.  The Zuozhuan 左傳 (Commentaries of Mr. Zuo) contains an account of the determination of five Zhou 周 (1045 – 221 B.C.) historians to record an event, even sacrificing their lives to do so.  In 548 B.C., Cui Zhu 崔杼 (5th century B.C.), a high minister of Duke Zhuang of Qi 齊莊公 (5th century B.C.), lusted after and married the widow of Duke Tang 棠公 (5th century B.C.).  He took her as his wife even after several historians had divined that the marriage was both improper and inauspicious.  Soon after marrying Duke Tang’s widow 棠公之妻 (5th century B.C.), despite the admonitions of his historian scribes, Cui Zhu discovered that his own lord, Duke Zhuang, had begun to have an affair with his new bride.  Cui Zhu planned to assassinate his lord.  He feigned illness, and when Duke Zhuang visited him to “check on his health,” the duke and Cui’s wife removed themselves to another chamber for a clandestine reunion.  Cui Zhu’s troops, who had been surreptitiously stationed there, accordingly discovered them en flagrante dilecto, whereupon the retainers of his own employed official killed the terrified duke.  After this event, the grand historian of Qi wrote that, “Cui Zhu murdered his lord” 崔杼弒其君.[7]

 

Cui Zhu had the historian killed; but the scribe’s brother made the same statement, and he, too, was killed.  A third brother again noted that Cui Zhu had murdered his lord, and was likewise killed.  Finally, after the fourth brother recorded that Cui had murdered his lord, he desisted and allowed the event to remain in the accounts.  Meanwhile, a southern historian had heard that Cui Zhu was executing historians for insisting that he had murdered the duke.  The historian is said to have grabbed his bamboo tablets in order to himself proclaim that Cui Zhu had murdered his lord, certainly expecting the same punishment.  The Zuozhuan states that, “Only after hearing that the event had indeed been recorded did he return” 聞既書矣，乃還.[8]

 

Scholars have often asked why these five men were willing to die in order that Cui’s murder of his lord would remain recorded.  Homer Dubs (A.D. 1892 – 1969) reflects the sentiment of most Western scholars when he suggests that this passage reveals a “spirit of historical accuracy” in Chinese historiography that inspired such writers to produce a “correct recording of history.”[9] In a similar vein, Burton Watson asserts that, “The episode is famous in particular for the example of the dauntless historians who choose to die rather than falsify the record. . . .”[10] In other words, these historians were martyrs for the truth; they would die to ensure that facts are not misrepresented or omitted.  This assumption, I suggest, is rather imposing our own historiographical values and expectations onto a people and context quite unlike our own.

 

If one considers the entire scope of the Zuozhuan, it is evident that when historian-diviners render advice, their auguries are nearly always fulfilled.  Cui Zhu was originally warned not to marry Duke Tang’s widow, as it would be improper and inauspicious.  Cui not only married her, but his marriage resulted in his murder of his lord.  In the end, his own family was entirely executed by a political rival.  It is not merely veracity that these historians were willing to die for; rather, they were willing to die for the value of their advice and the value of their moral system.  For them, the recording of history had less to do with facts than ideals.

 

Five centuries later, Han historians, it appears, inherited the historiographical ideals established by the historians in the Zuozhuan.  The early-Eastern-Han 東 漢 (A.D. 23 – 220) historians, Ban Biao and Ban Gu, produced what may be the earliest recorded Chinese essays on the function of historical records.  According to them, the merely “factual” depiction of historical events is far from ideal.  Preserved in Fan Ye’s 范瞱 (A.D. 398 – 445) Hou Hanshu 後漢書 (History of the Later Han) is an essay, perhaps China’s first, by Ban Biao on historiography in which Biao outlines the strengths and weaknesses of Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (145 – 86 B.C.) Shiji 史記 (Records of the Scribe).  After accounting for the records from the eras of Yao 堯, Shun 舜, and Yu 禹, Biao reviews the efforts of Sima Qian.  In this essay, Biao writes:

 

至於採經摭傳 ， 分散百家之事 ， 甚多疏略 ， 不如其本 ， 務欲以多聞廣載為功 ， 論議淺而不篤 ． 其論術學 ， 則崇黃老而薄五經 ；序貨殖 ， 則輕仁義而羞貧窮 ；道游俠 ， 則賤守節而貴俗功 ：此其大敝傷道 ， 所以遇極刑之咎也 ．

 

But when he [, Sima Qian,] extracted from the classics, gleaned from biographies, and divided the affairs of the schools of thought, much of what he did was quite imprecise and not equal to his original sources.  He devoted himself to hearing much and recording a broad [history] to accomplish his merit, but his disquisitions were shallow and incidental.  His discussions of techniques and learning valorize Huang-Lao and slight the Five Classics.  He gave a place to “Goods and Wealth” (Shiji 129) while treating lightly Benevolence and Righteousness, and he expressed shame for the poor and destitute.  He spoke of “Wandering Knights” (Shiji 124) while demeaning those who held to principle and honored those of common achievement.  In this way Sima Qian inflicted great harm to the way, and for this reason encountered the extreme punishment [of castration].[11]

 

 

This somewhat acrid critique of Sima Qian conspicuously omits any mention of historical accuracy.  Biao’s description of a good historian is quite interesting in that it includes several unexpected principles.

 

            Ban Biao’s first complaint regarding Sima Qina was that Qian was careless and his writing was not as good as his sources.  Sima Qian’s largest failure, however, is that he did not properly praise or blame the subjects of his historical records.  Among the texts Sima Qian consulted, according to the Hou Hanshu, are the Chunqiu 春秋 (Spring and Autumn Annals) and Zuozhuan, both works that were hallowed for their moral judgments.  Second, Biao complains that because Sima Qian's records cover such a vast sweep of time, from the Yellow Emperor 皇帝 to his own era, his discussions of historical events are “shallow and incidental.”[12] A broad record of an event need not be lengthy if the ramifications of that event are not interpreted.  This is Ban Biao’s complaint: Sima Qian did not adequately interpret the events he recounted.  Third, Sima Qian extolled the Huang-Lao 皇老, a quasi Daoist philosophy, rather than the Five Classics 五經, which are rightly placed under the aegis of the Confucian school (Ru 儒 had become known as “Confucian” by the Eastern Han).[13] Fourth, he favored material wealth and gains over the Confucian tenets of Benevolence 仁 and Righteousness 義.

 

            Lastly, Sima Qian discussed wandering knights 遊俠 and valued the ignoble.  In all, according to Ban Biao, his predecessor Sima Qian was a bad Confucian, or not really one at all, who did not employ history to judge or teach moral tenets.  And what seems most unusual in this essay, is that Biao suggests that Sima Qian was punished with castration not because of his remonstration with Han Wudi 漢武帝 (r. 140-87 B.C.) regarding the Li Ling 李陵 (? – 74 B.C.) affair, as is commonly assumed, but because he made methodological errors as an historian.  The essay continues with another critique, one that is most germane to the topic of here.  Biao states that, “if Sima Qian agreed with what the sagely men (“Confucius” 聖人?) considered to be right and wrong, his intentions would not have been far from success” 同聖人之是非，意不庶幾矣.[14] In other words, Ban Biao asserts that that Sima Qian’s failure was his inability to accord with the classical ideals of right 是 and wrong 非.

 

            Turning now to the Hanshu 漢 書 (History of the Han): In the text’s “Treatise on Literature” 藝文志, a chapter I suggest is more from the hand of Ban Gu than Liu Xiang 劉 向 (c. 79-c. 6 B.C.) or Liu Xin 劉 歆 (c. 50 B.C. – A.D. 23), Gu outlines some of his views on the recording of history.  In his discussion of the Zuozhuan, Ban Gu outlines his opinion on the proper function of history, noting that, “The kings of antiquity have for generations had an office of historiographer, and the ruler’s behavior was certain to be recorded.  Thus, they were circumspect in their words and actions, making manifest their model of conduct” 古之王者世有官，君舉必書，所以慎言行，昭法式也.[15] Historians, then, are expected to record the behavior of rulers for two reasons: first, so that the various kings and emperors are prudent in their words and actions, and second, so that their model of conduct is preserved.  History is thus centered upon rulers and the manner of their activities.

 

            Later in the treatise, Ban Gu discusses the production of the Zuozhuan and its value as an historical work.  He first addresses the Zuozhuan’s annalistic structure, which he suggests records human actions and events according to days and months.  But regarding the content of the work, Ban Gu asserts that, “There is that which praises and censures; [and] praise and censure cannot be seen in the text, but are transmitted to disciples by word of mouth” 有所褒諱貶損，不可書見，口授弟子.[16] From this we see that Han historians viewed the Zuozhuan as a work that explicitly records human history while implicitly rendering judgment.  By the end of the Western Han, the view that historical records conceal praise and blame had become a standard by which all historical works were expected to conform.  Since, as Ban Gu suggests in his treatise on literature, the generations that followed Zuo Qiuming 左丘明 (c. 5/4th century B.C.) failed to understand the Zuozhuan’s hidden meanings, his own work renders more explicit praise and blame.  Indeed, the Hanshu is replete with explicit criticisms of the subjects of its pages.

 

There are several examples of Ban Gu’s attempts in his Hanshu to render judgments according to the traditional teachings of Confucius 孔子 (551-479 B.C.); most of them are in his Eulogies 贊.  Indeed, Gu frequently borrows the voice of Confucius, often from lines within the Lunyu 論語 (Analects of Confucius), as a means to evaluate the men and women he discusses.  One example shall serve to demonstrate Ban Gu’s use of Confucius’ voice as a means of moral judgment.  In his biography of Su Wu 蘇武 (?-60 B.C.), Gu quotes the Lunyu to express accolades for Su’s loyalty to Emperor Gao 高祖 (r. 206-195 B.C.), for whom Su served as a minister.  It appears that Su Wu was able to exhibit the honored Confucian quality of “loyalty to one’s lord” 忠君; he is said to have responded to the news of the emperor’s death by looking south while weeping and spitting up blood day and night.  Ban Gu writes in his Eulogy:

 

孔子稱「志士仁人，有殺身以成仁，無求生以害仁」，「使於四方，不辱君命」．

 

Confucius declared that, “a man of ideals, integrity, and benevolence does not desire a life wherein he does harm to benevolence; [he may] have to die himself in order to achieve benevolence,” and “[in being] sent throughout the four directions he does not bring shame to his lord’s commands.”[17]

 

In this final judgment of Su, Ban Gu extracts two of Confucius’ statements from the Lunyu, 15.9 and 13.20.[18] After citing Confucius, Gu remarks that “Su Wu had these qualities indeed” 蘇武有之矣.[19] It is quite typical in Ban Gu’s Hanshu that the voice of Confucius is borrowed as a proxy for his own.  In addition to the single example from Su Wu’s biography, Ban Gu renders his own judgments through the voice of Confucius in Hanshu chapters 45, 46, 49, 66, 67, 71, 74, 77, 83, 85, 93, and 99.  One can see that historical judgment is paramount to Ban Gu’s vision of recording history, and the tenets of Confucius are central in his moral views.

           

In the postface of the Hanshu, Ban Gu outlines his motives for producing his large work.  In it he outlines the purpose of history as he views it.  He states that, “while Yao and Shun flourished there were certainly works on their models of behavior.  Being so, their reputations were exalted in later generations to crown the various kings with virtue” 堯舜之盛，必有典謨之篇，然後揚名於百王.[20] Ban Gu implies that in high antiquity there have always been records of the behavior of sagely-men.  Moreover, the reputations of these paragons are recorded to “crown the various kings with virtue.”  Ban Gu’s declaration is palpably laden with classicist ideals.  Historical accounts are in no way kept merely as a record of events.  In Ban Biao and Ban Gu’s essays on historiography there are no prescriptions to maintain accuracy, nor are there any proscriptions against inaccuracy.  The standard against which all historical works are measured is whether or not the account inculcates its readers with classical tenets.

           

I have suggested that history in early China did not envisage historical truths to exist the same way as do most historians today.  Verisimilitude did not, for them, reside in accurate recollection, but rather in accurate representation.  If I might use here a rather hackneyed term: truth in early Chinese histories rested within the text’s meta-narrative.  This truth “beyond the narrative” was expected to be grounded in the classical tenets of Eastern Han Confucianism.  And in case the implicit message is not apprehended by the reader, explicit judgments are rendered via the borrowed voice of a sage from high antiquity.  Indeed, no other voice is employed as the voice of judgment and moral teaching more in the Hanshu than that of Confucius.

           

The Han intellectual, Ban Biao, criticized Sima Qian for his disregard of Confucian moral principles and lamented Sima’s inability to remain close to the sagely ideals of right and wrong.  Furthermore, Ban Gu has asserted that historical records must both render praise and blame based on classical mores, as well as function to “crown the various kings with virtue.”  For both of these writers, historical accuracy is firmly subjugated beneath historical didacticism.

 

            In Aristotle’s (384 – 322 B.C.) reaction to Plato’s (c. 428 – 438 B.C.) critique of poesy in his Republic, Aristotle states, “Poesy, therefore, is a more philosophical and higher thing than history: for poesy tends to express the universal, history the particular.”  For Aristotle, a higher more universal truth is revealed in literature, whereas history confines itself to details.  The early Chinese historian would, I believe, find Aristotle’s distinction between poesy and historia quite confounding, for by such definitions early Chinese historiography is at one and the same time both of these things.  The foci of the Hanshu, for example, are upon ideological tenets, and it is as literary as it is historical.

 

            Finally, I must state that while I am arguing that expectations of truth and historicity in our own historiographical tradition are different than those of the Han dynasty, I maintain that they and we do agree on some points.  While the ancient Chinese historian would not have complied with Paul Conkin’s assertion that historiography is “a true history about the human past,” he would likely feel comfortable with Lord Acton’s (A.D. 1834 – 1902) statement that historical records should maintain “morality as the sole criterion.”[21] George Santayana (A.D. 1863 – 1952) has come even closer to the Chinese sentiment, suggesting that people who forget about the past are condemned to repeat it.  Ban Biao argued essentially the same point two millennia ago when he stated that historical records are “with which those of the present employ to understand antiquity, and those of the future shall use to observe the past” 今之所以知古，後之由觀前.[22] Biao also states that such works are the “ears and eyes of sages” 聖人之耳目也.[23] We might conclude, then, that ancient Chinese history was profoundly human; it is less centered upon the precise details of human actions than upon the greater truths of human lives.

 

            Early Chinese history was expected to contain the “real” or “true” much as does Li Cheng’s landscape painting – it conjures not a realistic visual view of truth, but a realistic inner view.  Certainly, Han historians did not live within some disconnected solipsism; they occupied real buildings, raised real children, and were aware of the liberties taken in their historical records.  But, truth was to be taught rather than told; it functioned as a venue for judgment and for inculcating not what was real or accurate, but what was, according to Confucian ideals, right and wrong.

Ban Biao’s “General Remarks [on Historiography]”

Translated by Anthony Clark[24]

 

略論 (班彪著)

 

唐虞三代 ， 詩書所及 ， 世有史官 ， 以司典籍 ，暨於諸侯 ， 國自有史 ，故孟子曰 「 楚之檮杌 ， 晉之乘 ， 魯之春秋 ， 其事一也 」 ．定哀之閒 ，魯君子左丘明論集其文 ， 作左氏傳三十篇 ， 又撰異同 ， 號曰國語 ， 二十一篇 ， 由是乘 、 檮杌之事遂闇 ，而左氏 、 國語獨章 ． 又有記錄黃帝以來至春秋時帝王公侯卿大夫 ， 號曰世本 ， 一十五篇 ． 春秋之後 ， 七國並爭 ， 秦并諸侯 ， 則有戰國策三十三篇 ． 漢興定天下 ， 太中大夫陸賈記錄時功 ， 作楚漢春秋九篇 ． 孝武之世 ， 太史令司馬遷採左氏 、 國語 ， 刪世本 、 戰國策 ， 據楚 、 漢列國時事 ， 上自黃帝 ， 下訖獲麟 ，作本紀 、 世家 、 列傳 、 書 、 表凡百三十篇 ， 而十篇缺焉 ．遷之所記 ， 從漢元至武以絕 ， 則其功也 ． 至於採經摭傳 ， 分散百家之事 ， 甚多疏略 ， 不如其本 ， 務欲以多聞廣載為功 ， 論議淺而不篤 ． 其論術學 ， 則崇黃老而薄五經 ；序貨殖 ， 則輕仁義而羞貧窮 ；道游俠 ， 則賤守節而貴俗功 ：此其大敝傷道 ， 所以遇極刑之咎也 ．然善述序事理 ， 辯而不華 ， 質而不野 ， 文質相稱 ， 蓋良史之才也 ． 誠令遷依五經之法言 ， 同聖人之是非 ， 意亦庶幾矣 ．夫百家之書 ， 猶可法也 ． 若左氏 、 國語 、 世本 、 戰國策 、 楚漢春秋 、 太史公書 ， 今之所以知古 ， 後之所由觀前 ， 聖人之耳目也 ． 司馬遷序帝王則曰本紀 ， 公侯傳國則曰世家 ， 卿士特起則曰列傳 ． 又進項羽 、 陳涉而黜淮南 、 衡山 ，細意委曲 ， 條列不經 ． 若遷之著作 ， 採獲古今 ， 貫穿經傳 ， 至廣博也 ． 一人之精 ， 文重思煩 ， 故其書刊落不盡 ， 尚有盈辭 ， 多不齊一 ．若序司馬相如 ， 舉郡縣 ， 著其字 ， 至蕭 、 曹 、 陳平之屬 ， 及董仲舒並時之人 ， 不記其字 ， 或縣而不郡者 ， 蓋不暇也 ．今此後篇 ， 慎覈其事 ， 整齊其文 ， 不為世家 ， 唯紀 、 傳而已 ． 傳曰 ： 「 殺史見極 ， 平易正直 ， 春秋之義也 ． 」

 

“General Remarks [on Historiography]” 略論[25]

 

            Yao, Yu [Shun], and the Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, and Zhou), are accounted for in the Shi (Classic of Poetry) and Shu (Classic of Documents).  Each generation has had its office of historian 史官,[26] who was employed to manage the classic texts and documents.[27] When we come to the feudal lords (nobles?), [each] had there own state historian 史.  Accordingly Mencius said, “The Taowu of Chu, the Cheng of Jin, and the Chunqiu of Lu served a single purpose (i.e., to provide written records).”[28] During the eras of Duke Ding (r. 509-495 B.C.) and Duke Ai (r. 494-468 B.C.) of Lu, the Gentleman of Lu, Zuo Qiuming, discussed and collected these writings, and produced the Zuoshi zhuan (The Commentary of Mister Zuo) in thirty chapters.  Moreover, he wrote of their differences and similarities [in content] and called his work the Guoyu (Conversations of the States) in twenty-one chapters.  From this, the accounts (i.e., histories) of the Cheng and Taowu were accordingly obscured, and only the Zuoshi and Guoyu were known.[29] Also, there was a record that documented emperors, kings, dukes, nobles, and various officials from the time of Yellow Emperor to Spring and Autumn Era, called the Shiben in 115 chapters.[30]

 

            After the Spring and Autumn Era, the seven states all contended and the Qin unified [the states of] the feudal lords.[31] Thus, there was the Zhanguo ce (Intrigues of the Warring States) in thirty-three chapters.  The Han arose and stabilized the empire, and the grand palace grandee, Lu Jia (c. 228-c. 140 B.C.), recorded the merits of that time, producing the Chu-Han chunqiu (The Spring and Autumn Annals of the Chu and Han) in nine chapters.[32] During the time of Han Wudi (r. 140-87 B.C.), the prefect grand historian, Sima Qian (c. 145-c. 86 B.C.), extracted from the Zuoshi and Guoyu, and edited the Shiben and Zhanguo ce, and relied upon the various state histories of the time of Chu and Han (i.e., the war between them just prior to the founding of the Han dynasty); he began at the time of the Yellow Emperor and ended with the capture of the unicorn (122 B.C.).[33] He produced “Basic Annals,” “Hereditary Families,”  “Collected Biographies,” “Documents,” and “Charts” totaling 130 chapters, and ten are missing from it.[34]

 

That which Sima Qian recorded from the first year of the Han to the time of Wudi, from whence it discontinues, is the basis of his merit.  But when he extracted from the classics, gleaned from biographies, and divided the affairs of the schools of thought, much of what he did was quite imprecise and not equal to his original sources.  He devoted himself to hearing much and recording a broad [history] to accomplish his merit, but his disquisitions were shallow and incidental.  His discussions of techniques and learning valorize Huang-Lao and slight the Five Classics.  He gave a place to “Goods and Wealth” (Shiji 129) while treating lightly Benevolence and Righteousness, and he expressed shame for the poor and destitute.  He spoke of “Wandering Knights” (Shiji 124) while demeaning those who held to principle and honoring those of common achievement.  In this way Sima Qian inflicted great harm to the Way, and for this reason encountered the extreme punishment [of castration].[35]

 

Nevertheless, he was skilled at narration and the order of events [in his records] is reasonable.  His discussions are not flowery and their substance is not crude, and the pattern and substance of his writing are balanced.  Overall, these are the talents of a good historian.  If we could in fact cause that the prefect, Sima Qian, had relied upon the model words of the Five Classics and agreed with what the sagely men (Confucius?) considered to be right and wrong, his intentions would not have been far from success.

 

Now, the records of the schools of thought still can be taken as a model.  Works such as the Zhuoshi, Guoyu, Shiben, Zhanguo ce, Chu-Han chunqiu, and the Taishigong shu (The Book of the Lord Grand Historian, i.e., Shiji) are the means whereby this generation understands antiquity, and the means whereby later generations see the future; they are the ears and eyes of sagely men.  Sima Qian ordered [accounts of] emperors and kings, and they were called the “Basic Annals.”  The [accounts of] nobles whose states were inherited were thus called the “Hereditary Families.”  The [accounts of] chamberlains and servicemen of special distinction were thus called the “Collected Biographies.”  Moreover, Sima Qian advanced Xiang Yu and Chen She while devaluing [the kings of] Huainan and Hengshan, and his meticulous intentions became crooked, and his principles of organization were not standard.  As for the writings produced by Sima Qian, he collected [records of] past and present, penetrated the Classics and commentaries, reaching expansively.  With the intense effort of a single man, his writings were repetitious and his thoughts problematic.  Accordingly, his book could be pared without end and there would still remain a surplus of words, and there would be many places where [the text] would not make a unified work.

 

As for arranging the account of Sima Xiangru, Sima Qian mentions his commandery and prefecture, and makes a record of his style.  But when he arrives at Xiao He, Cao Shen, and Chen Ping, as well as Dong Zhongshu, of the same era, he does not record their styles.[36] There are some instances where he records the prefecture but not the commandery, and one generally finds no rest (in having to locate this information on one’s own).[37] Now, in the following chapters[38] I carefully investigate their affairs and put into order what has been written.  I do not make a “Hereditary Families” section, but only “Annals” and “Biographies,” and that is all.  A saying has been passed down which says, “Reducing superfluous wording in order to show the standard, and [keeping it] simple and direct, are the principles of the Chunqiu.”[39]

 


[1] In light of current theoretical discussions of “truth” – Derrida comes to mind – I shall need to anchor my use of the terms “truth” and “historicity.”  While I am aware of the postmodern impulse reject the possibility of attaining objective knowledge (see, for example, the works of Terry Eagleton), I shall for the sake of cogency adhere to the Old English etymology, from triewð (W.Saxon), treowð (Mercian), meaning "accuracy,” or the “quality of being true."  The English sense of “truth,” then is related to accurate representation of the event or object discussed or written about.   By “historicity” I mean the verifiable or authentic account of a person or event.  Viz., “historicity” implies a true account that is confirmable by archeological or textual investigation.  In the end, certain theoretical approaches will challenge the usefulness of these terms in any event.

[2] See Jacques Le Goff, History and Memory, trans. by Steven Rendell and Elizabeth Claman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), especially pp. 138-139, and On-cho Ng and Q. Edward Wang, Mirroring the Past: The Writing and Use of History in Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005).  Also see Stephen Durrant, The Cloudy Mirror: Tension and Conflict in the Writings of Sima Qian (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), and David Schaberg, A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).

[3] Le Goff, xviii.

[4] Ng and Wang, xvi.

[5] Brian Lukacher, “Nature Historicized,” in Nineteenth Century Art: A Critical History, 2nd ed., ed. Stephen Eisenman, Thomas Crow, et al (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994), 126.

[6] Guo Xi, “The Significance of Landscape,” in Early Chinese Texts on Painting, compiled and edited by Susan Bush and Hsio-yen Shih (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 153-154.

[7] Chunqiu zuozhuan 春秋左傳, commentator Yang Bojun 樣伯峻 (Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1990), 1099.

[8] Chunqiu, 1099.

[9] Homer H. Dubs, The History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku, vol. 3 (Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1955), 99.

[10] Burton Watson, The Tso chuan: Selections from China’s Oldest Narrative History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 143.

[11] Fan Ye 范曄 Hou Hanshu 後漢書 (Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1965, 1996), 40A.1325.  Hereafter, HHS.  I read the “其” here to imply Sima Qian.

[12] HHS40A.1325.

[13] For an excellent discussion of the origins of Confucianism and the etymology of the term 儒, see Eric Zuffery, To the Origins of Confucianism: The Ru in pre-Qin times and during the early Han dynasty (Berlin: Peter Lang, 2003).

[14] HHS40A.1325.

[15] Ban Gu 班固, Hanshu 漢書 (Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1962, 1997), 30.1715.  Hereafter, HS.

[16] HS30.1715.

[17] HS54.2469.

[18] Lunyu 論語, commentator Yang Bojun 樣伯峻 (Taibei 臺北: Hua zheng shuju 華正書局, 1990), 15.9 and 13.20.

[19] HS54.2469.

[20] HS100B.4235.

[21] Both Conking and Acton are quoted in Mark T. Gilderhus, History and Historians: A Historical Introduction (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003), 4-5.

[22] HHS40A.1327.

[23] HHS40A.1327.

[24] This translation has benefited greatly from the comments and corrections of Stephen Durrant and He Jianjun.

[25] There is really nothing in the original Hou Hanshu passage in which Biao’s essay appears to suggest that “略論” necessarily be read as a title.  The term may simply mean “general remarks.”  The original passage reads, “其略論曰 . . . ,” which may mean, “In his general remarks he said . . .”  See HHS40A.1324.  That said, I have rendered it as a title, which reflects only my own opinion that it is such.  There are two translations of this passage to date; see Édouard Chavannes, trans., Les Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts’ien, vol. 1 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895), ccxl-ccxli, and Nancy Lee Swann, Pan Chao: Formost Woman Scholar of China (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, the University of Michigan, reprint 2001), 61-62.  However, these two translations are not complete, and I have rendered the last portion.

[26] I render the graph shi 史 as “historian” rather than “scribe” in order to emphasize the larger topic of this essay, viz., historiography and those who record it.

[27] Ban Gu echoes his father’s statement in his “Treatise on Classics and other Writings,” Hanshu 30, wherein Gu states: “Each generation of the kings of antiquity had its own office of the historian.  The ruler’s deportment was certain to be recorded, and accordingly he was cautious in his speech and behavior, and his model methods were illuminated.  The historian of the left recorded his words, while the historian of the right recorded his affairs.  Records of affairs were produced in the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals) and records of words were produced in the Shangshu (Classic of Documents) . . .” 古之王者世有史官，君舉必書，所以慎言行，昭法式．左史記言，右史記事，事為春秋，言為尚書. . .”  See HS30.1715.

[28] See Mengzi yizhu 孟子譯著, Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, commentary (Hong Kong: Zhonghua shuju youxian gongsi 中華書局有限公司, 1994), 192-192, no. 8.21.  The syntax of this line in the Mencius differs from the quotation of it in Biao’s essay.  The original Mencius line reads, “晉之乘，楚之檮杌，魯之春秋，一也.”  According to Yang Bojun, the Cheng, Taowu, and Chunqiu are merely generic names for historical records in these respective states.  See Mengzi, 192.

[29] Reading 章 as 彰.

[30] Swann suggests in her translation of this passage that the Shiben mentioned here was authored by Zuo Qiuming.  See Swann, Pan Chao, 61.

[31] Swann translates, “. . . and Ch’in conquered the feudal lords.”  See Swann, Pan Chao, 62.

[32] For official titles I am using Hans Bielenstein’s Bureaucracy of Han Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).  I am relying on this text rather than rendering the titles myself so that the reader can easily consult this text for information regarding the duties of specific posts.  I realize that Bielenstein’s translations can at time be somewhat cumbersome, but I expect the benefits of convenient reference will outweigh the unwieldiness of his official title translations.  The Chu-Han chunqiu, authored by Lu Jia 陸賈, a high official under Liu Bang 劉邦 (r. 206-195 B.C.), was a chronicle account of Liu’s rise to power and his conflicts with Xiang Yu 項羽 (232-202 B.C.) of the state of Chu.  The text also included materials regarding the reigns of Huidi 惠帝 (r. 194-188 B.C.) and Wendi 文帝 (r. 179-157 B.C.).  It is widely known that Sima Qian relied upon Lu’s work as a source for his Shiji, but unfortunately the Chu-Han chunqiu only exists today in a “recovered edition” 輯本, compiled from fragments.

[33] See note no. 6 in HHS40A.1326.

[34] The ten missing chapters include the “Annals of Emperor Jing,” 景紀 “Annals of Emperor Wu,” 武紀 “Treatise on Ritual,” 禮書 “Treatise on Music,” 樂書 “Treatise on the Military,” 兵書 “Chart of the Annual [activities of] Generals and Ministers,” 將相年表 “Biographies of the Soothsayers,” 日者傳 “Hereditary Families of the Three Kings,” 三王世家 “Biographies of the Plastromancers,” 龜策傳 and the “Collected Biographies of the Parsimonious” 傅靳列傳.  See note no. 7 in HHS40A.1326, for this account of the “missing chapters” of the Shiji.

[35] I read the “其” here to imply Sima Qian.

[36] Xiao He 蕭何 and Cao Shen 曹參 are traditionally mentioned together as two of the most important supporters of Liu Bang; Chen Ping 陳平 was also one of Liu’s supporters.

[37] Sima Qian’s formula for outlining a biography has been closely adopted by Ban Gu.  In Shiji 117, the “Biography of Sima Xiangru,” Sima first records Xiangru’s commandery, Shu 蜀 (modern Sichuan), then his prefecture, Chengdu 成都, and finally his style, Zhangqing 長卿.  See Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shiji 史記 (Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局, 1959, 1982), 117.2999.  Hereafter, SJ.  Ban Gu generally records the person’s style first, and then his geographic origins.  See, for example, HS73.3101, 74.3133, or 75.3153.

[38] The term 後篇 could here be read as a book title, that is, as a variation of the title of Biao’s work the Houzhuan 後傳.

[39] HHS40A.1325-1327.  This line probably refers to Confucius’ literary injunction in Lunyu 6.18.  Taking sha, “to kill,” as shai, “to reduce.”