Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:21:04.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IDENTIFYING THE TEXTUAL SOURCES OF SHI JI: REVIEWING PAST RESEARCH FOR A MORE ENCOMPASSING METHODOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2018

Trever McKay
Trever McKay*
Affiliation:
Trever McKay, 余其濬, Brigham Young University—Idaho; email: mckaytr@byui.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While many aspects of Shi ji authorship are either unknown or speculative, the source texts of Shi ji and Sima Qian's use of them are viable yet underexplored paths to a deeper understanding of this monumental work. From the 1920s to the present, seven scholars from China, Japan, and Taiwan have attempted to ascertain the extent of Sima Qian's textual perusals and adaptations by compiling bibliographies of Shi ji source texts. This article compiles some of their results for comparison and analysis. From this, principles are highlighted for generating a more comprehensive methodology.

提要

有關《史記》作者的各個層面，目前仍有許多無法澄清之處，儘管如此，《史記》的文獻來源與司馬遷如何採用這些文獻二事尚有可探討之餘地。自 1920 年代至今，前後有七位來自中、日、臺的學者分別列出司馬遷編纂《史記》所參見、引用的書單。本文彙集他們的一些成果來加以分析、比較，目的是彰顯一些基本原則可用以編纂更全面的書目，進而對這本傑作有更深入的瞭解。

Keywords

Sima QianShi jisource textsbibliographyauthorship司馬遷史記文獻來源書目作者
Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 41 , 2018 , pp. 375 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Study of Early China and Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author is very grateful for the invaluable corrections and suggestions proffered by William Nienhauser, Stephen Durrant, David Honey, and the two anonymous reviewers. It is one thing to read of the great carpenter's plumb-line (dajiang zhi shengmo 大匠之繩墨) in Mencius; it is quite another to experience it.

References

1 While the concept of “author” has undergone much scrutiny and analysis over the last several decades, it is used here simply to mean the compiler and producer of a text. For treatment on how the concept of author changed in ancient China from ancient “reticent scribe,” to the philosophical master as anthology author in the Warring States, to authorship as the producer of an independent text in Eastern Han, see Christian Schwermann, “Composite Authorship in Western Zhōu Bronze Inscriptions: The Case of the Tianwang gui 天亡簋 Inscription,” in That Wonderful Composite Called Author: Authorship in East Asian Literatures from the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, ed. Christian Schwermann and Raji C. Steineck (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 30–37.

2 Some of the more important studies on what Sima Tan composed include Jiegang, Gu 顧頡剛, “Sima Tan zuo shi” 司馬談作史, in Shilin zashi chubian 史林雜識初編 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1963), 226–33Google Scholar and Changzhi, Li 李長之, Sima Qian zhi renge yu fengge 司馬遷之人格與風格 (Taipei: Liren, 1997), 149–56Google Scholar. Dorothee Schaab-Hanke has sought to give specific delineations between Sima Tan and Sima Qian for Shi ji 27 (“Tian Guan shu” 天官書). See Schaab-Hanke, Dorothee, “Sima Tan Anteil an Kapital 27 des Shi ji,” in Der Geschichtsschreiber als Exeget: Facetten der frühen chinesischen Historiographie (Gossenberg: Ostasien, 2010), 211–22Google Scholar.

3 Nienhauser, William, “A Note on a Textual Problem in the ‘Shih chi’ and Some Speculations Concerning the Compilation of the Hereditary Houses,” T’oung Pao 89 (2003), 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Out of the twenty-four histories, most were either officially commissioned (especially starting with works written in the Tang) or began as private endeavors and later became officially sanctioned (such as Ban Gu’s Han shu). For more on the origin and content of the twenty-four histories, see Endymion Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2012), 620–44.

5 See Zhang Dake, Sima Qian pingzhuan 司馬遷評傳, in Shi ji yanjiu jicheng 史記研究集成, vol. 1 (Beijing: Huawen, 2005), 332–33.

6 Ge Hong 葛洪, Xijing zaji (Taipei: Taiwan shangwu, 1967), 6.3.

7 Martin Kern takes this need for expediency in naming Sima Qian as the sole author a step further to include potential subsequent interpolations to the text. See “The ‘Masters’ in the Shiji,” T’oung Pao 101 (2105), 339–41.

8 Sima Tan told his son, “More than four hundred years have passed since the unicorn was captured, [during which] the feudal lords have conquered each other and historical records have been discarded. The Han dynasty has risen up in our generation, and the land within the oceans is united. As Grand Scribe, I have not made a record of the enlightened rulers, loyal officials, and those who died for their principles [over these four hundred years]. I fear that the historical records throughout the land will be forsaken. You must remember this!” (自獲麟以來四百有餘歲，而諸侯相兼，史記放絕。今漢興，海內一統，明主賢君忠臣死義之士，余為太史而弗論載，廢天下之史文，余甚懼焉，汝其念哉！) Shi ji, 130.3295. Of course, systematically organizing earlier history and recording the events of the Great Han 大漢 (as Sima Tan stated here) were not their only reason for composing Shi ji. The content of Shi ji also points to the Simas’ critical assessment of Han emperors (and of Emperor Wu in particular), as well as to Sima Qian’s groping with the aftermath of the Li Ling 李陵 affair, his desire to ideologically follow Confucius, etc. It is my view, however, that Sima Tan’s dying wish cited here represent an early and perhaps initial stratum of purpose.

9 Han practices in length of mourning seem to resemble those of the Warring States, with the standard three-year mourning period not being a full three years, but into the third year. That is to say, it was not normally thirty-six months long, only twenty-five months and sometimes twenty-seven months. See Miranda Brown, The Politics of Mourning in Early China (New York: SUNY Press, 2007), 15. A diagram from the Mawangdui texts (c. 163 b.c.e.) indicates twenty-five months. See Lai Guolong, “The Diagram of the Mourning System from Mawangdui,” Early China 28 (2003), 85. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Sima Qian’s mourning extended only twenty-five months as well.

10 Deng Junjie, Liu Xiang jiaoshu kaolun 劉向校書考論 (Beijing: Renmin, 2012), 104. This echoes discussion by Liu Xin 劉歆 (d. 23) in his Qilue 七略. See Han shu, 30.1701.

11 Han shu, 62.2708.

12 Wu Changlian, “Wei Hong ‘Tianxia jishu xian shang Taishigong’ shuo kaobian” 衛宏「天下計書先上太史公」說考辨, in Xingda renwen xuebao 興大人文學報 32 (June 2002), 573–614.

13 Shi ji, 130.3319. Other sources, such as his travels and fieldwork, oral histories from his contemporaries and tribal elders, etc., provided important but ultimately supplementary information, especially in terms of volume.

14 See Bernhard Karlgren, “Sidelights on Si-ma Ts’ien’s Language,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 42 (1970), 306.

15 Stephen Durrant, “Ban Biao, Ban Gu and Their Five Shi ji Sources,” in Views from Within, Views from Beyond: Approaches to the Shi ji as an Early Work of Historiography, ed. Hans van Ess, Olga Lomová, and Dorothee Schaab-Hanke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015), 239.

16 Despite a strong voice, Burton Watson has argued that there is no central theme to them; see Ssu-ma Ch’ien, Grand Historian of China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 144. This apparent lack of a unified thought could be due to the nature of the remarks. As Zhang Dake has pointed out, those found in the tables, treatises, and collective biographies tend to be prefaces that discuss broad issues linking the past with the present. Those found in the annals, hereditary houses, and remaining biographies tend to be praise–blame remarks at the end of the chapters with strong emotive underpinnings; Zhang Dake, Shi ji lunzan jishi 史記論贊輯釋 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin, 1986), 3.

17 Regarding the rather widespread idea that Sima Qian was unable to control the text, see Edouard Chavannes, Les Mémoires historiques de Se-ma Ts’ien (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, 1967–69), vol. 1, ccxxiii; Stephen Durrant, The Cloudy Mirror: Tension and Conflict in the Writings of Sima Qian (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), 129; and Grant Hardy, Worlds of Bronze and Bamboo: Sima Qian’s Conquest of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 64–65. This idea stems from the “Biography of Qu Yuan” (Shi ji 84) and other similar chapters where we see an awkward integration of various and, at times, contradictory sources, showing a lack of editorial finesse. For a list of such chapters, see Liu Shengliang 劉生良, “Shi ji tong yipian zhong youguan maodun jishu tongshi” 《史記》同一篇中有關矛盾記述通釋, Journal of Southeast University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 2002.5, 115–17. For a detailed analysis of a single chapter, see William Nienhauser, “Tales of the Chancellor(s): The Grand Scribe’s Unfinished Business,” Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews 25 (2003), 99–117.

18 See, for example, Durrant, The Cloudy Mirror, 130–43, which discusses Sima Qian’s crafting of Liu Bang’s and Xiang Yu’s 項羽 images as the future Son of Heaven and the frustrated king, respectively.

19 Hou Han shu 後漢書, 40a.1324.

20 This also provides a satisfactory explanation as to why Han shu contains material that precedes the Han. For a discussion on pre-Han content in Han shu, see Chae-u Pak 朴宰雨, “Shi ji,” “Han shu” bijiao yanjiu 《史記》《漢書》比較研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo wenxue, 1994), 167–68.

21 Hou Han shu, 40a.1325.

22 For a discussion on these five works as sources, see Stephen Durrant, “Ban Biao, Ban Gu and Their Five Shi ji Sources,” 217–41. Modern scholars most commonly refer to Zuo zhuan, whereas Sima Qian used the title Zuoshi chunqiu 左氏春秋. Since there is still scholarly debate on whether these are the same work or not, and because of the fluidity of textual content and titles in the Han, it is preferable to use Sima Qian’s wording in referring to this work as a source text for Shi ji. For arguments on how Zuoshi chunqiu may be the predecessor of Zuo zhuan, see Barry B. Blakeley “‘On the Authenticity and Nature of the Zuo Zhuan’ Revisited,” Early China 29 (2004), 219. For arguments on how they may be the same work with different titles, see Zhao Boxiong 趙伯雄, Chunqiu xue shi 春秋學史 (Jinan: Shandong, 2004), 19–25. For an in-depth treatment on the formation of Zuo zhuan and related complexities, see Stephen Durrant, Wai-yee Li, David Schaberg, trans., Zuo Tradition, vol. 1 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2016), xxxviii–lix.

23 See Burton Watson, trans., Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty I (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), xvi.

24 Japanese scholar Tomio Hara’s 原富男 Ho Shiki geibunshi 補史記藝文志 (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1980) might, at first glance, seem like it should be included in this list since he enumerates many of the works seen in Sima Qian’s time and before. However, his fundamental approach is to list identifiable texts and their availability in different eras (namely, pre-Confucius, Confucius and his disciples, the Warring States, Qin, pre-Sima Qian Han, and Han during Sima Qian’s life). In this sense, it covers the same period as the narrative in Shi ji but shows historical usage and development of texts in various periods. It is not tied to source texts of Shi ji like the other studies reviewed below. For this reason, it is not examined in this paper.

25 The “Other” category includes works listed in the annotations of their bibliographies but not in the main list.

26 Luo Genze, “Cong Shi ji benshu kao Shi ji benyuan” 從史記本書考史記本原, in Shi ji lunwen ji 史記論文集, ed. Chen Xinxiong 陳新雄 and Yu Dacheng 于大成 (Taipei: Xinan, 1978), 40–53. Originally published in Guoli Beiping tushuguan guankan 國立北平圖書館館刊, 4.2 (March–April 1930). Luo’s article states that his list contains thirty-three works, but this is highly problematic for several reasons. First, based on his marker yue 曰, the total is actually thirty-four. Second, he lists the Six Arts (liuyi 六藝) as a single category instead of six separate works; then, he lists two works that were mentioned by Chu Shaosun 褚少孫 (fl. 49–7 b.c.e.), as well as a portrait of Marquis Liu 劉侯, all of which should not be included. Finally, he lists a work called huo yan 或言, which should be moved from the book list to the orally transmitted list. Accordingly, the total in Table 1 (35) reflects the actual number of works listed, not his stated total.

27 Takigawa Kametarō, Shiki kaichū kōshō 史記會注考證 (Tokyo: Tōhō Bunka Gakuin Tōkyō Kenkyōjo, 1932–34; rpt. Taipei: Wanjuanlou, 2004), “Shiki sōron” 史記總論, 50–63.

28 Lu Nanqiao, “Lun Sima Qian ji qi lishi bianzuanxue” 論司馬遷及其歷史編纂學, Wenshizhe 文史哲 1955.11; later included in Wenshizhe zazhi bianji weiyuanhui 文史哲雜誌編輯委員會, ed., Sima Qian yu Shi ji 司馬遷與史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1958), 104–8.

29 Jin Dejian, Sima Qian suo jian shu kao 司馬遷所見書考 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin, 1963), 3–22.

30 Lai Mingde, Sima Qian zhi xueshu sixiang 司馬遷之學術思想, rev. ed. (Taipei: Hongshi, 1983), 23–48.

31 Zheng Zhihong, Shi ji wenxian yanjiu 史記文獻研究 (Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1997), 157–70.

32 Zhang Dake, et al., Shi ji wenxian yu bianzuanxue yanjiu 史記文獻與編纂學研究, in Shi ji yanjiu jicheng 史記研究集成 (Beijing: Huawen, 2005), vol. 11, 419–26. One unique aspect of the series Shi ji yanjiu jicheng is that some volumes are actually a combination of several previously published books or monographs. Thus, multiple authors listed for the same volume is a common occurrence. This proves to be quite challenging for readers to determine which section of a volume was written by which author. For example, in Shi ji wenxian yu bianzuanxue yanjiu, the title page states that it was authored by “Zhang Dake, Zhao Shengqun, et al.” (張大可、趙生群等著). However, careful comparison reveals that the section titled “Zai yu Shi ji zhong de Sima Qian suo jian shu” (載於《史記》中的司馬遷所見書) was based on research by Zheng Zhihong, with minor revisions and updates. Zhang Dake is listed in the present study as the compiler of the list since he is the principle editor of that volume.

33 Shi ji, 6.255, 87.2546.

34 For example, in Shi ji 67, Sima Qian writes about Zeng Shen 曾參 that “Confucius believed [he] could master the Way of Filial Piety and thus taught him. [Zeng] wrote The Classic of Filial Piety. [He] died in Lu” (孔子以為能通孝道，故授之業。作《孝經》。死於魯) (2205).

35 In Han Fei’s 韓非 biography, Sima Qian weaves the titles of five of Han Fei’s works (“Gufen” 孤憤, “Wudu” 五蠹, “Nei-wai chu” 內外儲, “Shuilin” 說林, and “Shuinan” 說難) into the biographical narrative, capping it with his formulaic “more than 100,000 words” (十餘萬言) to account for Han Fei’s other writings. However, “Shuinan” is the only chapter that Sima Qian quotes. See Shi ji, 63.2147.

36 In Shi ji 74 Sima Qian writes, “The Grand Scribe remarked, ‘When reading Mencius’ writings, each time when I get to the point when King Hui of Liang asked, ‘How can you benefit my kingdom?’ I have never not set aside the book and sighed” (太史公曰：「余讀孟子書，至梁惠王問『何以利吾國』，未嘗不廢書而歎也。」). Later Sima Qian states Mencius “wrote Mencius in seven pian” (作《孟子》七篇). See Shi ji, 74.2343.

37 Perhaps the readiest example for this is Zuoshi chunqiu, which Sima Qian cites throughout the chapters on the Zhou dynasty. He only mentions it once by title in Shi ji 14, but in a narrative voice and not related to any citations (509–10). For an in-depth study on Sima Qian’s citations of the Zuoshi chunqiu see Gu Lisan 顧立三, Sima Qian zhuanxie Shi ji caiyong Zuo zhuan de yanjiu 司馬遷撰寫《史記》採用《左傳》的研究 (Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju, 1980).

38 For example, William Nienhauser has a study on the “Hereditary House of Jin” 晉世家, which demonstrates that Sima Qian, in a desire to bring together various discrepancies in the three commentaries on the Annals, ends up producing, in parts, a narrative that contains ambiguities and leaps of logic. See William Nienhauser, “For Want of a Hand: A Note on the ‘Hereditary House of Jin’ and Sima Qian’s ‘Chunqiu.’” Journal of the American Oriental Society 127.3 (2007), 229–47.

39 With regard to Sima Qian’s uneven treatment of authorship, written works, and clear citations as it pertains to the philosophic masters from the Warring States, see Kern, “The ‘Masters’ in the Shiji,” 335–62.

40 Jin had not yet discovered this work when his book Sima Qian suo jian shu kao was published. He later published a short addendum entitled “Taishigong zixu zhong ‘Jian lun’ shi” 太史公自序中「劍論」釋 to correct his self-titled “oversight.” See Shilin 史林 1 (1986), 85. This addendum shows both Jin’s conscious insouciance with non-book materials and the need for a more careful combing of Shi ji for source texts.

41 See Jerry Norman, Chinese (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 65. Lines of transition may not be as clear-cut, however, as traditional views have held. See Imre Galambos, “The Myth of the Qin Unification of Writing in Han Sources,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57.2 (2004), 181–203. For an example of textual rewriting, see the account of Kong Anguo 孔安國 reworking the Guwen Shang shu 古文尚書 (Shi ji, 121.3125).

42 Yu Jiaxi 余嘉錫 has outlined the high degree of fluidity the titles of many works experienced from Western Han into the Six Dynasties. He identifies two reasons for this, namely many works were not named by their authors and versions of the same work often had a differing number of chapters due to repeated editing. See Li Ling 李零, Jianbo gushu yu xueshu yuanliu 簡帛古書與學術源流, rev. ed. (Beijing: Shenghuo, dushu, xinzhi Sanlian shudian, 2008), 235–36.

43 In 1990, hemp paper fragments were discovered in tombs at Dun Huang 敦煌 in Gansu 甘肅. See Han Fei 韓飛, “Cong zhi de yiban xingneng kan Dunhuang Xuanquanzhi yizhi chutu de mazhi” 從紙的一般性能看敦煌懸泉置遺址出土的麻紙, in Sichou zhi lu 絲綢之路 (4.2011), 29–31.

44 Shi ji, 14.510.

45 Shi ji, 121.3127–28. Translation from Sarah Queen and John Major, Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), 617–18, with minor amendments.

46 According to Dong Zhongshu’s biography, Zhufu Yan took Dong’s manuscript on disasters and anomalies and submitted it to the emperor, who called for scholars to review the content. Since the content would certainly contain implications of wrongdoing of officials and others at court as a way to explain the disasters, no scholar would be eager to support it. Dong’s disciple Lü Bushu happened to be among those summoned. Not knowing the work was his master’s, he also condemned it as idiotic (xiayu 下愚). Dong was sentenced to death but soon after had his sentence commuted. See Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 10, 300–301.

47 Lai, Sima Qian, 29.

48 Natural disasters, anomalies, omens, etc. are not the focus of Chunqiu fanlu; however, due to their presence in the Annals, a select number of chapters in Chunqiu fanlu discuss them, namely 6.1, 10, 15, 16, 30.2, and 34.1. Whether these are the same as the records of anomalies mentioned by Sima Qian is difficult to ascertain. Queen and Major point to the formulaic expressions in 30.2 and their corresponding verbiage in a memorial by Dong Zhongshu recorded in Han shu, 56, as proof that this passage is Dong’s original. Luxuriant Gems, 306. So, it is possible that some passages may be Dong’s original writings. However, it is unlikely that Chunqiu fanlu contains Dong’s writings on the disasters in their entirety or even in a sizable portion.

49 Shi ji, 14.511. I have added the character ye 也 because the shi ye 是也 construct is frequently used throughout Suoyin but seems to have become corrupted here.

50 Shi ji, 130.3297.

51 Queen and Major, Luxuriant Gems, 182.

52 Queen and Major, Luxuriant Gems, 22, 27.

53 “The earliest reference to a book titled Chunqiu fanlu is found in Qi Lu (Seven Records) attributed to Yuan Xiaoxu (479–516)”; Queen and Major, Luxuriant Gems, 1n1; see also Sarah Queen, From Chronicle to Canon: The Hermeneutics of the Spring and Autumn, according to Tung Chung-shu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 13n4; 39. Gary Arbuckle also agrees with this dating. See “Restoring Dong Zhongshu: An Experiment in Historical and Philosophical Reconstruction,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of British Columbia, 1991), 316–17.

54 Ge Hong, 2.4. Michael Loewe also lists this work in dating the appearance of the title Chunqiu fanlu. Michael Loewe, Dong Zhongshu, a ‘Confucian’ Heritage and the Chunqiu fanlu (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 191. Of course, the Xijing zaji as it stands could also have been attributed to Ge Hong by someone of a later date. William Nienhauser has advanced the idea that it was produced between 500–525, based on internal textual evidence. See Nienhauser, “Once again, the Authorship of the Hsi-ching tsa-chi (Miscellanies of the Western Capital),” Journal of the American Oriental Society 98.3 (July–Sept. 1978), 219–36. For an overview of possible authorial candidates, see David Knechtges, “Xijing zaji,” in Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature: A Reference Guide, Part Three, ed. David Knechtges and Taiping Chang (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1648–55.

55 Queen and Major have argued that “the notion that the anonymous compiler drew from multiple source texts is further supported by the Chunqiu fanlu’s chapter titles, which differ in length, and the principles of naming chapters appear to change as one moves through the text.” Luxuriant Gems, 20–21.

56 See Jin Dejian, Sima Qian suo jian shu kao, 138–44.

57 Han shu, 56.2525–26. Translation from Queen and Major, Luxuriant Gems, 648, with minor variations. Specifically, Han shu states 123 chapters, yet Queen and Major accidentally listed 120. The number is corrected here. Also, Gary Arbuckle’s reading is used for the final sentence, as it fits with a pattern seen in several chapters of Han shu. See Arbuckle, “Restoring Dong Zhongshu,” 56–57.

58 “Heard and Promoted” and “Pure Brightness” seem to have been lost during or after Eastern Han.

59 For a detailed analysis of these passages in Shi ji 130 and Chunqiu fanlu see Wu Ruyu 吳汝煜, Shi ji lungao 史記論稿 (Nanjing: Jiangsu jiaoyu, 1986), 6–7.

60 The other correlating passages come from “Wang dao” 王道, “Mieguo shang” 滅國上, “Meng hui yao” 盟會要, “Zhong zheng” 重政, and “Yu xu” (twice). While these could potentially be writings of Dong Zhongshu, there is some uncertainty; see Queen and Major, Luxuriant Gems, 27. Thus, they are not listed here.

61 Su Yu, Chunqiu fanlu yizheng 春秋繁露義證 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992), 2. Queen and Major further substantiate Su’s explanation, showing that using the first few characters of a chapter’s content to name a chapter is highly uncharacteristic of titles in Chunqiu fanlu. What’s more, they list chapters 1–5 in Chunqiu fanlu as being the writings of Dong Zhongshu (27). They later equivocate somewhat on this point by saying, “We conclude from all this material that the authoritative voice in chapters one through five could be that of either Huwu Sheng or Dong Zhongshu, but more likely the latter … Clearly it is not possible, based on the surviving sources, to prove definitively that the first five chapters represent the teachings of Dong Zhongshu, but we believe that it is most likely the case”; Queen and Major, Luxuriant Gems, 64.

62 Shi ji, 1.46.

63 Shi ji, 2.89.

64 Han shu, 30.1710. For a discussion of the possible meanings of xueguan, see William Nienhauser, The Grand Scribes Record (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2016), vol. 10, 268n5. In Chinese, see Lü Zongli 呂宗力, Zhongguo lidai guanzhi da cidian (xiudingban) 中國歷代官制大辭典（修訂版） (Beijing: Shangwu, 2015), 602.

65 Fang Xiangdong, Da Dai liji huijiao jijie 大戴禮記匯校集解 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2008), 3.

66 See Jeffrey Riegel, “Li chi,” in Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, ed. Michael Loewe (Berkeley: UC Berkeley Institute of East Asian Studies, 1994), 294–95.

67 Shi ji, 1.47.

68 Lai, Sima Qian, 27.

69 See Dorothee Schaab-Hanke, “Sima Zhen weihe yao buzheng Shi ji de shangguguan?” 司馬貞為何要補正《史記》的上古觀？ in Tianti, shenti yu guoti: huixiang shijie de hanxue 天體、身體與國體：迴向世界的漢學, ed. Zhu Pingci 祝平次 and Yang Rubin 楊儒賓 (Taipei: National Taiwan University Press, 2005), 145–84.

70 Han Zhaoqi, Shi ji jianzheng 史記箋證 (Nanchang: Jiangxi renmin, 2004), 58. Zhang Dake has a similar interpretation. See Zhang Dake, Shi ji wenxian yu bianzuan xue yanjiu, 47.

71 Relevant chapters include Shi ji 1, 4, 15, 44, 61, 69, 86, 87, and 97.

72 See, for example, Qian Mu 錢穆, Xian-Qin zhuzi xinian 先秦諸子繫年 (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 1956), 262–63.

73 The punishment bin has been interpreted in the past to mean either (1) removing the kneecap(s) or (2) cutting off of a foot or feet (or toes). Pinpointing the exact meaning in relation to Sun Bin has been somewhat problematic due to a confusion of terms. Zheng Xuan’s 鄭玄 (127–200) commentary states: “Yue is ‘to cut off the foot’; Zhou changed bin to yue” (刖，斷足也；周改「臏」作「刖」) (Zhouli zhushu 周禮注疏, 36.539). Duan Yucai 段玉裁 (1735–1815) reads this to mean that in pre-Zhou times bin (removal of kneecap) was the punishment, but in Zhou it was changed to yue (cutting off of a foot). In the Han dynasty, this changed to cutting off the toes. Furthermore, bin was more damaging than yue, for the latter would still allow the punished to walk using a special shoe. Shuowen jiezi zhu 說文解字注 (Taipei: Hanjing wenhua, 1983), 2B.32B–33A. It seems most likely that Sun Bin, who lived during Eastern Zhou, was subject to yue, which was the designated form of this mutilating punishment at the time but used bin as a euphemism for the punishment. Shen Jiaben 沈家本 also mentions this possibility, stating that self-renaming was a practice at the time. He cites Ying Bu 英布 (d. 195 b.c.e.) as an example, as he changed his name to Qing Bu 黥布 after having his face tattooed in punishment; see Lidai xingfa kao 歷代刑法考 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985), 199.

74 Li Renjian 李人鑒 holds that this is proof that Sun Wu’s biography is an interpolation. For his full argument see Li Renjian, Taishigong shu jiaodu ji 太史公書校讀記 (Lanzhou: Gansu renmin, 1998), 982–83.

75 Shi ji, 65.2168. Sima Qian shows the same propensity to gloss over texts common in Western Han society with Sima bingfa 司馬兵法. See below. Regarding the phrase shi duo you 世多有, two possible interpretations for shi are jinshi 今世 or shishang 世上. Nienhauser favors the former and translates the graph as “our generation” (The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 7, 45). The latter is common among vernacular translations produced by Chinese scholars (such as Zhang Dake, Han Zhaoqi, etc.). This phrase shi duo you, or a variant shi duo you zhi 世多有之, also appears in Shi ji 62 and 74. Another variant is found in Shi ji 63, where, in speaking of Han Fei’s writings, the phrase xuezhe duo you 學者多有 (was common among men of learning) is used. If military strategies were part of the Qin ban on books, “our generation” would seem appropriate. However, since they were not, “society” as juxtaposed with “men of learning” seems to fit better. Thus it is used here.

76 Shi ji, 130.3300.

77 Jin, Sima Qian suo jian shu kao, 400–401.

78 Included in this list are Zhouyi 周易, the Annals, “Lisao” 離騷, Guo yu, Lülan 呂覽 (known now as Lüshi chunqiu), and “Shuinan” and “Gufen” (chapters from Hang Fei’s book). This list may have been inspired by Han Fei’s list in “Shuinan,” as several figures are seen in both lists. Chen Qitian 陳啟天, Zengding Hanfeizi jiaozhi 增訂韓非子校釋 (Taipei: Taiwan Shangwu, 1969), 303. The primary difference between the two is Han Fei lists more than ten worthy individuals whose way was blocked, while Sima Qian focus on seven whose way was blocked and who turned (either earlier or later) to the written word.

79 Han shu, 30.1756–57. As for why Shi ji cites 13 chapters, but Han shu lists 82, see Jin Dejian, Sima Qian suo jian shu kao, 389–98.

80 See Liao Wenyuan 繆文遠, Zhanguo ce xin jiaozhu 戰國策新校注 (Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1998), 387.

81 Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 銀雀山漢墓竹簡整理小組, Yinqueshan Han mu zhujjian (yi) 銀雀山漢墓竹簡（壹） (Beijing: Wenwu, 1985), 6.

82 Shi ji, 65.2163.

83 Chen Zhi, Shi ji xin zheng 史記新證 (Tianjin: Tianjin renmin, 1979), 122.

84 Shi ji, 47.1947.

85 Luo, “Cong Shi ji benshu kao Shi ji benyuan,” 43.

86 Discussion here is not meant to imply that Shi ji 47 was composed entirely of excerpts from the Analects and from whatever else Kongshi shu implies. Content from the three commentaries on the Annals, Guo yu, and other works was also used. For a more in-depth discussion of these sources, see Li Longxian 李隆獻, “Xian-Qin Hanchu wenxian zhong de ‘Kongzi xingxiang’” 先秦漢初文獻中的「孔子形象」, Wenyuzhe 文與哲 2004.12, 59–65.

87 Qu Wanli 屈萬里 has dated these to sometime after Mencius but before Sima Qian. See Qu Wanli, Xian-Qin wenshi ziliao kaobian 先秦文史資料考辨 (Taipei: Lianjing, 1983), 314.

88 See Han shu, 30.1706.

89 See “‘Kongzi shi lun’ yishi” 〈孔子詩論〉譯釋, in Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu (yi) duben 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書（一）讀本 (Taipei: Wanjuanlou, 2007), 1–76.

90 See “Rujiazhe yan shiwen” 《儒家者言》釋文, Wenwu 1981.8, 13–19.

91 This last text was discovered only quite recently (2015) and has not been formally published in its entirety. However, from the archeological report and the pictures of the bamboo slip published therein, we can read the beginning of the text. The name of the text, “Zhidao” 智道, was on one side of the slip and its first few lines on the other. See Yang Jun 楊軍 and Xu Changqing 徐長青, “Nanchang shi Xi-Han Haihunhou mu” 南昌市西漢海昏侯墓, in Kaogu 考古 2016.7, 61. It should be noted that some content matches a passage from the “Yan Hui” 顏回 chapter of Kongzi jiayu 孔子家語. See Yang Zhaoming 楊朝明 and Song Lilin宋立林, eds., Kongzi jiayu tongjie 孔子家語通解 (Jinan: Qilu shushe, 2013), 229.

92 For a more exhaustive list of texts in the Warring States and early Han containing content on Confucius’ teachings and life, see Chen Tongsheng 陳桐生, Lun yu shi lun 論語十論 (Guangzhou: Jinan University Press, 2012), 17, 23–24. See also Guo Yi 郭沂, Kongzi ji yu jiaobu 孔子集語校補 (Jinan: Qilu shushe, 1998).

93 See Wang Guowei 王國維, Guantang ji lin 觀堂集林 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2010 reprint), 309.

94 See Han shu, 30.1716.

95 Zuo Songchao, Shuoyuan jizheng 說苑集證 (Taipei: Guoli bianyiguan, 2001), 9.

96 Ning Zhenjiang 寧鎮疆, “Bajiaolang Han jian Rujiazhe yan yu Kongzi jiayu xiangguan zhangci shuzheng” 八角廊漢簡《儒家者言》與《孔子家語》相關章次疏證, Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 5 (Sept. 2004), 9–10.

97 See Anhui sheng wenwu gongzuodui, “Fuyang Shuanggudui Xi-Han Ruyang Hou mu fajue baogao” 阜陽雙古堆西漢汝陽侯墓發掘報告, Wenwu, 1978.8, 12–31.

98 See Yao Juan 姚娟, “Xinxu, Shuoyuan wenxian yanjiu” 《新序》、《說苑》文獻研究 Ph.D. dissertation (Huazhong shifan daxue 華中師範大學, 2009), 177.

99 The content or origin of Kongzi jiayu recorded by Ban Gu is unknown. Li Xueqin 李學勤 believes that Jiayu was perhaps compiled by Kong Anguo, Kong Xi 孔僖, Kong Jiyan 孔季彥, and Kong Meng 孔猛, and that Rujiazhe yan is the original form of Jiayu. See Li Xueqin, “Zhujian Jiayu yu Han-Wei Kongshi jiaxue” 竹簡《家語》與漢魏孔氏家學, Kongzi yanjiu 孔子研究 1987.2, 61. There are likely differences between the original Jiayu and the current received version. For more on the similarities and differences between corresponding parts in Shi ji 47 and the received Jiayu, see Hans van Ess, “Einige Anmerkungen zur Biographie des Konfuzius im Shih-chi und vergleichbaren Stellen im K’ung-tzu chia-yü,” Oriens Extremus 50 (2011), 157–80 and “Einige Anmerkungen zur Biographie des Konfuzius im Shih-chi und vergleichbaren Stellen im K’ung-tzu chia-yü: Teil II: Vom Dienst in Lu über die Wanderungen zurück nach Lu,” Oriens Extremus 52 (2013), 215–62.

100 Shi ji, 105.2795.

101 It is worth noting that a somewhat similar instance occurred during the reign of Duke Jing of Qi 齊景公 (d. 490 b.c.e.). Yanzi chunqiu 晏子春秋 records a girl in Qi pleading for the life of her condemned father after his inebriation brought him into contact with a tree protected explicitly by official edict. The girl gains an audience with Yan Ying 晏嬰, who, after hearing her impassioned persuasion, convinces the duke to change the laws and thus spare the man’s life. See Olivia Milburn, Yanzi chunqiu (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 204–7. Whether Chunyu Tiying knew of this anecdote from Qi history and gained inspiration thereby or whether daughters pleading for their fathers (in Qi) is just an inevitable permutation in legal history, it does not reduce her contribution to Han law and Emperor Wen’s legacy.

102 Han shu, 23.1098. Liu Xiang, who like Sima Qian and Ban Gu had access to imperial records, also records this memorial in Lienü zhuan 列女傳. See Anne Kinney, Exemplary Women of Early China: The Lien ü Zhuan of Liu Xiang (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 133–34. It should be apparent the textual contribution the Simas, Lius, and Bans made came in large part from this access to court repositories.

103 Han shu, 23.1099. For an in-depth treatment of this issue, see Charles Sanft, “Six of One, Two Dozen of the Other: The Abatement of Mutilating Punishments under Han Emperor Wen,” Asia Major 18.1 (2005), 79–100.

104 Shi ji, 64.2160. This translation reads shao bao 少褒 as shaowei kuazhang 稍微誇張, following Zhang Dake. See Shi ji lunzan jishi, 254.

105 Shi ji, 112.2954.

106 See Michael Nylan, trans., Exemplary Figures/Fayan (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2013), 64–65.

107 See Shi ji, 4.129 and 122.3154.

108 Shi ji, 64.2054.

109 Nienhauser, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 7, 33. For more on how these two statements can be viewed as Sima Qian’s theme for the biography, see Li Jingxing 李景星, Sishi pingyi 四史評議 (Changsha: Yuelu shushe, 1986), 61–62.

110 Zhang Dake has linked this work with the title Junli Simafa 軍禮司馬法 (Zhang Dake, Shi ji lunzan jishi, 253). Ban Gu’s “Treatise” notes that Junli Simafa has 155 chapters (Han shu, 30.1709). That is twenty-five more chapters than Sima Qian’s own immense work! A compendium indeed!

111 Shi ji, 64.2160.

112 I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer who brought this to my attention.

113 See John Lagerwey, “Wu Yüeh ch’un ch’iu,” in Early Chinese Texts, 473.

114 Olivia Milburn, The Glory of Yue: An Annotated Translation of the Yuejue shu (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 38.

115 Milburn, The Glory of Yue, 206.

116 Axel Schuessler and Michael Lowe, “Yüeh chüeh shu,” in Early Chinese Texts, 490–91.

117 See Chen Qitian, Zengding Hanfeizi jiaozhi, 33 and Sun Yirang 孫詒讓, Mozi jiangu 墨子間詁 (Taibei: Heluo tushu, 1975), 9.42.

118 Takigawa Kametarō, Shiki kaichū kōshō, 67.20–21.

119 Mozi and Shi ji list two more Qi officials in addition to Bao Mu 鮑牧 and Yan Yu 晏圉, namely Gao Zhaozi 高昭子 and Guo Huizi 國惠子.

120 Vankeerberghen, Griet, “Texts and authors in the Shi ji,” in China’s Early Empires: A Re-appraisal, ed. Nylan, Michael and Loewe, Michael (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 478Google Scholar.

121 Durrant, The Cloudy Mirror, 130.

122 See Wu Fuzhu 吳福助, Han shu cailu Xi-Han wenzhang tantao 漢書採錄西漢文章探討 (Taipei: Wenjin, 1988).

123 Hou Han shu, 40a.1325. Ban Gu altered his father’s original assessment, giving Sima Qian more credit and less criticism. See Han shu, 62.2737.