论文部分内容阅读
按《史记·太史公自序》关于《龟策列传》的基本构想,今本《史记·龟策列传》“褚先生曰”之前的第一部分和最后的“卜辞”记录,应该就是司马迁的原作和该篇传记的全部内容。旧史家认为其“有录无书”或不当入于“列传”之体,是值得商榷的。而“褚先生曰”完全是作者不领会该篇传记的独特性所致,也招致了后世史论家的一致诟病;同时,也不可否认,所谓褚少孙补作,仍有一定文献性和史料性价值,是对《庄子》文本和有关历史传说的再创作。“褚先生曰”之所以杂凑《庄子》多篇,也说明先秦诸子之书,与“史”有同质的关系;史传文学是史官文化的产物,先秦诸子亦源于史官,二者的关系是同源而生。
According to “Historical Records Taishi public order” on the “Kameyushizu Biography” basic idea, the present “Shigekihi turtle Biography” “Mr. Chu said” before the first part and the last “Shuci ” records should be The original Sima Qian and the biography of the entire content. It is debatable that the old historians thought that they had “no records or no records” or that they improperly entered the “biography.” And “Mr. Chu said ” is entirely the author does not understand the uniqueness of the biography caused, also led to the unanimity of historical monologues; at the same time, it is undeniable that the so-called Chu Shaosun make-up, there is still some literature and The historical value is the re-creation of the text of Zhuangzi and the related historical legends. “Chu said ” The reason why heterogeneous “Zhuangzi” many articles, but also shows the books of pre-Qin philosophers, and “history ” has a homogeneous relationship; historical literature is the product of the history of the official culture, the pre-Qin philosophers also source In the history officer, the relationship between the two is born homologous.