《漢書》與褚少孫《續補》關係探析

An Analysis of the Relationship between the Hanshu and Chu Shaosun's Xubu

兩漢之際續補《史記》者共有十八家，然其中多已亡缺，惟褚少孫之書保存最為完整，前人亦多以為班固《漢書》大量採用褚《續補》之記事。本文透過詳細比對，考證今本《史記》中可以確定為褚少孫作品者共計九篇。將此九篇之內容再與《漢書》進行詳細比較，證明班固實極度避免使用褚《續補》之內容，極少數採用者亦經大幅刪改。由此發現，班固對待前人續補《史記》諸作，似有兩種不同的態度。對於利用官方資源進行著作者，如劉向、劉歆、馮商、揚雄、班彪等，《漢書》中常大為稱引。但對於如褚少孫者，完全憑藉私人之力續補《史記》，其記事多來自於民間傳聞軼事，班固則認為其內容多有誤謬，又難登大雅之堂，因此盡量避免採用。

During the Western and Eastern Han, a total of eighteen historians added to or supplemented Sima Qian's司馬遷Shiji史記; of these historians, more of Chu Shaosun's褚少孫work has been preserved than that of any other. Although scholars previously believed that Ban Gu's班固Hanshu漢書made great use of the records in Chu's Xubu續補, this essay shows that the current text of the Shiji in fact contains nine chapters that can be identified as having been written by Chu, and demonstrates through close comparison with the Hanshu that Ban Gu essentially avoided making use of the contents of Chu's Xubu, extensively revising it in the few instances where he did. From this it can be shown that the historians who added to the Shiji can be divided into two separate groups, and that the Hanshu borrows extensively from the group made up of scholars like Liu Xiang劉向, Liu Xin劉歆, Feng Shang馮商, and Yang Xiong揚雄who were esteemed by the court and thus able to make use of official resources while conducting their work. The other group consists of scholars like Chu Shaosun, who relied on their own private efforts to supplement the Shiji. Ban Gu's Hanshu not only fails to mention their having written additions to the Shiji, but also to the greatest extent possible avoids making use of their writings.