《獻徵錄》明初三傳校讀

The Collation of Three Early Ming Biographies in the Xianzhenglu

明焦竑輯《獻徵錄》，以廣博精善，向為學界推重。然其內容取捨、詞句修訂、文字抄錄，是否精審可據？本文選取能代表焦竑各類工作的明初常遇春、徐達、俞通海三人傳記共四篇，與焦竑可能採用的原文對校，探討取捨、修訂、抄錄之得失，以為重新評判《獻徵錄》史料價值的初步工作。本文結論是：焦竑對傳記文章的取捨，頗具史識，但增補章節不夠嚴謹，甚至摻雜私念。對詞句的修訂，既不甚精心，亦乏史學追求。抄錄文字，不甚忠於原文。所以，按嚴格的史料學標準，《獻徵錄》並非合格的原始資料。 The Xianzhenglu (獻徵錄), a well-known collection of biographies compiled by Jiao Hong (焦竑) of the Ming dynasty, has long been held in high esteem among scholars of Ming Studies for its erudition and precision. This paper compares the biographies of three early Ming generals found in the Xianzhenglu with the original sources that Jiao may have used when he compiled them. The aim is to re-evaluate the Xianzhenglu as a historical source by examining how Jiao selected, revised, and transcribed his source materials. The paper shows that while Jiao was rather careful in selecting source materials for composing the biographies, his work in supplementary sections was less rigorous, and they sometimes reflected his own biases. His textual revisions were not reflective of a pursuit of historical accuracy, and he did not transcribe the original documents with accuracy. Thus, according to the rigorous standards of historical scholarship, the Xianzhenglu does not qualify as a primary source.

The Xianzhenglu (獻徵錄), a well-known collection of biographies compiled by Jiao Hong (焦竑) of the Ming dynasty, has long been held in high esteem among scholars of Ming Studies for its erudition and precision. This paper compares the biographies of three early Ming generals found in the Xianzhenglu with the original sources that Jiao may have used when he compiled them. The aim is to re-evaluate the Xianzhenglu as a historical source by examining how Jiao selected, revised, and transcribed his source materials. The paper shows that while Jiao was rather careful in selecting source materials for composing the biographies, his work in supplementary sections was less rigorous, and they sometimes reflected his own biases. His textual revisions were not reflective of a pursuit of historical accuracy, and he did not transcribe the original documents with accuracy. Thus, according to the rigorous standards of historical scholarship, the Xianzhenglu does not qualify as a primary source.