“尊班抑马”还是互有褒贬？——评刘知几的班马优劣论.doc

大连理工大学毕业论文（设计）格式规范 “尊班抑马”还是互有褒贬——评刘知几的班马优劣论 - PAGE II - - PAGE I - “尊班抑马”还是互有褒贬？ ——评刘知几的班马优劣论 "Exclusive Ban anti-Ma" or mutual praise? --Comment on Liu's confidant's theory of the advantages and disadvantages of Ban Ma 摘 要 关于班马的比较问题自《汉书》问世以来向来是在学界争论不休的话题，其中不可避免地出现对班马孰优孰劣的比较了。唐以前学界的主流倾向是“尊班抑马”，唐代史学家刘知几在《史通》中也发表了大量的关于司马迁和班固的评论，这些评论在 虽说有些地方过于苛刻，一方面刘知几将《史记》和《汉书》相提并论划分为不同的体裁，这样的划分无疑有抬高班固贬低司马迁之嫌，另一方面刘知几又对《史记》的体例问题进行了批判，认为其体例不纯。但刘知几在批判的同时也对《史记》的可取之处给予了肯定，刘知几赞扬了《史记》为“君子之史”，也认可司马迁对纪传体确立上的贡献。而刘知几在对《汉书》的评论上虽然对《汉书》赞扬之处很多，比如说刘知几高度认可班固创立的断代体的体裁，也赞扬了《汉书》的语言功底。但与此同时对《汉书》的缺陷也有严厉的批判，刘知几指责了《汉书》中的曲笔问题，同时也对汉书中一些志的设立提出了质疑。总的来说，刘知几对班马二者的总体倾向并非“尊班抑马”而是互有褒贬。不过刘知几对班马比较的看法，往往被后人错误地认为刘知几对斑马二者的看法是“尊班抑马”，这些人往往没有用全面的视角去看待这一问题，而是仅仅地抓住其中的一点就得出结论。从史学史的角度考量，造成人们对刘知几评论班马误解的原因有三：其一，《史记》为纪传体开山之作，其结构和体例难免会有不足；其二，《汉书》开纪传体断代的风格，其不仅在体例上较《史记》成熟，也是后世正史纷纷效仿的体例；其三，《史记》为司马迁发愤之作，体现了丰富的人民性，《汉书》则显得更为正统，刘知几作为封建正统的维护者自然也会对《史记》有所批判。但如果仅从这一点就得出刘知几“尊班抑马”的结论，未免稍显片面。 关键词：《史通》；《史记》；《汉书》；史学评论 “尊班抑马”还是互有褒贬——评刘知几的班马优劣论 - PAGE III - The Subject of Undergraduate Graduation Project (Thesis) of BHU Abstract The comparative problem of Banma has always been a controversial topic in the academic circles since the advent of the Han book, and there is inevitably a comparison between the advantages and disadvantages of Banma. The mainstream tendency of the academic circles before the Tang Dynasty was "honoring the horse", and the historian of the Tang Dynasty, Liu Zhiji, also published a large number of comments on Sima Qian and Ji gu in the "stone", which were too harsh in some places, on the one hand, Liu Zhiji the comparison of "Shi Ji" and "Han book" into different genres, There is no doubt that such a division has raised the suspicion of devaluing Sima Qian, on the other hand, Liu Zhiji several times on the "historical records" of the style of the problem of criticism, that its style is not pure. However, Liu Zhiji in the criticism at the same time also to the "historical records" of the merit of the affirmation, Liu Zhiji