摘要
首先对司马迁生年两说孰优孰劣追本溯源,继而对"司马迁生年前145年论者的考据"逐项检验,指出前145年论者"十九岁前耕牧河山之阳"与"对‘家徙茂陵’之考证"纯属想当然;前145年论者"对‘仕为郎中’之考证"亦毫无实证;《报任安书》作于太始四年说及任安死于征和二年七月说皆属伪证伪考。从而得出结论:前145年说系一份不及格的司马迁生年考证答卷。
Having re-examined the history of the two statements about the year of Sima Qian's birth to decide which one is truthful and which one is false,this paper goes on to discuss in detail the three points presented by those who hold the "145 BC"theory and comes to the following conclusions: that Sima Qian did farm work and looked after live-stocks before he was 19 and that his family was moved to Maoling are based on pure illusions; that the time when Sima Qian became a Langzhong is groundless and that Reply to Ren An was written in the fourth year of Tai Shi and that Ren An died in July of the second year of Zheng He are both perjury. This paper concludes that the paper regarding the year of Sima Qian's birth presented by the upholders of "145 BC"is a failure as a result of Prof. Zhang Dake's method of research.
出处
《渭南师范学院学报》
2018年第5期5-22,共18页
Journal of Weinan Normal University
关键词
司马迁
生年
张大可
考据
Sima Qian
year of birth
Zhang Dake
criticism
