Sima Qian's "Records of the Historian"

Has anyone here read the 管宴列傳 in the 史記? Any thoughts as to why Sima Qian put the biographies of 管仲 and 宴子 together, and his opinions on the two?

“管仲卒,齐国遵其政,常强于诸侯。后百余年而有晏子焉。”
the original words shows that the reason Sima Qian put the biographies of 管仲 and 宴子 together is both of them were excellent prime minister in their period ,meanwhile they have the different characteristics.

According to later commentaries, his motivation was more along the lines of the ideals of friendship displayed in the two biographies … 管仲 (Guan Zhong) and 鮑叔牙 (Bao Shu Ya), and 晏嬰 (Yan Ying) and 越石夫 (Yue Shi Fu). After Sima Qian’s castration, all of his friends left him because they were afraid that they too would be implicated. Sima Qian admired the friendships that these two had.

It’s interesting to me, however, that Sima Qian praised Guan Zhong, even though Confucius didn’t like him (Guan Zhong was a “legalist” and wasn’t of the highest character), and Sima Qian rarely disagrees with Confucius since he himself was very Confucian.

I think the 齊國 (Kingdom of Qi) connection is a weak one.

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]

It’s interesting to me, however, that Sima Qian praised Guan Zhong, even though Confucius didn’t like him (Guan Zhong was a “legalist” and wasn’t of the highest character), and Sima Qian rarely disagrees with Confucius since he himself was very Confucian.

I think the 齊國 (Kingdom of Qi) connection is a weak one.[/quote]

However,there are some commentaries in the Analects (LunYu) manifest that Confucius had a highly positive remark on 管仲 (Guan Zhong) such as
Chapter 14 in Analects (LunYu):

子曰:「桓公九合諸侯,不以兵車,管仲之力也。如其仁!如其仁!」
子曰:「管仲相桓公,霸諸侯,一匡天下,民到于今受其賜。微管仲,吾其被髮左衽矣!豈若匹夫匹婦之為諒也,自經於溝瀆,而莫之知也!」

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]According to later commentaries, his motivation was more along the lines of the ideals of friendship displayed in the two biographies … 管仲 (Guan Zhong) and 鮑叔牙 (Bao Shu Ya), and 晏嬰 (Yan Ying) and 越石夫 (Yue Shi Fu). After Sima Qian’s castration, all of his friends left him because they were afraid that they too would be implicated. Sima Qian admired the friendships that these two had.

I think the 齊國 (Kingdom of Qi) connection is a weak one.[/quote]

All the contents in “Records of the Historian” expressed very precise and concise. Provided that Sima Qian’s real motivation was the along the lines of the ideals of friendship, in the 管宴列傳, the friendship should have depicted obviously, but there are none.
so I affirmatively promote the “excellent prime minister” as the clue which was followed by Sima Qian and this clue runs through the whole biographies.

you can contact me by the Email stone0351@vip.sina.com for further discussion

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]
It’s interesting to me, however, that Sima Qian praised Guan Zhong, even though Confucius didn’t like him (Guan Zhong was a “legalist” and wasn’t of the highest character), and Sima Qian rarely disagrees with Confucius since he himself was very Confucian.

I think the 齊國 (Kingdom of Qi) connection is a weak one.[/quote]

That’s not always the case. E.g. Confucius despised the you-xia/you-hsia “knight-errants.” Sima Qian’s incorporation of these tales and his rendering of them shows a strong sympathy, if not empathy as well. I think it would be very unconfucian of him to praise the knights-errant, and I do remember him writing so.
That’s funny. I never saw sima qian as a typical confucian such as his idealism, notions of herosim and loyalty. that’s interesting.

[quote=“the_13rd_stone”]All the contents in “Records of the Historian” expressed very precise and concise. Provided that Sima Qian’s real motivation was the along the lines of the ideals of friendship, in the 管宴列傳, the friendship should have depicted obviously, but there are none.
so I affirmatively promote the “excellent prime minister” as the clue which was followed by Sima Qian and this clue runs through the whole biographies.[/quote]

It was depicted very clearly. Both Guan Zhong and Yanzi had a wealth of material that could be written about them, yet Sima Qian in his biographies of them chose anecdotes that highlighted their friendships with Bao Shu Ya and Yue Shi Fu. Perhaps you should take a look at the classical commentaries as well … often they shed much more light on a text than the text itself. One book you could check out is 歷代名家評史記. The book is divided by each “juan” in the “Records” and gives the major points of commentary by some of the most important literary commentators from Chinese history. Virtually all of those who commentated on this section pointed out the importance of friendship in these biographies.

As for Sima Qian’s Confucian views … he was very Confucian, but it was of course his perception of Confucianism. Over 2,500 years there have been many interpretations of Confucius’ teachings, but they all still fall under the category of “Confucianism,” whether it’s Sima Qian, Han Yu, or Zhu Xi. This can be clearly seen by his using passages from the 尚書, 論語, and 孝經 throughout the “Records.”

[quote=“Jack Burton”]

hey 13rd stone, is your xingming 石 shi as well? [mine is].[/quote]

I have to say you are so clever.
Just as you guessed, my family name is Zhang and my given name is "shi"石.

[u]管仲夷吾者,潁上人也。少時常與鮑叔牙游,鮑叔知其賢。管仲貧困,常欺鮑叔,鮑叔終善遇之,不以為言。已而鮑叔事齊公子小白,管仲事公子糾。及小白立為桓公,公子糾死,管仲囚焉。鮑叔遂進管仲。管仲既用,任政於齊,齊桓公以霸,九合諸侯,一匡天下,管仲之謀也。

管仲曰:「吾始困時,嘗與鮑叔賈,分財利多自與,鮑叔不以我為貪,知我也。吾嘗為鮑叔謀事而更窮困,鮑叔不以我為愚,知時有利不利也。吾嘗三仕三見逐於君,鮑叔不以我為不肖,知我不遭時也。吾嘗三戰三走,鮑叔不以怯,知我有老母也。公子糾敗,召忽死之,吾幽囚受辱,鮑叔不以我為無恥,知我不羞小節而恥功名不顯于天下也。生我者父母,知我者鮑子也。」

鮑叔既進管仲,以身下之。子孫世祿於齊,有封邑者十餘世,常為名大夫。天下不多管仲之賢而多鮑叔能知人也。[/u]

管仲既任政相齊,以區區之齊在海濱,通貨積財,富國彊兵,與俗同好惡。故其稱曰:「倉廩實而知禮節,衣食足而知榮辱,上服度則六親固。四維不張,國乃滅亡。下令如流水之原,令順民心。」故論卑而易行。俗之所欲,因而予之;俗之所否,因而去之。

其為政也,善因禍而為福,轉敗而為功。貴輕重,慎權衡。桓公實怒少姬,南襲蔡,管仲因而伐楚,責包茅不入貢於周室。桓公實北征山戎,而管仲因而令燕修召公之政。於柯之會,桓公欲背曹沫之約,管仲因而信之,諸侯由是歸齊。故曰:「知與之為取,政之寶也。」

管仲富擬於公室,有三歸﹑反坫,齊人不以為侈。管仲卒,齊國遵其政,常彊於諸侯。後百餘年而有晏子焉。

晏平仲嬰者,萊之夷維人也。事齊靈公﹑莊公﹑景公,以節儉力行重於齊。既相齊,食不重肉,妾不衣帛。其在朝,君語及之,即危言;語不及之,即危行。國有道,即順命;無道,即衡命。以此三世顯名於諸侯。

越石父賢,在縲紲中。晏子出,遭之塗,解左驂贖之,載歸。弗謝,入閨。久之,越石父請絕。晏子戄然,攝衣冠謝曰:「嬰雖不仁,免子於,何子求絕之速也?」石父曰:「不然。吾聞君子詘於不知己而信於知己者。方吾在縲紲中,彼不知我也。夫子既已感寤而贖我,是知己;知己而無禮,固不如在縲紲之中。」晏子於是延入為上客。

晏子為齊相,出,其御之妻從門閒而闚其夫。其夫為相御,擁大蓋,策駟馬,意氣揚揚甚自得也。既而歸,其妻請去。夫問其故。妻曰:「晏子長不滿六尺,身相齊國,名顯諸侯。今者妾觀其出,志念深矣,常有以自下者。今子長八尺,乃為人僕御,然子之意自以為足,妾是以求去也。」其後夫自抑損。晏子怪而問之,御以實對。晏子薦以為大夫。

太史公曰:吾讀管氏牧民﹑山高﹑乘馬﹑輕重﹑九府,及晏子春秋,詳哉其言之也。既見其著書,欲觀其行事,故次其傳。至其書,世多有之,是以不論,論其軼事。

管仲世所謂賢臣,然孔子小之。豈以為周道衰微,桓公既賢,而不勉之至王,乃稱霸哉?語曰「將順其美,匡救其惡,故上下能相親也」。豈管仲之謂乎?

方晏子伏莊公尸哭之,成禮然後去,豈所謂「見義不為無勇」者邪?至其諫說,犯君之顏,此所謂「進思盡忠,退思補過」者哉!假令晏子而在,余雖為之鞭,所忻慕焉。

There are mere underline text which refers to the friendship, especially in the 晏子’s section, the percentage of friendship in text is even less than the first part’s. but most of the other contents iterate their skills in other aspects.

First of all, you’re using a very out-dated method of literary criticism. Have you ever heard of “New Historicism” (新歷史主義)? This mode of thought, in part, was inspired by the French philosopher Foucault. You can’t take a work or author out of its historical context, nor can you ignore the author’s background, motivations for writing, etc. Sima Qian was not writing a “history” in the Western sense of the word. He was 1) using history to express his views on morality (藉史明義), and 2) putting a bit of his own story (and suffering) into it as well to leave for posterity.

I suggest again that you read the classical commentaries (評語) on this section. Classical commentators like 郝敬 and 張守節 understood the text much better than you or I, and were more familiar with the anecdotes he used, their original sources, and what motivation Sima Qian would have had in using them.

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”][quote=“the_13rd_stone”]
As for Sima Qian’s Confucian views … he was very Confucian, but it was of course his perception of Confucianism. Over 2,500 years there have been many interpretations of Confucius’ teachings, but they all still fall under the category of “Confucianism,” whether it’s Sima Qian, Han Yu, or Zhu Xi. This can be clearly seen by his using passages from the 尚書, 論語, and 孝經 throughout the “Records.”[/quote][/quote]

Fair enough. It would be silly to see that there’s one Confucian tradition or orthodoxy. My only point was his obvious sympathies with knights-errant was so far from anything confucian. Apparently Confucius even preferred Mohists over the knights-errant. This is a radical departure from confucianism, whatever flavour. It is almost opposite is some respects (education v. brawn in a very crude way). but then again, confucianists co-opting some legalism… nevermind.