The Power of an Alleged Tradition - CHINA Buchservice

The rivalry between the representatives of these two groups as it is depicted in
the Shiji has been the subject of several previous studies. 1 Comparatively little attention,
however, has hitherto been paid to the tricky question of which of these groups
was favored by Sima Qian ����(c.�145–c. 86) and his father Sima Tan ����(
?–110), both of whom contributed to the compilation of the Shiji. 2 Father and son
Sima both served at the court of Emperor Wu in a function that was closely related
to the central matter of the dispute between fangshi and ru. 3 Even less consideration
has been given to the fact that apart from Sima Tan and Sima Qian there was
another member of the Sima clan who, if one follows the many implicit hints hidden
in the historical record, must have had some share in the matter: Sima Xiangru ��
�� (c. 179–117), the famous poet at the court of Emperor Wu. 4
But apart from the involvement of the three members of the Sima clan, there
is another person who seems to have been involved very much in Emperor Wu’s
1 To name only a few: Gu Jiegang �����Qin Han de fangshi yu rusheng��������� (1954; Tai bei: Liren,
1995) devoted a monograph to the confl ict between fangshi and ru� He neglected, however, the important aspect
of the position which the author of the Shiji adopted within this confl ict; Mark Edward Lewis, “The Feng�and
Shan�Sacrifi ces of Emperor Wu of the Han”, in State and Court Ritual in China� ed., Joseph McDermott (Cambridge:
University Press, 1993), 51–52, stresses that the ritual reforms which had been established by Emperor
Wu and whose pinnacle were the Feng�and Shan sacrifi ces preceded the intellectual and institutional triumph
of Confucianism. Marianne Bujard, Le Sacrifi ce au ciel dans la Chine Ancienne: Théorie et pratique sous les Han
occidentaux (Paris: De Boccard, 2000), 163, wrote that the dispute recorded in the Shiji refl ected “le récit des
luttes d’infl uence que se livrèrent fangshi et lettrés au sujet du choix des divinités et des cultes que la religion
offi cielle devait adopter”. Yang Shengmin ���� “Han Wudi ‘bachu baijia, duzun rushu’ xintan – jianlun Han
Wudi ‘zun rushu’ yu ‘xiyan (yin) baiduan zhi xue’���������������������������
�����������������Fuyin baokan ziliao: Xian Qin, Qin Han shi (2001.2), 92, already pointed
out that Emperor Wu even after having proclaimed Confucianism as the only offi cially accepted doctrine still
showed a strong personal concern for the teachings of the fangshi.
2 Although the probable dual authorship of the Shiji is a matter widely accepted in the scholarly world, the implications
of the need to distinguish between both has hitherto largely been neglected. A remarkable exception is
the attempt undertaken by Bruce and Taeko Brooks focusing on the example of Shiji 63, the account on Laozi
and Han Fei, to reconstruct those parts of the text which may have been the original contribution by Sima Tan
and those parts added later by Sima Qian. See the section entitled Shr Ji in E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks,
Warring States Texts (Warring States Project 1993–2004, www.umass.edu/wsp/wst). In this study I shall avoid
calling either Sima Qian or Sima Tan by name but refer to the author of the Shiji, except for those passages which
are clearly related to events after Sima Tan’s death in 110 B.C. It will, however, be one purpose of the study to
draw conclusions as far as the attribution of parts of the Shiji to Sima Tan or Sima Qian is concerned.
3 Michael Loewe in his study “Water, Earth and fi re: the symbols of the Han dynasty,” in Divination, Mythology and
Monarchy in Han China, ed., Michael Loewe (Cambridge: University Press, 1994), 57, laconically remarked that
the change from the element Water to Earth in the cycle in 104 B.C. was brought about probably with the support
of Ssu-ma Chien. M. E. Lewis, “Feng and Shan Sacrifi ces”, 69–72, in his in other respects splendid analysis of
the Feng and Shan sacrifi ces discusses Sima Qian’s concern only with regard to his role as a historiographer, but
neglects his offi cial duties (as well as those of his father Tan) as taishi. Chen Tongsheng ����recently emphasized
in a study on the relationship between Emperor Wu’s ceremonial reform and the Shiji that if one does not
deeply consider the impact that this reform had on Sima Tan as well as on Sima Qian one would scarcely be able
to fully understand the Shiji. See his “Hanjia gaizhi yu Shiji��������,” in: Tangdu xuekan 51 (1997), 6.
4 Ruan Zhisheng ��� has already devoted a study to the involvement of what he calls that of “the three Sima”
(Sima Xiangru, Sima Tan and Sima Qian) in Emperor Wu’s grand ceremonial reform, but without further investigating
the relationship between Sima Xiangru and the other two Sima. See his “San Sima yu Han Wudi fengshan
���������,” in Guoli Taiwan daxue lishi xuexi xuebao 20 (1996), 307–40. I am grateful to Dr. Monique
Nagel-Angermann who provided me with a copy.
244
DOROTHEE SCHAAB-HANKE
BMFEA 74 · 2002