論《史記．平原君虞卿列傳》人物形象、貢獻與合傳原因

A Study on the Characterization, Contribution and Reasons for Combining the Biographies of Prince Ping-yuan and Yu Qing in Sima Qian's The Records of the Grand Historian

黃世錦(Shi-Jin Huang)

《史記》 ； 平原君 ； 虞卿 ； 趙勝 ； 長平之戰 ； The Records of the Grand Historian ； Prince of Ping-yuan ； Yu Ching ； Zhao Sheng ； Battle of Changping

逢甲人文社會學報

43期（2021 / 12 / 01）

1 - 46

繁體中文

《史記．平原君虞卿》列傳，載戰國末年秦軍伐趙，趙都邯鄲危在旦夕，相邦平原君忠誠家國，討來楚、魏兩家救兵，挽救趙家覆滅的危局；虞卿以真知灼見，滔滔弘辯與靈活外交策略，駁斥了樓昌等親秦派謬論，忠心維護趙國利益。全文透過本傳深入分析，相關篇章內涵闡幽抉微，將趙勝人物形象析為：「不求真士」、「納諫知過」、「友道凜然」、「忠誠趙家」四者；虞卿人物形象析為：「辯才無礙」、「急士之窮」、「發憤著書」、「忠誠趙家」四者。二者對趙國貢獻方面，趙勝對趙國之功績，可以「舉才薦賢」、「合縱抗秦」概括之；虞卿對趙國之功績，可以「攘闢邪說」、「合縱抗秦」概括之。史公將二人合傳原因：「以繼踵相趙而合傳」、「以外交策略同而合傳」、「以友道凜然同而合傳」、「以其事蹟牽連而合傳」括之。此外，「長平之戰」中，趙師遭遇空前挫敗，主因是趙王觸犯兵家大忌，屢次干預前敵統帥指揮權、不聽虞卿忠諫，受趙豹等人迷惑，遣使入秦媾和，使諸侯中立袖手、輕信秦人反間計謀，以趙括代廉頗為將，致40萬趙軍慘遭阬殺，招來宗廟傾頹巨禍，敗戰責任實不在趙勝，不宜予「利令智昏」不公歷史評價！

In the first of the two different histories recorded in the book of The Records of the Grand Historian, namely ＂The Collected Biographies of Prince Ping-yuan and Yu Ching,＂ it is described that during the last years of the period of Warring States when the Qin army attacked the state of Zhao, Zhao's capital was in a great danger of being sieged. Then the prime minister of the Zhao, Prince Ping-yuan, being loyal to his state, begged the states of Chu and Wei to send relief troops to save the difficult situation. In the other story, a great minister named Yu Ching, to safeguard Zhao state's interest, rebuked, with profound insight, eloquence, and diplomatic expediency, the fallacy of another minister named Lou Chang, a representative of pro-Qin faction within the Zhao state. Through the in-depth analysis of this biography, we can summarize through clues and hints that Zhao Shen, Prince Ping-yuan, owns four personalities: ＂not seeking true talents,＂ ＂accepting advice to correct mistakes＂, ＂easily persuaded by followers,＂ and ＂being faithful to the royal family of Zhao.＂ In contrast, Yu Ching could be described as ＂eloquent in arguing,＂ ＂eager to help those needed,＂ ＂diligent in writing books,＂ and ＂loyal to the family of Zhao.＂ The contributions they rendered to the state of Zhao are as follows: for Zhao Sheng, ＂recommending talents to the state＂ and ＂allying Zhao with five other states to fight against Qin＂; for Yu Ching, ＂abandoning devious and perverted views＂ and ＂allying Zhao with five other states to fight against Qin.＂ The reasons why Sima Qian wrote their biographies collectively are that: they became the prime minister of Zhao one following the other, they employed the same diplomatic policy, they made friends with awe-inspiring spirit, and they implicated each other with historical events. In addition, when the Zhao's army suffered unprecedented defeat during the Battle of Changping, the mistake was made by the King of Zhao, who was guilty of the military taboo of intervening the command chains on the front repeatedly, was cheated by Zhao Bao and his associates, rejected the advice of Yu Ching, and sent representatives to Qin to make peace, which neutralized other states who mignt help Zhao, and was deceived easily by the enemy's plot of ＂sowing discord among the enemy＂ by replacing the more capable general Lian Po with Zhao Gua, causing 400,000 soldiers to be buried alive, which incurs the falling of the state of Zhao. The king of Zhao should bear the major responsibility of the demise of the state, not Zhao Shen. It is, therefore, inappropriate to berate Zhao Shen for blinding himself with inordinate ambition as implied by the remarks of Sima Qian.

1. （明）凌稚隆（輯校）,（明）李光縉（增補）,有井範平（補標）(1992).史記評林.台北:地球出版社.
2. （後漢）班固,（唐）顏師古（注）,（清）王先謙（補注）,（清）錢大昕（考異）(1988).漢書補注.台北:新文豐出版公司.
3. （清）永瑢,（清）紀昀(1986).景印文淵閣四庫全書.台北:商務印書館.
4. （清）全祖望(1971).經史問答.台北:廣文書局.
5. （清）吳汝綸(1970).史記集評.台北:中華書局.
6. （清）吳見思（評點）,（清）吳興祚（參訂）(1987).史記論文.台北:中華書局.
7. （清）苧田氏(1966).史記菁華錄.台北:遠東圖書公司.
8. （清）張文虎(1973).舒藝室隨筆.台北:文海出版社.
9. （清）程餘慶,高益榮（編）,趙光勇（編）,張新科（編）(2011).史記集說.西安:三秦出版社.
10. 任天豪(2009).史記風雲人物.長沙:岳麓書社.
11. 吳如嵩,黃樸民,任力,柳玲(1998).中國軍事通史.北京:軍事科學出版社.
12. 宋嗣廉(2006).司馬遷兵學縱橫.西安:陝西人民教育出版社.
13. 李少雍(1987).司馬遷傳記文學論稿.重慶:重慶出版社.
14. 李芳瑜(2008)。「利令智昏」—《史記》平原君列傳新解。河南工程學院學報（社會科學版），23(2)
15. 李師偉泰(2015).史記選讀.台北:國立台灣大學出版中心.
16. 李振興(2012).史記選集鑑賞.台北:新文豐出版公司.
17. 李景星(1986).四史評議.長沙:岳麓書社.
18. 阮芝生(1980)。論史記五體的體系關聯。台大歷史學報，7
19. 孫曉（編）(2010).二十四史研究資料彙編.成都:四川出版集團.
20. 孫曉（編）.二十四史研究資料彙編.
21. 孫曉（編）.二十四史研究資料彙編.
22. 張大可（編）,安平秋（編）,俞樟華（編）(2005).史記研究集成.北京:華文出版社.
23. 陳直(2006).史記新證.北京:中華書局.
24. 陸費逵（勘）,高時顯（輯校）,吳汝霖（輯校）,丁輔之（監造）(1965).四部備要.台北:中華書局.
25. 黃羽詵(2012)。台北，國立台灣大學中國文學研究所。
26. 黃繩(1988).史記人物畫廊.廣州:廣東人民出版社.
27. 楊寬(2016).戰國史料編年輯證.上海:上海人民出版社.
28. 楊燕起(1999).《史記》的學術成就.北京:北京師範大學出版社.
29. 劉全志(2014)。荀子「居趙入秦」考。管子學刊，2014(1)
30. 劉咸炘(1976).四史知意.台北:鼎文書局.
31. 賴漢屏(2006).史記評賞.台北:三民書局.
32. 韓兆琦(2005).史記箋證.南昌:江西人民出版社.
33. 魏建震(1999)。平原君身世與任趙相考。邯鄲師專學報，9(4)
34. 瀧川龜太郎(2006).史記會注考證.台北:大安書局.