云梦学刊

《史记·屈原贾生列传》存在“屈原”“屈平”称谓混用的现象，这与史书传记写作注重称谓统一的通常做法不同，引发学界质疑。在众多为司马迁辩护的观点中，汤炳正认为《史记》文本有后世窜入与改写的情况，才导致“屈原”“屈平”称谓的混用。但其文本分析存在失误，考证时有过多的猜想叠加，实际上并未真正解决这一疑难。如果从《史记》乃至整个早期中国史传写作的历时视野加以考察，不难发现，称谓混用其实是早期史传写作中普遍存在的“正常”现象。它是史家写作过程中的“无意”之失，并为当时读写语境所允许。换言之，这一现象不应被解读成后世伪造，更不能因此否定司马迁写作的真实性或屈原的存在。

The mixed use of the appellations “Qu Yuan” and “Qu Ping” in The Biography of Qu Yuan from Records of the Grand Historian, which is different from the common style of the writing of historical books and biographies, has caused the scholarly doubts. Among the points of view in defense of Sima Qian, Tang Bingzheng proposed that the text was supplemented and rewritten by later scholars, which led to this mixed use. However, according to its argument, there were mistakes in its text analysis and too many conjectures superposition, which led to failure to solve this problem. In fact, this phenomenon is not an isolated example if we examine it in the diachronic perspective of the whole writing of Records of the Grand Historian and even the whole writing of early history biography. It was a common “normal” phenomenon in the writing of early history, belonging to the “unintentional” loss in the writing process of historians which was allowed by the context of reading and writing at that time. There was no special author entrust in it. And it was not counterfeited by later scholars, so it could not constitute a negation of the existence of Qu Yuan or Sima Qian's writing authenticity.