论文部分内容阅读
李焘在编撰《续资治通鉴长编》时,认为刘随天圣元年(1023)十一月并未像国史本传和其墓志铭记载那样外贬数年,仅是罚铜了事,其主要根据是刘随在之后几年曾有过数次以谏官身份言事的记录。今存材料中仅《续资治通鉴长编》和《宋朝诸臣奏议》有刘随天圣元年(1023)十一月到天圣五年(1027)三月之间言事记录,然其时间多有讹误,不足为凭。根据刘随自述,他在此期间确曾被贬外3年,绝不可能以谏官言事。这提醒我们,史料年代的讹误除了在流传过程中被有意无意窜改外,编纂者考证不审也是原因之一,故而在利用史料时需要对具体年代做更为细致的辨析。
In his compilation of the “Continuation of the Rulebook of Continued Governance of Capital,” Li Kui did not think that in the first year of the reign of Liu Sunsheng (1023) in December of the same year as the account of the history of the country and its epitaph, It is mainly based on the records of Liu Sui who had spoken and said several times in subsequent years. In the present materials, there are only the records of remarks made in the Supplement to the Guidebook of Continuing Governance of Capital and the Decree of the Song Dynasty (March of the Third Year of the Sun in October 1023) and the March of the Holy Bible (October 1027) More than the time of its corruption, inadequate as proof. According to Liu Sui’s recitation, he indeed had been dismissed for three years during this period and it would never be possible to remonstrate officials. This reminds us that in addition to being corrupted by intentional or unintentional manipulation in the course of circulation, the compilation of textual criticism is also one of the reasons for the corruption of the historical data era. Therefore, the use of historical materials requires a more detailed analysis of the specific age.