The Source and Value of Historical Data in Songshi Wenyuan Zhuan
【中文摘要】《宋史•文苑传》本之于宋代列朝《国史》，它最大程度地再现了《国史•文苑传》的原来样貌。《国史》是，则《宋史》是;《国史》误，则《宋史》误;《国史》失载，则《宋史》失载;《国史文苑》有传，则《宋史文苑》有传;《国史》以宋人碑志、文集、笔记为史料来源，《宋史》亦若合符契。元修《宋史•文苑传》之舛误，如人名、地名、生卒年、籍贯、世系记载不确或有误，系年颠倒失次，人名、事件张冠李戴，转引他书而不细读原文，遂失史实，引私家著述而不加考按，遂成虚美隐恶，等等。其始作俑者，多为宋人，而非元人。元人在个别地方，对《国史》加之增删改易，自有义理，并非尽为败笔。《宋史•文苑传》秉笔直书处多，史料来源可靠，无私家著述曲意回护、易流于小说家言之病。它折射了宋代《国史•文苑传》的取舍标准，具体诠释了宋人所理解的“文”的内涵，涵盖了宋代《国史》本身所具有的不可替代的价值。 【Abstract】Songshi Wenyuan Zhuan is based on Guoshi， and it can represent to a large degree Guoshi Wenyuan Zhuan. If Guoshi is accurate， the same is true of Songshi Wenyuan Zhuan，. It also bears most resemblance to Guoshi. When some records were lost in Guoshi，there were no records in Songshi either. Guoh was derived from inscriptions and notes in the Song Dynasty，as was Songshi. There were many errors in Songshi when it was revised in the Yuan Dynasty. For example，names，toponym，birth years，death years，native places and genealogical records were uncertain or the causes and effects were confused. Even though we always put the blame on the revisers in the Yuan Dynasty，these errors actually existed in the Song original. In some places the revisers did a good job. All in all，the narrative the book is objective and authentic with typical historical sources. It not only reflected the guide of Guoshi，but also made a specific interpretation on Wen. So we can draw a conclusion that it is not rational to underestimate its historical value.