无骨论点补充（以及辨析）二
Ivar the Boneless' commentary and analysis II
Shiji 史记 · 256 BC · 周赧王五十九年
Introduction
Ivar the Boneless' commentary, continued: Han's recovery of Runan, Wei's seizure of Tao and Wey, Li Mu's northern command and Chunshen's conquest of Lu, each with its analysis.
Text and Translation
- §1 史记（一：本纪）Shiji I: Basic Annals
- §2 史记（二：表）Shiji II: Tables
- §3 史记（三：世家）Shiji III: Hereditary Houses
- §4 史记（四：列传）Shiji IV: Biographies
- §5 史记（五：列传）Shiji V: Biographies
- §6 无骨论点补充（以及辨析）一Ivar the Boneless' commentary and analysis I
- §7 无骨论点补充（以及辨析）二Ivar the Boneless' commentary and analysis II
- §8 其他古籍（史類）Other ancient works (histories)
- §9 史記：補：八書Shiji, supplement: the Eight Treatises
Text: Chinese source
Text: English Translation
Annotations
[§7] 无骨论点补充（以及辨析）二
[§7] Ivar the Boneless' commentary and analysis II
韩桓惠王派军收复汝南，夺秦相范雎封地。
King Huanhui of Han sent troops to recover Runan, seizing the fief of the Chancellor of Qin, Fan Ju.
辨析：吴良寶：戰國晚期韓國疆域變遷新考 https://history.sohu.com/a/668355186_121124388
Analysis: Wu Liangbao, "A new study of the changes in Han's territory in the late Warring States", history.sohu.com/a/668355186_121124388.
《韓非子·定法》云：“應侯攻韓，八年，成其汝南之封”。據《范睢列傳》“秦封范睢以應”，時在秦昭王四十一年（前266年）。《戰國策·秦策三》“應侯失韓之汝南”章“秦昭王謂應侯曰：‘君亡汝南國，其憂乎？’”，諸家多定策文年代在公元前257年信陵君破秦於邯鄲之時。這説明桓惠王十六年時韓國重新奪回了今河南魯山縣東的應地。上引“二十三年襄城令矛”、“六年襄城令戈”等器表明韓國一直佔據今襄城、魯山縣一帶，而《秦始皇本紀》“韓南陽假守騰”的記載，是韓國設置南陽郡（騰暫時代理郡守一職）的最直接證據。
The Han Feizi, "Fixing the Laws", says: "Marquis Ying attacked Han, and in eight years completed his fief of Runan." According to the Biography of Fan Ju, "Qin enfeoffed Fan Ju with Ying", in the forty-first year of King Zhao of Qin (266 BC). The chapter "Marquis Ying loses Han's Runan" in the Zhanguo ce, Strategies of Qin III — "King Zhao of Qin said to Marquis Ying: 'You have lost your state of Runan; does it grieve you?'" — is dated by most scholars to 257 BC, when Lord Xinling defeated Qin at Handan. This shows that in the sixteenth year of Huanhui1 Han had retaken the territory of Ying, east of modern Lushan County, Henan. The vessels cited above, the "spear of the Sheriff of Xiangcheng, twenty-third year" and the "dagger-axe of the Sheriff of Xiangcheng, sixth year", show that Han held the area of modern Xiangcheng and Lushan Counties throughout, and the record in the Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin of "Teng, Acting Magistrate of Han's Nanyang" is the most direct evidence that Han established a Nanyang Commandery (Teng temporarily filling the post of Magistrate of the Commandery).
魏安僖王派军进占秦国陶地，又吞并卫国。
King Anxi of Wei sent troops to occupy Qin's territory of Tao, and annexed Wey.
《韩非子·五蠹》:“卫离魏为衡，半岁而亡。
Han Feizi, "The Five Vermin": "Wey left Wei for the Horizontal, and within half a year perished.
《吕氏春秋·审应览》:“当此时也，两周全，其北存，魏举陶削卫，地方六百。
Lüshi chunqiu, "Shenying lan": "At this time the two Zhou were intact and its north survived2; Wei took Tao and pared Wey, and its land was six hundred li square.
卫怀君入魏觐见，被魏安僖王囚杀。
Lord Huai of Wey went to Wei for an audience, and was imprisoned and killed by King Anxi of Wei.
無骨注:魏国后来又在濮阳扶植卫元君(魏王之婿)与普通封君无异，卫国实已灭亡。
Ivar's note: Wei later set up Lord Yuan of Wey (the King of Wei's son-in-law) at Puyang, no different from an ordinary enfeoffed lord; Wey had in fact already perished.
辨析：《史記·衛世家》載懷君三十一年朝魏，又《史記·六國年表（公元對照）》載衛懷君元年為公元前282年，衛懷君三十一年應為公元前252年，同年，魏立衛元君，改元，故衛懷君三十一年為衛元君元年。
Analysis: the Hereditary House of Wey in the Shiji records that Lord Huai went to court in Wei in his thirty-first year, and the Shiji Table of the Six States (with Western dates) gives Lord Huai of Wey's first year as 282 BC, so his thirty-first year should be 252 BC; in that year Wei set up Lord Yuan of Wey, who began a new count of years, so that the thirty-first year of Lord Huai of Wey is the first year of Lord Yuan of Wey.
赵孝成王大约在这一时期令李牧居代、雁门，防备匈奴。
King Xiaocheng of Zhao at about this time ordered Li Mu to station himself at Dai and Yanmen as a guard against the Xiongnu.
辨析：時間與本年表觀點不同。
Analysis: the date differs from the view taken in this chronology.
楚国春申君黄歇北伐，灭鲁。
Chu's Lord Chunshen, Huang Xie, campaigned north and extinguished Lu.
辨析：與《史記·六國年表（公元對照）》不同。
Analysis: differs from the Shiji Table of the Six States (with Western dates).
[§7] Click each triangle to expand/collapse note
Top of page | Top of text