五 洛陽伽藍記的評價（上）
Evaluation of Luoyang Qielan Ji (Part 1)
前人對於洛陽伽藍記的評價實在不多，而且都很簡略。除了劉知幾史通提及這部書僅從某類史書體例上着眼以外，其他都是兼從歷史和文藝兩方面來說的。毛晉綠君亭本洛陽伽藍記跋說：
Few previous critics have evaluated the *Record of the Monasteries of Luoyang* in depth, and their comments are often brief. Aside from Liu Zhiji's mention in his *Shitong*, which only examined the book from the perspective of a particular historical format, other critics have addressed both its historical and literary aspects. In the colophon to the Lujunting edition of the *Record of the Monasteries of Luoyang*, Mao Jin comments:
魏自顯祖好浮屠之學，至胡太后而濫觴焉。此伽藍記之所繇作也。鋪揚佛宇，而因及人文。著撰園林歌舞鬼神奇怪興亡之異，以寓其褒譏，又非徒以記伽藍已也。妙筆葩芬，奇思清峙，雖衛叔寶之風神，王夷甫之姿態，未足以方之矣。
Since Emperor Xianzu of the Northern Wei Dynasty developed an interest in Buddhist teachings, it spread widely by the time of Empress Dowager Hu. This is why *The Record of Buddhist Monasteries* was written. It describes Buddhist temples in detail while also covering human affairs and culture. It portrays gardens, songs and dances, spirits, strange events, and tales of rise and fall, embedding praise and criticism within. The work is not merely a record of monasteries. Its exquisite prose is as vibrant as flowers, its unique ideas as clear and elevated as mountain peaks. Even the elegance of Wei Shubao or the grace of Wang Yifu cannot match it.
四庫全書總目提要（卷七十，地理類，古蹟之屬）裏說：
The "Annotated Catalog of the Complete Library in Four Branches" (Volume 70, Geography Section, Category of Historical Sites) states:
魏自太和十七年作都洛陽，一時篤崇佛法，剎廟甲於天下。及永熙之亂，城郭邱墟。武定五年，衒之行役洛陽，感念廢興，因捃拾舊聞，追敘故蹟，以成是書。其文穠麗秀逸，煩而不厭，可與酈道元水經注肩隨。其兼敘爾朱榮等變亂之事，委曲詳盡，多足與史傳參證。其他古迹藝文，及外國土風道里，採摭繁富，亦足以廣異聞。劉知幾史通云：「秦人不死，驗苻生之厚誣；蜀老猶存，知葛亮之多枉」。蜀老事見魏書毛脩之傳，秦人事即用此書趙逸一條。知幾引據最不苟，知其說非鑿空也。他如解魏文之苗茨碑，糾戴延之之西征記，考據亦皆精審。惟以高陽王雍之樓為即古詩所謂「西北有高樓，上與浮雲齊」者，則未免固於說詩，為是書之瑕纇耳。
From the 17th year of Taihe in the Northern Wei dynasty, when Luoyang was established as the capital, the court deeply revered Buddhism, and its temples were the finest in the world. By the time of the Yongxi rebellion, the city lay in ruins, reduced to mounds and rubble. In the 5th year of Wuding, when I, Xuanzhi, traveled to Luoyang on official duty and reflected on its rise and fall, I gathered old accounts to record its past glories, thus composing this work. Its prose is rich, elegant, and flowing, dense yet never wearying—worthy to stand alongside Li Daoyuan's *Commentary on the Classic of Waterways*. Its detailed narration of Erzhu Rong's rebellions and other upheavals is so thorough that it often corroborates or supplements historical records. Its extensive collection of ancient sites, arts, foreign customs, and travel distances also broadens readers' horizons. Liu Zhiji wrote in his *General Treatise on History*: "The man of Qin did not die—this disproves the slander of Fu Sheng; the elder of Shu still lived—this reveals the injustice done to Zhuge Liang." The elder of Shu story appears in the *Book of Wei*, Biography of Mao Xiuzhi; the man of Qin story comes from a single entry about Zhao Yi in this very work. Zhiji, an exacting critic, would not base his arguments on idle rumors. Similarly, this book's interpretation of "the stele of Mao's shrine" by Emperor Wen of Wei and its correction of errors in Dai Yanzhi's *Record of a Journey to the West* display precise and rigorous scholarship. Only its claim that Gao Yang Wang Yong's tower is the "tall tower in the northwest, rising level with floating clouds" from the ancient poem seems constrained by poetic interpretation—a minor flaw in an otherwise excellent work.
吳若準洛陽伽藍記集證序說：
In his preface to the *Luoyang Qielan Ji* ([Record of the Monasteries of Luoyang]), Wu Ruo stated that a comprehensive collection of evidence and commentary was necessary.
楊衒之慨念故都，傷心禾黍，假佛寺之名，志帝京之事。凡夫朝家變亂之端，宗藩廢立之由，藝文古蹟之所關，苑囿橋梁之所在，以及民間怪異，外夷風土，莫不鉅細畢陳，本末可觀，足以補魏收所未備，為拓跋之別史，不特遺聞逸事可資學士文人之考覈已也。
Yang Xuanzhi, filled with deep sorrow over his fallen former capital—a land now overgrown with wild grain—chose to write about imperial events under the guise of recording Buddhist temples. He painstakingly documented every detail of the dynasty's upheavals: the origins of political turmoil among the nobles, the reasons behind the rise and fall of imperial kinsmen, the relics and literary works of history, the locations of gardens and bridges, as well as local supernatural tales and the customs of foreign peoples. Nothing was left out—whether major or minor—so that the entire narrative has clear context from beginning to end. This work sufficiently fills the gaps left by Wei Shou's history, serving as an unofficial chronicle of the Tuoba dynasty. It offers more than just forgotten anecdotes and curious tales for scholars; it provides a complete historical record worthy of scholarly examination.
現在我們就從這部書的內容來試論它的歷史價值和文學價值。卷二，明懸尼寺條，說：
Let us now examine the historical and literary value of this text based on its content. In volume two, under the entry for Xuanni Temple, it states:
陽渠石橋，橋有四柱，在道南，銘云：「漢陽嘉四年將作大匠馬憲造。」逮我孝昌三年，大雨頹橋，柱始埋沒，道北二柱，至今猶存。衒之按劉澄之山川古今記、戴延之西征記，並云：「晉太康元年造。」則失之遠矣。按澄之等並生在江表，未游中土，假因征役，暫來經過，至於舊事，多非親覽，聞諸道路，便為穿鑿，誤我後學，日月已甚！
The Yangqu stone bridge had four pillars on its southern side. An inscription read: "Built in the fourth year of the Han Yangjia era (135 CE) by the Director of Works, Ma Xian." By the third year of the Xiaochang era (527 CE), heavy rain collapsed the bridge, burying its pillars. Yet the two pillars on the north side remain to this day.
Xuanzhi observes: Both Liu Chengzhi's *Records of Ancient and Modern Mountains and Rivers* and Dai Yanzhi's *Record of the Western Expedition* state: "Built in the first year of the Jin Taikang era (280 CE)." That is far from accurate! Chengzhi and the others were born in the region south of the Yangtze and never traveled to the Central Plains. Even if they occasionally passed through due to military campaigns, they did not personally witness these ancient matters. Hearing things from hearsay, they fabricated stories—misleading later scholars, and the error has grown worse over time.
楊衒之難道不知造橋年代原是小事，他也以為不應該穿鑿誤載，詒誤後學，可以見他要求記載正確的嚴肅態度。同卷建陽里東有綏民里條，說：
Yang Xuanzhi was certainly aware that the date a bridge was built was a minor detail. He also believed that one should not fabricate or misrecord such facts, misleading later scholars. This shows his serious attitude toward ensuring accurate records. In the same chapter, under the entry about Suimin Lane to the east of Jianyang Lane, it is stated:
時有隱士趙逸，云是晉武時人，晉朝舊事，多所記錄。又云：「自永嘉已來，二百餘年，建國稱王者十有六君，皆遊其都邑，目見其事。國滅之後，觀其史書皆非實錄，莫不推過於人，引善自向。符生雖好勇嗜酒，亦仁而不煞（殺），觀其治典未為凶暴。及詳其史，天下之惡皆歸焉。符堅自是賢主，賊君取位，妄書生惡。凡諸史官，皆是類也。人皆貴遠賤近，以為信然。當今之人，亦生愚死智，惑已甚矣！」人問其故？逸曰：「生時中庸之人耳，及其死也，碑文墓志莫不窮天地之大德，盡生民之能事。為君共堯舜連衡，為臣與伊臯等跡。牧民之官，浮虎慕其清塵；執法之吏，埋輪謝其梗直。所謂生為盜跖，死為夷齊。妄言傷正，華辭損實。」當時構文之士慙逸此言。
At that time, there lived a recluse named Zhao Yi, who claimed to have lived during the reign of Emperor Wu of the Jin Dynasty. He had extensive knowledge of events from the Jin era and said: "In the more than two hundred years since the Yongjia period, there have been sixteen rulers who established kingdoms and claimed kingship. I have personally visited each of their capitals and witnessed the events with my own eyes. After these kingdoms fell, the histories written about them were not true records. In every case, they shifted blame onto others and took credit for good deeds themselves. Fu Sheng, though fond of violence and drinking, was actually benevolent and not prone to killing. Examining his governance reveals he was not cruel or violent. But when I look at the historical accounts, all the world's evils are attributed to him. Fu Jian was truly a virtuous ruler, yet he was portrayed as a usurper who stole the throne, and lies were written to paint him as evil. All historians are like this. People value the distant past and look down on the present, believing these falsehoods as truth. Today's people are likewise considered wise after death, but fools while alive—how utterly misguided!"
When asked why he said this, Zhao Yi explained: "People are mediocre in life, but when they die, their epitaphs and tomb inscriptions invariably praise them as embodying the greatest virtues of heaven and earth and the highest achievements of humanity. Rulers are equated with Yao and Shun, ministers are compared to Yi Yin and Gao Yao. Officials governing the people are said to inspire tigers of virtue; law enforcers are praised for their unwavering integrity. It is the same as calling a living robber a sage after death. False words harm the truth, and flowery language distorts reality."
The scholars of that time who wrote such inscriptions were deeply shamed by Zhao Yi's words.
他借趙逸的話罵盡永嘉以來二百多年史官，史書「皆非實錄」；當今文人所寫墓碑墓志，「妄言傷正，華辭損實。」要是他也在被罵之列，「慙逸此言」，我想他不會備記趙逸的故事和言論。要不是當時確有趙逸其人，他不會「鑿空」；劉知幾論史那樣嚴刻，也會引據他說的趙逸一事，四庫提要說的不錯。史書要做到「實錄」，談何容易！班固漢書評司馬遷說：「自劉向揚雄博極羣書，皆稱遷有良史之材，服其善序事理，辨而不華，質而不理，其文直，其事核，不虛美，不隱惡，故謂之實錄。」司馬遷早就為歷史家樹立了光輝的模範。我們對於歷史家，首先就要求他記載正確，態度謹嚴。我們在上文已經說過伽藍記記載正確的話，正是這部書有歷史價值的一點。
He used Zhao Yi’s words to denounce over two centuries of historians from the Yongjia era onward, calling their historical records “all untrue.” He also criticized the epitaphs and tomb inscriptions written by contemporary scholars, saying “reckless words harm the truth, ornate phrases damage reality.” If he himself had been among those denounced, he would have been “ashamed of Zhao Yi’s words”—I think he would not have recorded Zhao Yi’s stories and sayings in such detail. Had Zhao Yi not truly existed at the time, he would not have fabricated such a story; even Liu Zhiji, who was so harsh in his critique of historical writing, cited Zhao Yi’s story as an example, as the Siku Quanshu’s summary correctly notes. How difficult it is to make historical records “true to reality”! When Ban Gu’s *Book of Han* evaluated Sima Qian, it said: “From Liu Xiang and Yang Xiong, who were widely read in all books, everyone praised Sima Qian as a fine historian, acknowledging his skill in narrating events, his clarity without ornamentation, his honesty without harshness. His writing is direct, his facts are verified, he does not give false praise, and he does not conceal faults—this is why his work is called ‘true to reality.’” Sima Qian long ago set a shining example for historians. For a historian, our first demand is accurate recording and a strict attitude. We have already mentioned above that *The Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang* is accurate in its accounts, which is precisely one aspect of this work’s historical value.
其次，這部書的主要目的在記北魏京師洛陽四十年間佛教寺塔的興廢，作者却不孤立地專記這一興廢。好比一髮牽動全身，全身繫於一髮。這一興廢當然和洛陽都市的盛衰，北魏王朝的興亡有關。而洛陽的盛衰，北魏的興亡，又恰巧單從當時佛教寺塔的興廢一件事上就差不多可以全盤地反映出來。總之，這部書主要地反映了這四十年間洛陽佛教寺塔的情況，同時也反映到了當時洛陽這個都市在經濟上文化上和人民生活上的情況，由繁榮到衰敗的情況；又同時反映到了北魏王朝在這四十年政治上軍事上的許多大事，如高祖遷洛，太后臨朝，宦官用事，外藩舉兵，諸王爭立，乃至與南朝關係，四夷關係，都有涉及，尤其是頗為翔實地記載了當時中印間的交通；反映到了一個王朝盛極而衰，禍亂迭起，迄無寧日，至於滅亡。總之，這部書本身就是一部反映一個時期，一種宗教，同時又是反映一個京師，一個王朝的歷史文學。這是它的最大價值。其中不少史料可補魏書的缺失，通鑑就曾採用了一些。還有應該特別指出的，即是關於宋雲惠生等西行求法一事，這在法顯之後，玄奘之前，也是中國佛教史上和中外交通史上的一件大事，宋雲家記、惠生行記、道榮傳都已失傳，就靠這部書保存了這份珍貴史料的一個大概。要不是作者具有良史之材，做過祕書監一類的官，熟習政府檔案，留心當代藝文，又曾有深入社會的生活實踐，了解現實，而又重視民間口碑，重視歷史遺蹟，我想他對於史料的搜集未必這樣豐富，對於史料的組織未必這樣完密。就提供史料來說，他提供了豐富而翔實的關於北魏遷都洛陽四十年間的佛教史料，以及其他方面不可多得的史料，這也是他這部書有歷史價值的一點。
Secondly, the main purpose of this book is to record the rise and fall of Buddhist temples and pagodas in Luoyang, the capital of the Northern Wei Dynasty, over a span of forty years. However, the author does not dwell on this rise and fall in isolation. It’s like a single hair moving the entire body—the entire body is connected to that one hair. Naturally, this rise and fall is tied to the prosperity and decline of Luoyang as a city, as well as the rise and fall of the Northern Wei Dynasty. And the city’s prosperity and decline, along with the dynasty’s fate, happen to be almost entirely reflected in the very events of the temples and pagodas’ rise and fall during that period. In short, this book primarily reflects the state of Buddhism’s infrastructure in Luoyang over those forty years, while simultaneously mirroring the city’s economic, cultural, and daily life conditions—from flourishing to decay. It also captures many major political and military events of the Northern Wei during those decades, such as Emperor Xiaowen moving the capital to Luoyang, the Empress Dowager ruling from behind the court, eunuchs wielding power, frontier warlords raising armies, princes contending for the throne, as well as relations with the Southern Dynasties and neighboring ethnic groups. In particular, it provides a fairly detailed record of the transport between China and India during that era. Thus, the book is itself a piece of historical literature that reflects a specific period, a particular religion, and simultaneously a capital city and a dynasty. This is its greatest value. Many of its historical details fill gaps in the "Book of Wei", and the "Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government" even adopted some. One especially notable point is its account of Song Yun, Huisheng, and others traveling west in search of the Dharma. This event, occurring between the times of Faxian and Xuanzang, is a major milestone in both Chinese Buddhist history and the history of Sino-foreign communication. Since the travelogues of Song Yun’s Family Record, Huisheng’s Travel Diary, and Daorong’s Biography have all been lost, this book preserves a precious outline of these records. If the author had not possessed the talent of an excellent historian, served in an official role like Supervisor of the Imperial Library (secretary of state), been familiar with government archives, paid attention to contemporary arts and culture, engaged deeply with social life to understand reality, and valued popular oral traditions and historical sites, I doubt he could have gathered such rich historical materials or organized them so thoroughly. In terms of providing historical data, he offers abundant and reliable Buddhist-era records from the forty years after the Northern Wei moved its capital to Luoyang, along with other rare materials. This is another aspect of the historical value of his book.