Sima Tan | |
|---|---|
| 司馬談 | |
| Born | 165 BCE |
| Died | 110 BCE (aged 55) |
| Occupation(s) | Astrologist, astronomer, historian |
| Relatives | Sima Xi (father) Sima Qian (son) |
Sima Tan (traditional Chinese:司馬談; simplified Chinese:司马谈; pinyin:Sīmǎ Tán; Wade–Giles:Ssu-ma T'an;c. 165–110 BCE) was a Chinese astrologist, astronomer, and historian during theWestern Han dynasty. His workRecords of the Grand Historian was completed by his sonSima Qian, who is considered the founder ofChinese historiography.
Sima Tan studied astronomy with Tang Du, theI Ching under Yang He, andDaoism under Master Huang.
He was appointed to the office of Court Astronomer (Chinese:太史令; pinyin:tài shǐ lìng) at age 25 in 140 BCE, a position which he held until his death. Although Sima Tan began writing theRecords of the Grand Historian (Shiji), he died before it was finished; it was completed by his son,Sima Qian. The year of Sima Tan's death (110 BCE) was the year of the great imperial sacrificefengshan (zh:封禅) byEmperor Han Wudi, for which the emperor appointed another person to the rank offangshi, bypassing Sima, probably causing him much consternation.
An essay by Sima Tan has survived within theRecords of the Grand Historian. The essay is the last of theShiji, called Yaozhi or Essential Points. It discusses the strengths and weakness of six kinds of governance. Using the concept of 'Jia', which can mean "expert" but likely meant "family", the essay coined the categories ofYin-Yangjia,Fajia,Mingjia andDaojia. The idea of Yin-Yang already existed, but all Han dynasty thought involves yin-yang thinking, even the military has it. Primarily an argument for theDaojia, it did not necessarily occur to Tan that anyone would later use them as historical categories, or put people under them. As new categories, Tan's contemporaries probably considered his Jia novel.
Together withMohism andConfucianism, he compares their purported strengths and weaknesses in promotion of what he dubs the Daojia, taking the essential points of the others. Tan's descriptions of the Jia are all flawed, orbiting his characteristically 'empty' Daojia, which then includes a description of a court of ministers with aWu wei semi-inactive ruler. Its description, and theShiji more generally, would suggest the Simas prefer a court with awu wei semi-inactive ruler in a time when the central government was expanding.
Neither Sima Tan or Sima Qian name anyone under them.[1] Debates or an unknown interceding historian aside, likely popular by their time, imperial archivistsLiu Xiang (77–6BCE) andLiu Xin named the 'schools' relevant texts, using the categories in the imperial library a hundred years after Sima Qians death. They connect them with purported ancientZhou dynasty departments. Daojia comes to mean something likeDaoism around the same time. They become categories of texts in book catalogues, namely the Han states' ownBook of Han underBan Gu.
Those later termed Daoists likely did not early know each other. While the later part of the Zhuangzi would seem familiar with theDaodejing, the earlier first part does not demonstrate familiarity with it. Although disconnected, as later used the Mingjiaschool of names would at least seem to represent an actual social category interacted with by theMohists, earlier referred to by the Zhuangzi as debaters. Taken as having a common interest in disputative theories of language, they otherwise have different philosophies.
Connected with a department of prisons, Fajia comes to mean something like Legalism, which contains Shang Yang and figures Sima Qian had described as rooted inHuang-Lao, or "Yellow Emperor andLaozi (Daoism)". Fa standards would seem a major element of their philosophy, and by his own words, Sima Qian does most favour Laozi overShen Buhai orHan Fei. But it is questionable if Sima Qian himself believed or at least intended thatShen Buhai,Shen Dao andHan Fei should go under Fajia, or he might have either used his father's categories, or at least discussed Shen Buhai and Han Fei alongside Shang Yang rather thanLaozi andZhuang Zhou. Shen Dao is mentioned alongside Jixia academy scholars. Giving the harsh penal Shang Yang his own individual chapter, if anything Sima Qian was probably opposed to his combination with any of the others.
Although a modern Sinologist might consider a historical usage of the categories revisionist, to its credit, the Book of Han only presents their groupings as theoretical;Feng Youlan chose to take it as a legitimate attempt at historical theory. Emphasizing philosophical differences with the Confucians,SinologistHerrlee G. Creel argued that it might have been misleading to listShen Buhai together withShang Yang underFajia, with a combination of the two more common after theHan Feizi. ButLiu Xiang at least readily recounts that, unlike Shang Yang, Shen Buhai vacillated against punishments, and they would not seem to have attempted toindividually obfuscate him.[2][3][4]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)