1
《南齊書》，八紀，十一志，四十列傳，合五十九篇，梁蕭子顯撰。 始江淹已爲十志，沈約又爲《齊紀》，而子顯自表武帝，別爲此書。 臣等因校正其訛謬，而敘其篇目，曰：
The 《Book of Southern Qi》 comprises eight annals, eleven treatises, and forty biographies—fifty-nine fascicles in all—written by Xiao Zixian of the Liang dynasty. Jiang Yan had already drafted ten treatises, and Shen Yue had also written the 《Qi Chronicle》; but Zixian, having presented himself to Emperor Wu of Liang, undertook this work as a separate history. We, your subjects, have corrected its errors and set forth the table of contents, saying:
2
將以是非得失、興壞理亂之故而爲法戒，則必得其所託，而後能傳於久，此史之所以作也。 然而所託不得其人，則或失其意，或亂其實，或析理之不通，或設辭之不善，故雖有殊功韙德非常之迹，將闇而不章，鬱而不發，而檮杌嵬瑣姦回凶慝之形，可幸而掩也。
When history is meant to serve as warning and model from the rights and wrongs, gains and losses, rise and ruin, and order and chaos of the past, it must find the right historian to carry it; only then can it endure. That is why histories are written. Yet if the historian is not the right person, the intent may be lost, the facts distorted, the reasoning muddled, or the style poor; then even extraordinary merit and towering virtue may lie hidden and never break into the light, while villains, petty scoundrels, traitors, and wicked men may by good fortune escape exposure.
3
嘗試論之，古之所謂良史者，其明必足以周萬事之理，其道必足以適天下之用，其智必足以通難知之意，其文必足以發難顯之情，然後其任可得而稱也。 何以知其然邪？ 昔者，唐虞有神明之性，有微妙之德，使由之者不能知，知之者不能名。 以爲治天下之本，號令之所布，法度之所設，其言至約，其體至備，以爲冶天下之具。 而爲二《典》者，推而明之，所記者，豈獨其迹邪？ 並與其深微之意而傳之。 小大精粗，無不盡也； 本末先後，無不白也。 使誦其說者，如出乎其時； 求其指者，如即乎其人。 是可不謂明足以周萬事之理，道足以適天下之用，智足以通難知之意，文足以發難顯之情者乎？ 則方是之時，豈特任政者皆天下之士哉？ 蓋執簡操筆而隨者，亦皆聖人之徒也。 兩漢以來爲史者，去之遠矣。 司馬遷從五帝三王旣歿數千載之後，秦火之餘，因散絕殘脫之經，以及傳記百家之說，區區掇拾，以集著其善惡之迹，興廢之端，又創己意以爲本紀、世家、八書、列傳之文，斯亦可謂奇矣。 然而蔽害天下之聖法，是非顛倒而採摭謬亂者，亦豈少哉！ 是豈可不謂明不足以周萬事之理，道不足以適天下之用，智不足以通難知之意，文不足以發難顯之情者乎？ 夫自三代以後爲史者如遷之文，亦不可不謂儁偉拔出之材、非常之士也，然顧以謂明不足以周萬事之理，道不足以適天下之用，智不足以通難知之意，文不足以發難顯之情者，何哉？ 蓋聖賢之高致，遷固有不能純達其情而見之於後者矣，故不得而與之也。 遷之得失如此，況其他邪？ 至於宋、齊、梁、陳、後魏、後周之書，蓋無以議爲也。
Consider what the ancients meant by a fine historian: his clarity must encompass the principles of all things; his Way must meet the needs of the world; his wisdom must penetrate what is hard to know; his prose must express what is hard to make plain—only then can his work be said to have fulfilled its charge. How do we know that this is so? In antiquity Tang and Yu possessed a divine nature and subtle virtue: those who followed them could not fully grasp it, and those who grasped it could not put it into words. They made this the foundation of governing the realm: in the commands they issued and the laws and institutions they established, their words were supremely spare and their forms supremely complete—the whole apparatus for ruling the world. Those who composed the two 《Canons》 of Yao and Shun developed and clarified this: what they recorded—was it only their outward deeds? They transmitted their profound and subtle intentions as well. Great and small, fine and coarse—nothing was left out; root and branch, earlier and later—nothing was left obscure. So that those who read their account might feel as though they had stepped out of that very age; and those who sought their meaning might feel as though they stood face to face with the men themselves. Can this not be called clarity that encompasses all principles, a Way that serves the world's needs, wisdom that penetrates what is hard to know, and prose that expresses what is hard to make plain? At the time when such texts existed, was it only those who held office who ranked among the talented men of the realm? Even those who took up the brush and followed in their wake were disciples of the sages. Historians since the Two Han have fallen far short of this standard. Sima Qian, thousands of years after the Five Emperors and Three Kings had died and in the wreckage left by the Qin burning of the books, pieced together what survived of broken classics and the writings of the hundred schools, gathered bit by bit the traces of good and evil and the beginnings of rise and fall, and then invented his own structure of Annals, Hereditary Houses, Eight Treatises, and Biographies—this was indeed a marvel. Yet how often did he obscure the sage laws of the realm, invert right and wrong, and gather up what was mistaken and confused! Can he not be said to lack clarity enough to encompass all principles, a Way enough to serve the world's needs, wisdom enough to penetrate what is hard to know, and prose enough to express what is hard to make plain? Among historians after the Three Dynasties, a writer like Qian must be called a towering talent and an extraordinary man—yet why say that his clarity, Way, wisdom, and prose still fall short? The lofty reach of the sages and worthies—Qian could not wholly convey their inner truth and set it before posterity; therefore he cannot be ranked with the finest historians of antiquity. If Qian's strengths and failings were such, what of the rest? As for the histories of Song, Qi, Liang, Chen, Later Wei, and Later Zhou, there is scarcely anything worth discussing at all.
4
子顯之於斯文，喜自馳騁，其更改破析刻彫藻繢之變尤多，而其文益下，豈夫材固不可以強而有邪？ 數世之史旣然，故其事迹曖味，雖有隨世以就功名之君，相與合謀之臣，未有赫然得傾動天下之耳目，播天下之口者也。 而一時偷奪傾危悖理反義之人，亦幸而不暴著於世，豈非所託不得其人故邪？ 可不惜哉！ 蓋史者所以明夫治天下之道也，故爲之者亦必天下之材，然後其任可得而稱也。 豈可忽哉！ 豈可忽哉！
In this work Zixian delighted in riding his own whim; his revisions, splittings, carvings, and ornamental flourishes were especially numerous, yet his prose grew ever weaker—can a talent truly be forced into being? When histories of several generations are like this, their deeds grow dim: even rulers who rode the times to fame and ministers who plotted together fail to stir the eyes and ears of the world or seize the tongues of all under Heaven. Meanwhile men of the age who stole power, overturned states, and defied reason and righteousness also escape exposure—is this not because they did not find the right historian to carry their record? How lamentable! History exists to clarify the Way of governing the realm; its author must therefore be a man of talent fit for the world, and only then can the charge be said to have been met. How could one neglect this! How could one neglect this!
5
臣恂、臣寶臣、臣穆、臣藻、臣洙、臣覺、臣彥若、臣鞏謹敘目錄昧死上。 [1]
Your subjects Xun, Baochen, Mu, Zao, Zhu, Jue, Yanruo, and Gong respectfully present this catalogue and submit it at the risk of our lives. [1] Endnote marker.
6
全文以中華書局、一九七二年一月版《南齊書》爲本校。
The entire text has been collated against the Zhonghua shuju edition of the 《Book of Southern Qi》, January 1972.