【摘要】 《魏书》是曹魏时代仅有的官修"国史",厘清其编纂过程与王沈的相关度,可藉以略窥魏晋史官初设时期的实相。王沈参与编撰《魏书》的时间很长,但独成其事的时间很短,原因在于他离开曹营投靠晋邦的两面派背景。杨翼骧与叶振华合撰《唐末以前官修史书要录》对王沈《魏书》的评价过甚其实,错误地把裴松之注对其引用的数量和质量挂钩。裴注引群书,取舍标准并非在于批评前人谬误,更多着眼于证史补史。故其引用王沈《魏书》,只在认为与历史不合的几个关键性陈述,才用"裴松之以为"一类按语表态。假如把裴注表明己见的数量当作王沈的论史素质,则未免以偏概全。更多还原

【Abstract】 Wei Shu was the only official record of "national history" during the Wei Dynasty.To examine the relevance between its compilation and Wang Shen could reveal the real scenario when historiographers were first assigned in the early Wei and Jin Dynasties.Wang Shen partook in the compilation of Wei Shu for a long period of time but hardly finished a part all on his own,which was due to his double-dealing background – he left Wei and turned to Jin.Yang Yixiang and Ye Zhenhua set too high a valuation on Wei Shu in their work The Chronicle of Official Historical Records before the Late Tang Dynasty,wrongly linking up the quantity of Pei Songzhi’s quotation from Wei Shu to its actual value.Pei referred to various sources with the aim of proving and supplementing history but not criticizing on the fallacy of prior historians.In this light,Pei quoted from Wei Shu and stated his stand by the statement "In Pei’s opinion" only because he believed that some of the most important statements were not in accordance to the history.Thus,it might be a little arbitrary to relate Pei’s tremendous quotations to Wang Shen’s capability as a historiographer.更多还原