中國中古史學的發展,有官修逐漸超越私修的趨勢,皇權總是透過各種手段介入修史,如派宰臣監修或任命親信修史,以達控制目的。這些親信如何挑選?有無軌跡可循?如何將這些人選安置在制度中?這些應當是「制度」本身以外,值得進一步追究的問題。筆者注意到十六國北朝時期,諸多修撰國史的人物,不少在早期仕宦曾有擔任「記室」或「記室參軍」職務的經歷。本文試圖透過史料的整理分析,解釋當時「記室」與修史之間存在怎樣的關係?與中古時期的「霸府」政治是否有關?在研究步驟上,先簡述記室與記室參軍在漢、隋之間的變化,接著按照時代分為小節,依序考察十六國北魏、東魏北齊與西魏北周的記室與修史關係,希冀透過札記式的初步探討,為十六國北朝的史學發展,提供一個側面觀察。

A major trend in the development of historiography in medieval China, was the displacement of private historical writing by officially commissioned historiography. Imperial power found ways of intervening in the writing of national history, such as sending the prime minister to supervise the work, or selecting a trusted follower to have a hand in the compilation. How were these trusted followers selected? Can any pattern be discerned? How did institutions accommodate such people? In the Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern Dynasties period, many people who wrote national histories turn out to have served previously in jishi(記 室, “record keeper”) or jishi canjun(記室參軍, “record keeper adjutant”) positions. This article tries to explain the relationship between these positions and the assertion of imperial control over the writing of national history. The relationship with the politics of “overlord governments”(bafu 霸府) in this period is also explored. First, the evolution of jishi and jishi canjun offices between the Han and the Sui is sketched out. Then the relation between these offices and historiography is analyzed for the Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern Wei, the Eastern Wei and Northern Qi Dynasty, and the Western Wei and Northern Zhou. This offers a new perspective on historiography in the Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern Dynasties.

記室；記室參軍；國史修撰；霸府

jishi; jishi canjun; compilation of national historical records; overlord government