Abstract：Ancient historical works are the primary source of extant Han imperial edicts. Scholars, like Wang Tong in the Tang Dynasty and Hong Zikui in the Song Dynasty, had already pointed out that historians, when they incorporated imperial edicts into their historical accounts, often resorted to deletions, revisions, and stylistic polishing. However, from ancient times to the present, scholars often use Han edicts based on the positioning of historical materials or focus on the historical information contained therein, while neglecting or underrating issues related to textual transformations of the edicts. In fact, ancient historians, when recording Han edicts in their works, not only changed the form of the articles, but also affected the accurate expression of historical facts. By comparing and analyzing existing texts of Han edicts, three basic methods of historian editing can be identified.First, transforming citations into narratives. When historians recorded Han edicts from historical works into their own collections, phrases such as “The Edict states”, “The Imperial Decree states”, “The Emperor states”, etc, were often used as citation markers. However, the compliance of this standard objectively obscured the fact that original edicts were hidden by the historians when they transformed citations into narratives. For example, the original Great Amnesty Edict issued upon Emperor Hui’s ascension had been recorded in his chronicle of the Book of Han. But it was not collected in subsequent literary collections because it was paraphrased rather than directly quoted by later historians. Moreover, Han edicts were originally classified into three categories. The second and third categories were composite edicts, which were also the mainstream form of original Han edicts. Yet these edicts are rarely seen in the historical records as they were subjected to excision and abridgment by the historians and were consequently remolded into the first category.Second, deletions, omissions, splitting, and merging. Historians mainly deleted introductions as well as text related to administrative affairs in Han edicts. These deletions damaged the integrity of the articles, leading to the loss of textual structures and functions. On the other hand, the inappropriate consolidation of two edicts into one led to errors in historical facts. For instance, by combining the Great Amnesty Edict, issued in April, with the Edict on Changing the Reign Era, issued in May, the era name was changed in advance by one month in the Book of Han.Third, rewriting based on meaning. Historians rewrote edicts using their own language, resulting in completely new articles. For example, while the Edict Enfeoffing Lord Zhou Zinan issued by Emperor Wu of Han is recorded in both Records of the Grand Historian and the Book of Han, the wordings and styles differ so significantly that they look like two different articles.These kinds of reshaping, similar in meaning but vastly different in wordings, blur the original appearance of the edicts and even lead to the creation of new edicts. We should place great emphasis on how historians edited Han edicts—resulting in textual transformations and variations—which significantly impacts the study of literature, literary genres, bibliography, and historiography. In the short term, identifying patterns in how historians edited Han edicts helps us determine more accurately whether extant texts represent their complete versions, prompts scholars to reassess the authenticity of historical information in similar edicts, and offers approaches for examining textual integrity, thereby enabling the reconstruction of certain original Han edicts. In the long run, revealing the patterns of creating Han edict texts in historical works and proposing solutions for dealing with variant texts can provide methodological guidance for: (1) studying similar texts in works like Records of the Three Kingdoms and the Book of Song; (2) analyzing other literary genres in historical works, such as memorials, petitions, and declarations; and (3) current AI-enhanced digital textual analysis of ancient documents.
黄燕平. 传世汉诏文本变形与史官编辑方式[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2026, 56(8): 88-99.
Huang Yanping. Textual Transformations in Extant Han Edicts and the Editorial Approaches of Court Historians. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2026, 56(8): 88-99.
2026, Vol. 56 
