函谷關第一次出現,是在一張清單的第四項。《戰國策·秦策一》蘇秦說秦惠王:「大王之國,西有巴蜀漢中之利,北有胡貉代馬之用,南有巫山黔中之限,東有肴函之固。」東邊這一項只有四個字:肴、函、之、固。關本身是什麼樣,這句話不說。

一份資產清單

接著是整張單子:「田肥美,民殷富,戰車萬乘,奮擊百萬,沃野千里,蓄積饒多,地勢形便,此所謂天府,天下之雄國也。以大王之賢,士民之眾,車騎之用,兵法之教,可以並諸侯,吞天下,稱帝而治。」——四面的「利、用、限、固」是先給秦畫一個盒子,盒子造好了,才說盒子裡的人可以打出去。秦王沒接:「寡人聞之,毛羽不豐滿者不可以高飛……今先生儼然不遠千里而庭教之,願以異日。」

這一頁上唯一一句講關本身的,是注。「肴在澠池西,函關舊在弘農城北門外,今在新安東,固牢堅難攻易守也。」——肴(崤)在澠池西邊,函關過去在弘農城北門外,此時在新安東邊;「固」的意思是「牢堅難攻易守」。正文只給一個形容詞,注才把它拆成位置與「難攻易守」。但注也只到這一步:沒有關牆多高、道路多寬、駐多少兵。這一卷的注在四庫本裡是漢高誘注與宋姚宏續注混排,本文只稱「注」,不硬分給哪一位。

同一場勸說的兩個本子

《史記·蘇秦列傳》裡也有這一場勸說,說法不一樣:「秦四塞之國,被山帶渭,東有關河,西有漢中,南有巴蜀,北有代馬,此天府也。」——《史記》給秦的東界是「關河」,不是「肴函」;「四塞之國」四個字,《戰國策》那一版沒有。秦王的回答也換了詞:「毛羽未成,不可以高蜚;文理未明,不可以並兼。」下面交代得更具體:「方誅商鞅,疾辯士,弗用。」

兩頁並排,差異很清楚:一個說「東有肴函之固」,一個說「東有關河」;一個說「毛羽不豐滿」,一個說「毛羽未成」。同一場勸說留下兩個本子,哪個在先,這兩頁不回答,本文也不替它們裁決。能用的只有一點:關在策士的嘴裡,是東界的一個代稱,不是一個被測量過的工程。

第三個本子:賈誼的政論

到了《史記》卷六篇末,太史公引賈誼的話:「秦孝公據殽函之固,擁雍州之地,君臣固守而窺周室,有席捲天下,包舉宇內,囊括四海之意,並吞八荒之心。」後面還有一句:「且夫天下非小弱也,雍州之地,殽函之固自若也。」——關還是那個關,秦卻亡了。

這段話的性質要寫清楚:它是賈誼《過秦論》,是一篇政論,被司馬遷引在《秦始皇本紀》篇末,不是當時的記事。它拿「殽函之固」當論點用:地形沒變,人心變了,所以「仁義不施而攻守之勢異也」。這是文章的做法,不是地理測量。同一篇還說,秦「繕津關,據險塞,修甲兵而守之」,可陳涉一起,「秦人阻險不守,關梁不闔」——關修好了,守關的人沒了;這也是文章的論證,不是關的檔案。

關在三種話裡的三種角色

三種角色,各歸各頁。在《戰國策》的說辭裡,關是資產清單的第四項:說它有「固」,是為了讓秦王相信自己有本錢打出去。在《史記·蘇秦列傳》的合縱盟約裡,關是威脅的方向:「六國從親以賓秦,則秦甲必不敢出於函谷以害山東矣」;盟約成後,「秦兵不敢窺函谷關十五年」。在賈誼的政論裡,關是「攻守之勢」的物證:關自若,秦已亡。同一座關,一處是資產,一處是出口,一處是證據。

名字也有三種寫法:《戰國策》作「肴函」,《史記·蘇秦列傳》作「函谷」,《過秦論》作「殽函」。肴、殽、崤是同一座山的異寫,函是關名。三頁沒有統一,本文也不替它們統一。

三頁沒有的

沒有關的尺寸,沒有關牆高度,沒有道路寬度,沒有駐軍數目,沒有通關手續,沒有關稅——這篇只寫地理與軍事,稅在《戰國之稅》那篇,兩頁在這裡一句稅也沒提。也沒有「第一關」這類排名,沒有歷代關址搬遷的沿革,沒有軍隊通過量的估算。「秦兵十五年不敢窺關」是蘇秦傳裡的說法,不是關的檔案。所以能寫的只有一句:在這三頁上,函谷關是一個詞,被三種人拿去用在三處地方;至於這座關怎麼守、誰在守,三頁都沒有寫。

延伸閱讀:兩座墓的帳:邵家棚 M102、M110 · 安陽的另一座商代城:洹北商城 · 臨淄:兩重城牆、十一道門和四個排水口

參考來源與延伸閱讀

  1. 《史记》卷六十九·苏秦列传(西汉;维基文库本,未与点校本复核) — Su Qin's two speeches and their results. To King Hui of Qin: 'Qin is a state of four barriers, backed by mountains and girdled by the Wei; east it has the passes and the Yellow River, west Hanzhong, south Ba and Shu, north the horses of Dai — this is a heavenly storehouse' (秦四塞之國,被山帶渭,東有關河……此天府也); the king answers 'feathers not yet full cannot fly high' (毛羽未成,不可以高蜚) and, because Shang Yang had just been executed, 'he disliked persuaders and did not use him'. In the covenant Su Qin later sells to Zhao: 'if the six states join in kinship and treat Qin as a guest, Qin's armour will not dare come out of the Hangu pass to harm the east' (秦甲必不敢出於函谷以害山東矣); and after the alliance, 'for fifteen years Qin's armies did not dare peep at the Hangu pass' (秦兵不敢闚函谷關十五年). Note: this juan's version of the first speech says 'the passes and the Yellow River' (關河), not 'Yao-Han'; it contains no 崤/殽.
  2. 《战国策》卷三·秦策一(汉高诱注、宋姚宏续注;四库全书本,维基文库本,未与点校本复核) — The persuader's inventory: 'Your majesty's state has, in the west, the profits of Ba, Shu and Hanzhong; in the north, the use of the Hu and Dai horses; in the south, the barrier of Wu and Qian mountains; in the east, the firmness of Yao and Han' (東有肴函之固). The king declines with 'feathers not full cannot fly high' and 'I beg another day'. The commentary in this edition (the volume carries Gao You's and Yao Hong's notes in one run, so it is cited here simply as 'the note') places the barrier: 'Yao is west of Mianchi; the Han pass was formerly outside the north gate of Hongnong city, now east of Xin'an; 'firm' means hard to attack and easy to hold' (肴在澠池西,函關舊在弘農城北門外,今在新安東,固牢堅難攻易守也). After Su Qin's success in Zhao, 'Su Qin being chancellor in Zhao, the pass was not open' (故蘇秦相於趙而關不通). No width, garrison, road or toll procedure appears.
  3. 《史记》卷六·秦始皇本纪(篇末太史公曰引贾谊《过秦论》;维基文库本,未与点校本复核) — Used for one quotation only, and it is political argument, not record: in Sima Qian's closing judgement he quotes Master Jia — 'Duke Xiao of Qin, resting on the firmness of Yao and Han and holding the land of Yongzhou, his ruler and ministers held fast and watched the house of Zhou, with the will to roll up the world' (秦孝公據殽函之固,擁雍州之地,君臣固守而窺周室); and later, 'the land of Yongzhou and the firmness of Yao and Han were as before' (雍州之地,殽函之固自若也). This is Jia Yi's 'Faults of Qin', a political essay, quoted inside the Shiji; it argues about attack and defence, and is not evidence for the pass's construction or garrison.