本文旨在透過分析〈太史公自序〉（以下簡稱〈自序〉）、〈報任少卿書〉（以下簡稱〈報書〉）以解讀司馬遷「發憤著書」說，並釐清此一說法於歷代接受過程裡逐漸被模糊的原始意義，重新思考「發憤著書」在《史記》成書過程裡究竟產生何種影響與價值趨向。藉由分析〈自序〉與〈報書〉，本文欲提出以下三點觀察：第一，〈自序〉之所謂「太史公」，實有複雜的指稱意涵，司馬遷在《史記》所扮演的乃是「太史公」此想像共同體之一份子，唯至〈報書〉方得以「僕」的身分出場；是以「太史公」之發憤，未必等於「司馬遷」之發憤。第二，〈自序〉裡實曾出現兩次「發憤」，分別為「司馬談滯留周南」與「司馬遷幽於縲紲」。前者為《史記》撰著之原初動機，並引發司馬談遺言與壺遂答問等兩場有關「太史公」對於敘事之理論性思考的重要對話；後者則對該書之完成有著重要影響，並迫使司馬遷於存亡之際思考撰史工作之於史家的不朽意義，進而刺激其「究天人之際，通古今之變，成一家之言」之敘事自覺。第三，後人如金聖嘆者，多只注意本文所謂「第二次發憤」，甚而將史公之發憤著書直截地理解為「攄其怨憤」，不但於事實上有所偏頗，甚至可能遮掩史公「原始察終，見盛觀衰」之用心，乃是一種「讀者之心自不平」的誤讀。因此，吾人不應執此一偏，而當予以適度還原與修正

By asking ＂Why do Chinese write history?＂ this paper addresses Sima Qian's idea of ＂writing for discontentment＂ and tries to explain how the Chinese cultural spirit urges people to take the initiative and fulfill their idea of writing narrative literature. First the paper explores in depth ＂Taishi Gung Preface＂ and ＂Bao Ren Shaoqing Shu,＂ analyzing how Sima Qian's idea of writing is consciously incorporated into the two writings, and discusses how he comes to ＂writing for discontentment＂ the first and the second time. The paper then compares and contrasts Sima Qian's two instances of ＂writing for discontentment,＂ and discusses how he is conscious of narrating history and the meaning of it. Finally the paper looks at how later narrative literature accepted and interpreted Sima Qian's idea of ＂writing for discontentment＂