《史記》亡篇及其真偽研究，千數百年來一直受到張晏之說的影響與牽制。本文認為，張氏《史記》亡篇之說本身存在著不少問題，並對此進行實例分析考證。結果表明：(1)張氏為「十篇缺」的東漢蘭臺本《太史公書》列具亡篇篇目，而他本人實未曾見過蘭臺本原書，其說無以徵信。(2)張氏所舉亡篇之根據，有些是據其所見本《史記》言之；也有僅憑前人的說法做的推測，這類推測中顯然有主觀臆斷和附會成分。因此，張氏所言，既不可能反映東漢蘭臺本《太史公書》缺篇的真相，也不可能反映其所見本《史記》缺篇的真相。(3)張晏所提出的《史記》亡篇之說，於其討論的對象和目的俱不明確。由張氏據其所見本論蘭臺本缺篇之做法可見，他將「十篇缺」的東漢蘭臺本視為唯一存世的、而且歷世不變的《史記》孤本。基於這種認識，張氏在論《史記》亡篇時必然會犯「刻舟求劍」和舉偏以概全的雙重錯誤。張氏之說對後來的研究者起了誤導作用。《史記》亡篇及真偽問題之所以長期懸疑難決，其癥結蓋在於此。

Research on what were the actual missing articles in Shiji has been influenced and limited by Zhang Yan's view for over a thousand years. In this article, I argue based upon analysis of reliable facts that Zhang's view has serious flaws. The argument is focused on the following three points: (1) Zhang had never seen the authentic copy of the Official-Library-of-East-Han (OLOEH) version of Shiji, which was said to have ten articles missing, so he had no solid proof for the list he made of the missing articles in that version. (2) Zhang's statement was made partly according to the version of Shiji he saw and partly according conjecture based on what his predecessors had said, which inevitably contain elements of subjectivity and far exaggexation. Therefore, his view represents neither the true state of missing articles in the OLOEH version of Shiji, nor that of the one he saw. (3)Zhang Yan had no definite object or purpose for his discussion when he made the statement. That he discussed the missing articles in the OLOEH version according to the one he saw is proof enough that he regarded the former as the only authentic version that would survive and that had not changed and would not change in future. This point of view led Zhang to ignore the changed situation and generalize without sufficient facts in his statement about the missing articles in Shiji. His statement has been misleading to researchers after him, and has been the crucial reason for the problem's remaining unsettled through the ages.