Jizhuanti (biographical historiography)

The Shiji's concluding postface lists twelve basic annals, ten tables, eight treatises, thirty hereditary houses and seventy biographies, totaling 130 chapters. Annals organize accounts around rulers and political centers; tables align chronology, titles or relationships. Treatises address subjects such as ritual, music, calendrical knowledge and finance, while other sections present families and individuals.

The arrangement allows a period to be approached through political authority, institutions and personal careers. Classification also embodies historical judgment: placing a figure in annals rather than a biography is more than a choice of length. Later histories adapted the model, changing its parts and scope rather than reproducing an identical structure.

References: [1]

In the Shitong's chapter on two historical forms, Liu Zhiji explains how annals can give broad outlines while biographies develop details, with tables and treatises supplying other material. A conflict involving several participants may consequently be dispersed across chapters. Cross-references direct readers to accounts found elsewhere.

This organization can bring together an individual's activities, speech and associations, or combine people from different periods in a shared category. It does not provide the complete chronological sequence in every chapter. Liu's examples include the joint treatment of Qu Yuan and Jia Yi, illustrating the different priorities of personal classification and continuous dating.

References: [2]

Chronological history brings activities from the same period together under dates. Liu Zhiji observes that this can make it harder to preserve a full personal career, extended documents or activities outside major politics. Biographical organization can retain such material more fully, but may repeat events or disperse their sequence across chapters.

The Shitong compares works including Ban Gu's Hanshu and Xun Yue's chronologically rearranged Hanji. Different forms can organize related historical material. Their strengths concern access and arrangement rather than an automatic ranking of reliability; evaluation of a particular account still requires attention to its evidence and the author's selections.

References: [2]