“弒”例中的書法與君臣倫理：以東漢先師兼採二傳説與杜預專據《左傳》説爲論

The Rubric of Writing “Parricide” and the Ethics of Rulers and Subjects: A Discussion Centered on Eastern Han Scholarship and Du Yu’s Views

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.

漢代《左傳》學者多兼採《公》《穀》詮解《春秋》《左傳》，至西晉杜預，透過摒除二傳、東漢學者引述二傳之説，有意識地專據《左傳》爲解。深入杜預經解，其受之於東漢《左傳》學者，十有八九，當中有所立異，往往在書法釋例之説。今東漢《左傳》學者經解，十不存一，就可見經解與杜説相較，其論《春秋》《左傳》書“弒”，尤爲立異之大者。本文以《春秋》“弒”書法爲探討核心，詳論：一、東漢《左傳》學者釋“弒”兼採《公》《穀》之説；二、析論杜預《書弒例》，專據《左傳》釋“弒”的内容與主張，説明東漢《左傳》學者詮釋之説兼採二傳，重責臣甚於罪君，君臣倫理觀不盡符合《左傳》取義，而杜預自覺而嚴格的“專修丘明之傳以釋經”的詮釋策略，信而有徵，持之有據，在内容、價值上亦能一致而合理地詮解經傳。尤具意義的是，杜預專據《左傳》的釋例之説，乃爲形成《左氏》專門之學重要立場與必要取徑。

Han Dynasty scholars often used the Gongyang and Guliang commentaries to interpret the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Zuozhuan. Du Yu (222-285) excludes these two sources along with the Eastern Han scholars’ views derived from them in his commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals but exclusively relies on the Zuozhuan. Du Yu mainly accepts the view of Eastern Han scholars, but the distinction is marked by his use of certain rubrics. Most of the Eastern Han exegetic work is not extant. In a comparison between them with Du Yu’s wording, one finds a prominent difference in the principle of writing about “parricide.” This article discusses the interpretation of “parricide” by Eastern Han scholars, which is based on Gongyang and Guliang. It also analyzes the content and proposition of Du Yu’s “Writing Parricide,” which interprets the principle of “parricide” according to the Zuozhuan. This shows that Eastern Han scholars blamed the subjects more than the rulers, and that they did not conform to the Zuozhuan’s principles. However, Du’s method is to interpret the Spring and Autumn Annals exclusively in light of the Zuozhuan in a consistent and reasonable manner. What is more significant is that Du Yu’s principle plays an important role in the formation of a specialized study of the Zuozhuan.