- 期刊
割裂傳文或原始要終：論《左傳》「分年」與杜預「張本」說
Fragments or Foretelling: On the "Misplaced Anecdotes" in the Zuozhuan and the "Notation of Antecedents" in the Commentary of Du Yu
摘要
《左傳》中的「無經之傳」，以及經傳間不對應的情形，歷來招致正反議論，也延伸出關於註解術語、《左傳》文本編纂、杜預「分傳附經」等種種議論。本文由此切入，探討兩組相關議題：第一、杜預《集解》針對無經之傳，提出「先經始事」之說，並有相關術語如「張本」、「為……傳」，其使用原則為何，詮釋經傳關係的效力何在？本文統整、分析「張本」、「為……傳」等註解用語共二百餘則，指出：杜預對於「無經之傳」或《左傳》中跨年度敘事相聯屬段落的註解，大致上有固定的用語規範，多數呼應其「先經始事」的主張，也呈現出杜預對經傳關係的清楚認識；此外也提出少數特例加以討論。第二、清代學者如翁方綱、俞樾批評「張本」之說，認為其源於杜預「分傳附經」時編次失當，遂倡恢復「《左傳》古本分年」，其說又是否允當？在全面省察杜《注》相關用語的基礎上，本文一方面指出翁、俞對杜預的批評有以偏概全之嫌；另方面透過考察杜預之前可能已存在的「分傳附經」現象，以及提出翁、俞主張「分年」的事例雖多數有據，但仍有少數未必成立的情形，杜《注》「張本」等語，與《左傳》經後世編纂或附經未必相關。
並列摘要
One of the most debated inconsistencies between the Zuozhuan and the Chunqiu Annals is that some anecdotes in the former do not have corresponding accounts in the latter, leading some to argue that the Zuozhuan was not initially meant as a commentary on the Chunqiu classic. Scholars who are concerned with this issue, such as Du Yu, Weng Fanggang, and Yu Yue, have proposed various terminologies and theories to address this discrepancy. The article explores these theories by focusing on two main aspects. Firstly, Du Yu introduced two terms, "Zhangben" and "Wei (sth.) zhuan," to explain the Zuozhuan anecdotes that are not present in the Chunqiu Annals. This article examines more than 200 accounts. It concludes that the term "Zhangben" primarily refers to the connection between different anecdotes within the Zuozhuan narrative. In contrast, the term "Wei (sth.) zhuan" indicates that the commentaries were intended as a foretelling for the later Chunqiu records. These terminologies demonstrate Du's clear understanding of the relationship between Chunqiu Annals and Zuozhuan. Secondly, Qing scholars Weng Fanggang and Yu Yue theorized that the ancient copy of the Zuozhuan was not yet combined with the Chunqiu Annals and that Du was the first scholar to separate the Zuozhuan and attach it to the Chunqiu records. They believed that the Zuozhuan anecdotes without Chunqiu counterparts were merely misplaced fragments and that Du's terminologies were used to cover up these mistakes. This article challenges the above theory by examining Du's commentary and the manuscript of Zuozhuan stored in the Kanazawa-bunko Library. The evidence suggests that Du was likely not the first one to attach the Zuozhuan anecdotes to the Chunqiu, and that Weng's and Yu's theories overlook the distinction between Du's terms "Zhangben" and "Wei (sth.) zhuan," leading to invalid conclusions.
參考文獻
延伸閱讀
- 許子濱（2015）。《左傳》“請安”及相關紀事釋義辨疑－《左傳》與《儀禮》互證之一例。人文中國學報，(21)，147-175。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20130110002-201511-201511180004-201511180004-147-175
- 陳玉美（1979）。分裂一逕迹定年法。人類與文化，(13)，40-42。https://doi.org/10.6719/MC.197911_(13).0014
- 施盈佑（2011）。王船山經典詮釋的歷史性與創造性－析論《張子正蒙注•序論》中的「正之惟其始」與「不得不異」。鵝湖月刊，(428)，11-25。https://doi.org/10.29652/LM.201102.0003
- 王雅儀（2022）。Investigation on the Relationship between Chen Chao-Hsing's Seven-character Octave and Poetry of Du Fu from the Perspective of Alternation of Four Tones。東海大學圖書館館刊，(65)，1-32。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20160330003-202209-202209160005-202209160005-1-32
- 張立本（2018）。Distress and Transcending: Exploring the Pulse of Chen-Yingzhen’s Literature and Thoughts within Historical-Realistic-Feelings〔博士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201800286