從《左傳》中諡「靈」國君論其定諡之由

Studies on the Kings Having "Ling" as the Posthumous Title in "Zuo Zhuan"-Comments on "Ling" as a Sinful Posthumous Title

黃聖松(Sheng-Sung Huang) ； 黃羽璿(Yu-Hsuan Huang)

《東華漢學》 16期 (2012/12) Pp. 89-113

https://doi.org/10.6999/DHJCS.201212.0089

摘要

本文擬透過對《左傳》中晉靈公、陳靈公、鄭靈公、齊靈公、周靈王、楚靈王、蔡靈公、衛靈公及楚成王之行為事蹟的考察，以見其稱諡為「靈」之所由。考其行為之共通處，有「死不得命」、「不聽勸諫」、「妄立太子」、「弒君自立」等四點。實則「靈」之為諡，初無善惡之別，僅反映國君生前所行而已。如周靈王、鄭靈公之稱「靈」，亦不見負面意含。然上述諡「靈」之君的共通點，要以負面居勝；久之，其正面意義遂漸湮掩，「靈」亦因此成為惡諡。

關鍵字

靈 ； 諡法 ； 《左傳》

並列摘要

This article investigated the behavior of Duke Ling of Jin, Duke Ling of Chen, Duke Ling of Zheng, Duke Ling of Qi, Duke Ling of Zhou, Duke Ling of Chu, Duke Ling of Tsai, Duke Ling of Wei, and King Cheng of Chu, discussing the reasons why the above mentioned were conferred the posthumous title ”Ling.” Analysis of pertinent literature indicates they shared some similarities, such as dying of some unknown reasons, unwilling to accept people's remonstration, investiture of the Crown Prince without careful consideration, and usurpation of the throne. In fact, ”Ling” as a posthumous title carried no derogatory meanings in the beginning. It simply reflected what the king had done before he died, as exemplified by the cases of Duke Ling of Zhou and Duke Ling of Zheng. However, because of the negative similarities shared by the above mentioned kings conferred the posthumous title ”Ling,” it has gradually become a derogatory posthumous title from then on.

並列關鍵字

Ling ； posthumous title ； "Zuo Zhuan"

參考文獻

漢許慎、清段玉裁注(1994)。說文解字注。臺北:黎明文化事業公司。

(1993)。十三經注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。

楊伯峻編(1987)。春秋左傳詞典。臺北:漢京文化公司。

陳克炯(2004)。左傳詳解詞典。鄭州:中洲古籍出版社。

振亞(1998)。「諡」、「諡法」探源。辭書研究。1998(5)，145-146。