劉逢祿《左氏春秋考證》解經術語及其解經方法探析

本文透過對《左氏春秋考證》與相關文獻的辨析，欲了解劉逢祿如何運用公羊學證「《左氏》不傳《春秋》」之觀點及其解經立場。由《左氏春秋考證》解經術語觀察劉氏的辯證方式與結果，其常使用襲、迷、亂、破、汩的用詞指出劉歆作偽方式，但就整體論述內容大抵可分為三類，一為使用「襲」用詞證劉歆襲用《公羊傳》之說；二為使用「迷、亂」用詞證劉歆混淆《公羊傳》之說；三為使用「破、汩」用詞證劉歆破壞《公羊傳》之說。此外，劉氏依據《春秋》、《左傳》與《公羊傳》經、傳文詳細對比，並結合其他條例，有明確的步驟強化論證《左傳》凡例之偽。劉氏承繼公羊學脈絡，在《左氏春秋考證》中又以「《左傳》為劉歆坿益《左氏春秋》」作為前提進行討論，導致論證上不免有所偏頗，並讓「非公羊學家」的後代學者無法接受其論證結果。

關鍵字

劉逢祿；劉歆；左傳；左氏春秋考證；公羊傳

並列摘要

Through an analysis of Zuoshi Chunqiu Kaozheng (《左氏春秋考證》) and related literature, this article shows that Liu Fenglu's interpretive standpoint and how he supported his argument which is " Zuo zhuan (《左傳》) did not correctly covey principles of Chun Qiu (《春秋》)". Liu's dialectical approach and terminology in Zuoshi Chunqiu Kaozheng can be roughly divided into three categories. In general, he often used words like "si," "mi," "luan," "po," and "gu" to indicate Liu Xin's forgery, but more specifically, he used the word "si" to prove Liu Xin plagiarized the views of GongYang zhuan (《公羊傳》). Second, he used the words "mi" and "luan" to prove Liu Xin obfuscated the views of GongYang zhuan. Third, he used the words "po" and "gu" to prove Liu Xin undermined the views of GongYang zhuan. In addition, Liu carefully compared the classics and interpretation of Chun Qiu, Zuo zhuan and GongYang zhuan, combined with other discussions on Zuoshi Chunqiu Kaozheng. In this comparison there are clear steps to strengthen the demonstration of the falsity of Zuo zhuan's Explanatory Notes. Liu's point of view was influenced by School of Gongyang studies and discussed on the premise which Liu Xin forged Zuoshi Chunqiu (《左氏春秋》) as Zuo zhuan in the Zuoshi Chunqiu Kaozheng. Therefore, Liu's argument was inevitably biased and made scholars who are not Gongyang scholars unable to accept his theory.

並列關鍵字

Liu Fenglu ； Liu Xin ； Zuo zhuan ； Zuoshi Chunqiu Kaozheng ； GongYang zhuan

主題瀏覽