論襄公二十九年“吳子使札來聘”－以《春秋》三傳為文本

《春秋》三傳之解經各有所偏。一般而言，《左氏》備於事，《公羊》明於例，而《穀梁》精於義。《春秋》襄公二十九年，書曰：「吳子使札來聘。」三傳對此條經文之詮釋，《左氏》仍以敘事為主，然《公羊》亦不遑多讓，敘事洋洋近五百言。唯三傳之異，非在同一事上有異見，而是各引相異之事，以顯孔子之意。《左氏》所述乃季札歷聘中原各國，所見重要人物及其對樂、舞之評論。《公羊》則詳細記述吳國內部一場所謂的「讓國」的風波，而極力闡揚季札「讓國」之仁義賢德。只有《穀梁》不見敘事，僅就「吳子使札來聘」這一句話上作文章。本研究透過對三傳解經之分析比較及季札辭讓事件的詳細考察，並與《論語》、《禮記》、《史記》等典籍相發明，發現孔子雖對讓國之仁聖賢人如堯舜、泰伯、伯夷之倫讚美有加，但對季札之讚美僅止於「善使」與「守禮」二端，對所謂「讓國」一事，絕無一辭之讚嘆。進而得知季札「辭讓」而非「讓國」之實質然否與經書「吳子使札來聘」之真義。總之，從本文不但可以清楚的看出三傳解經另一類之不同，並且有助吾人對三傳特色的深層體會及延陵季子「辭讓」本質的真正了解。

關鍵字

春秋三傳；左傳；公羊傳；穀梁傳；季子；聘；讓國

並列摘要

”Chun Chiu” San Chuan each has its intent in the Commentaries of Chun Chiu. By and large, Jso Chuan has the complete annals and Kung Yang Chuan is clear-cut in the analysis of recode-code. Ku Liang Chuan has the most proper analysis of the reason for the historic affairs. In the 29(superscript th) year of Shiang Gong, Chun Chiu says: ”Wu Tzyy the king sent Jih Tzu as an envoy to visit the kingdom of the Lzu.” Concerning the foregoing commentary, the record of Jso Chuan is about Jih Tzu's commentary on important people, music, and dance when he visited each state of China. Kung Yang Chuan gives the full details of a dispute about so-called abdication regality and endeavors to explain the benevolence of Jih Tzu. Ku Liang Chuan has no record of this affair but amplifies on the previously quoted sentence from Chun Chiu.. According to the analysis and comparison of the commentary of Chun Chiu San Chuan and considering the so-called abdicate regality affair of Jih Tzu, one can realize that Confucious had no commendation for Jih Tm, except for his making a good ambassador and keeping decency. Hence, the fact can be known- right or wrong-concerning the decline(辭讓), not abdication regality (而非讓國) of Jih Tm and the content of Chun Chiu's record previously quoted. From this study one can not only form a different commentary on Chun Chiu San Chuan but also realize its peculiarity in depth, and understand the essence of the decline of Jih Tzu.