《春秋》经传对世卿阶层史事的历史书写与解释  

Historical Writing and Interpretation of the Aristocratic Class in the Annals and Commentaries of the Spring and Autumn Annals

作　　者：唐明亮[1] Tang Mingliang

机构地区：[1]南通大学历史文化学院

出　　处：《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第5期149-156,206,共9页Journal of Sichuan Normal University(Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：国家社科基金项目“春秋世卿政权结构演变研究”(20BZS019)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：有关世卿阶层的史事是《春秋》经传历史书写的主体,但经传对于史料的编纂与解释存在明显差异。《左传》预设了一种对世卿之“世”与“不世”原因的解释,并在历史书写中力图通过史事之间的联系来揭示这种因果关系;《公羊传》则是在构建历史解释时就抛弃了《左传》所提供的史料,转而通过对《春秋》叙述的模糊化解读来构建一组信息因果链,进而提出“世卿,非礼”的历史认识。西汉以后的史家多继承了《公羊传》的历史观,在历史书写的证据选择上,则是通过从《左传》的整体叙述中抽取部分例证来验证《公羊传》“世卿,非礼”的合理性,《左传》、《公羊传》皆以各自预设的历史解释来完成对世卿的书写。这些书写方式上的不同,不仅反映了中国古代经学与史学在历史解释方面的差异性,而且对于我们理解中国古代经学与史学在认识论形成路径上的差异提供了一个视角。The historical events concerning the aristocratic class are the main subject of the historical writing in the Annals and Commentaries of the Spring and Autumn Annals.However,there are significant differences in the compilation and interpretation of historical materials between the Annals and the Commentaries.The author of the Commentary of Zuo presupposed an explanation for the reasons behind the continuity and discontinuity of the aristocratic class and sought to reveal this causal relationship through the connections between historical events.In contrast,the Gongyang Commentary abandoned the historical materials provided by the Commentary of Zuo when constructing its historical interpretation.Instead,it built a chain of informational causality through a vague interpretation of the Spring and Autumn Annals,thereby proposing the historical understanding that“the aristocratic class is against propriety”.Historians after the Western Han Dynasty mostly inherited the historical perspective of the Gongyang Commentary.In their selection of evidence for historical writing,they extracted examples from the overall narrative of the Commentary of Zuo to validate the reasonableness of the Gongyang Commentary’s view that“the aristocratic class is against propriety”.Both the Commentary of Zuo and the Gongyang Commentary completed their writing on the aristocratic class based on their respective presupposed historical interpretations.These different writing methods not only reflect the differences in historical interpretation between ancient Chinese Confucian classics and historiography but also provide a perspective for understanding the epistemological differences in the formation paths of ancient Chinese Confucian classics and historiography.

关 键 词：《春秋》 《左传》 《公羊传》 世卿阶层 历史书写 历史解释 

分 类 号：K225.04[历史地理—历史学] D691.71[历史地理—中国史]