孔子“修《春秋经》”之说乃“乌有之谈”——二驳牛鸿恩先生之“驳议”  

The Idea That Confucius "Revised The Spring and Autumn Annals"Is Utopian——The Second Refutation of Mr. Liu Hongen's "Refutation

作　　者：姚曼波[1] 

机构地区：[1]江苏教育学院中文系,江苏南京210013

出　　处：《江苏教育学院学报（社会科学版）》2002年第4期73-77,共5页Journal of Jiangsu Institute of Education(Social Science)

摘　　要：牛鸿恩先生大作《厌弃〈春秋〉尊〈左传〉》 ,批驳笔者关于孔子作《左传》蓝本的观点 ,一口认定孔子“作《春秋》”是“修《春秋经》” ,说是“一经三传 ,都以为经为孔子所修 ,这是司马迁所已具备的观念”。这也是历代经生迂儒的传统习见。本文以一经三传的事实入手 ,证明“修《春秋经》”说 ,实乃“乌有之谈”。Mr. Niu Hongen's article Detesting The Spring and Autumn Annals but Adoring The Zuo Commentary( on The Spring and Autumn Annals) refuted the present writer's point of view that Confucius was the original writer of The Zuo Commentary, and asserted that by 'Confucius writing The Spring and Autumn Annals' is really meant 'Confucius Revising The Spring and Autumn Annals.' Niu's article also said 'The Annals and the three commentaries have all been revised by Confucius and that was the idea held by Sima Qian' This idea has been the traditional one held by all pedantic scholars of the past dynasties. Starting with the facts from the Annals and the three commentaries, this paper proves that the idea that Confucius 'revised The Spring and Autumn Annals' is actually Utopian.

关 键 词：孔子 《春秋经》 牛鸿恩 《春秋》 经学神话 《左传》 文学评论 

分 类 号：I206.2[文学—中国文学]