《左傳》“凡去其國”例楊伯峻注訂補

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 本文旨在探討《左傳》“凡去其國”一例，既嘗試釋讀凡例文字，結合出土簡 帛異文説明此例關涉的語言現象，也通過考察楊伯峻《春秋左傳注》的應用情 況，尤其是對杜預《注》、孔穎達《疏》的取捨，窺探《傳》例的來源及其解《經》的 效能。全文主體共分四個章節，包括：《左傳》“凡去其國”例釋義———兼從出 土文獻異文現象看《傳》例文字；楊伯峻“凡去其國”例總注辨證———兼駁安井 衡《傳》例文字訛誤説；從楊《注》對杜《注》孔《疏》引《傳》例解《經》的取捨看 其注釋策略；“史之書策，必有舊法”———據《傳》“凡去其國”例證“五十凡”實 有自來。杜預從《傳》例解《經》事，有根有據。於若干例外《經》文，杜説亦甚 通達，但有時過於執著，委曲牽合，難免招人詬病。楊伯峻注以舊注疏爲鑒，於 其説有取有捨，其注釋策略及説解《經》、《傳》之用心，無疑值得審視與借鏡。 楊注未爲“凡去其國”例文字釋義，以“凡去其國，復歸其位曰復歸”解《經》，實 有未安。凡杜《注》於例外説義，楊注均避而不談，有意擺脱前人束縛。安井衡 認爲，“凡去其國”例中“入”與“歸”二字爲誤换，論證粗疏，並不可取。純從文 字訓詁論，《傳》所見“入”“復入”“歸”“復歸”與“納”“復”“反”“還”，取義相 通，故每每互用。這種現象也出現在傳世與出土的各種《老子》版本中。古策 書法式應有如《傳》例的規條，後史或依或違。借鑒楊伯峻的實踐經驗，引《傳》例説《經》，須審慎行事，於兩者之相合處，固可據《傳》例並書法解讀《經》文義 理，於其不合處，不能一概而論，以免委曲牽合、膠柱鼓瑟。 Of the so-called “Fifty Outlines” (fan 凡)found in the Zuozhuan, one states that:: In all cases concerning princes or ministers who left their domains, if the leaders of their domains escorted them and established them, it is called ru ('enter ' . If their positions were restored after returning from abroad, it is called fu gui (' restoration return.' ) If princes of other domains installed them in power, it is called gui (' return '. If the princes or ministers returned by force and violence, it is called fu ru ( ' restoration enter. ' ” Based on a thorough and in-depth examination of Yang Bojun's commentary on this rule and its applications throughout the Chunqiu Zuozhuan zhu, this paper finds that Yang misused the short form of the fan, and that his equivocal gesture on Yasiu Sokken's suggestion of the misplacement of the keywords in the fan is completely unacceptable. A comparison of the keywords in this fan with different manuscripts of the Laozi shows that the terms ru, fu gui, gui, fu ru are synonymous and simply mean “return.” This paper also attempts to prove the authenticity of this fan by applying the norms to relevant historical events recorded in the Zuozhuan and hence explore some issues concerning its sources.