漢晉時代《左傳》的附益與編修

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 《左傳》原爲魯史官左氏所撰，今本《左傳》是後世重新編纂、附益後的結果。左氏原作非注經文獻，後人將《春秋》中一些簡短記載抄入《左傳》並撰寫了解經語，“五十凡”與解經語性質近似，同爲後人附益成分。“徵兆—應驗—議論—結盟”是左氏原作的基本叙事邏輯，以“君子曰”爲標誌的時人議論體現了左氏解釋歷史和建構道德的書寫衝動。《左傳》的原初撰寫完成于戰國中期，是帶有原史精神的個人著述。漢晉之際原史文化主導的文獻書寫早已停滯，附益和編纂行爲源於對政治話語權的爭奪，因此，編纂者增益了左氏原作的事件，還對原作的結構和叙事策略做了旨在與《春秋》經“比其類義”的調整，至此完成了《左傳》從私人著述向公共話語資源的轉化。對《左傳》原本的附益與編修，不僅體現了漢晉經學博士對左氏史職的規訓，也凸顯出脱離宗教傳統、旨在知識建構的歷史書寫對原史職事的隔膜。 The Zuozhuan (Zuo Commentaries [on Annals of The Spring and Autumn Period]) was first compiled by a certain historian of the State of Lu named Zuo, but the edition we now have was a product of augmentation and re-compilation done by some other hands after Zuo. The Zuozhuan was not meant to serve as a “commentary” on the classics when it was first written. Later, some scholars incorporated some brief accounts from the Chunqiu (Annals of the Spring and Autumn Period) and wrote some exegetic notes on this classic. The “Fifty Rubrics,” which were quite similar to these notes on the classics, were likewise new components augmented by a later hand. The basic structure of Zuo’s narratives may be summed up as a flow, which starts with “an omen” to its “fulfilment” and “comments” by people and, finally, to “alliance” of states. The rubric of “the gentleman said” is a means by which the author brought in the comments made by people of the time; it serves to reflect Zuo’s views of history, moral values, and the motive behind writing. The Zuozhuan was first finished in the middle of the Warring States Period. It was meant to be a primary history by an individual. However, during the period of Han to Jin, the writing of culture powered by this kind of spirit ceased. Instead, the struggle for political discourse triggered the acts of augmentation and re-compilation of historical writings. As such, these later compilers added some events to the original Zuozhuan. In addition, they made changes to the structure and narrative strategy of the original book, in an attempt to match up the relevant parts in the Chunqiu. Then, the Zuozhuan completed its transformation from being a private historiographic work to becoming a public discourse resource. The augmentation and re-compilation of the Zuozhuan not only reflect the attitude of the scholars of Confucian classics of Han to Jin times towards Zuo’s historiographic principles, but also highlight the extent of how the historiography of the time, which had been divorced from religious tradition and committed to knowledge structure, became alienated from the mission of a historian of basic primary history.