從衞侯出奔齊看《春秋》書法 : 以楊伯峻說為討論中心

據孟子所言，《春秋》乃孔子以魯史“春秋”爲底本，參酌百國“春秋”，修訂而成，其書法寄寓孔子的“微言大義”，在褒貶中呈現了聖人的思想和見解。《左傳》有兩處記載“未修春秋”，分別見於宋華耦及衛甯殖之言。甯殖說：“吾得罪於君，名在諸侯之策曰：‘孫林父、甯殖出其君’。”是知諸侯史策皆書曰“孫林父、甯殖出其君“，而《春秋》則書“衛侯出奔齊”，兩文迥異。古今論者大多認定後文出於孔子所修，此說自杜預創始，得到唐宋後儒的推衍，具有清晰的傳承脈絡，成爲解讀“衛獻公出奔齊”的主流意見。楊伯峻獨排衆議，不信孟子說，倡言孔子不修《春秋》。楊先生認爲史策本書“孫林父、甯殖出其君”，《春秋》作“衛侯出奔齊”，是由於甯喜使衛侯復位更改史文的緣故。楊說出於臆測，裁斷無稽，翻案乏力，不可信據。

Mencius claimed that Confucius compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals and attached moral judgements to it. Scholars generally believe that the entry in the Annals for the fourteenth year of Duke Xiang (559 BCE) ＂the Marquis of Wei fled to Qi,＂ which differs from what the Zuozhuan recorded as ＂Sun Linfu and Ning Zhi drove their ruler into exile,＂ attested that the Annals in its present form should be ascribed to Confucius. Examining the related narratives in the Zuozhuan together with exegeses offered by scholars, this paper attempts to develop an account of the difference between the above-mentioned records and argues that Yang Bojun (1909-92) in his commentary makes a bold effort to overturn the traditional understanding.