Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 從《春秋》書「弒」論楊伯峻(1909-1992)書法觀
Other Titles: A Research on Yang Bo-Jun’s Study of Spring and Autumn Annals
Authors: 宋惠如
Issue Date: Sep-2013
Publisher: 國文系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract: 1949 年以來,大陸學者對《春秋》學的關注集中在古史論域,其中楊伯峻重新整注《左傳》,以大量出土文獻資料佐證其記述之可信,從史學角度實證其現代價值。他也嘗試在《春秋左傳注.前言》回應傳統《春秋》學議題,特別是書法問題。論及書法,楊氏多以《春秋》書「弒」舉述,不接受傳統以《春秋》具有來自孔子書法的觀點,也不認為書法有特別的含義,而主張《春秋》皆錄自魯史,書法為史官之遺,更就此而言《左傳》價值高於《春秋》。然而楊氏觀點與其注釋《左傳》論及《春秋》書「弒」時的說法並不一致。本文試從一、比較周秦古籍書「殺」、「弒」,說明《春秋》書「弒」有其不同於其他典籍的嚴格用法;二、說明《春秋》書「弒」有其深責於君的判斷標準;三、從《春秋》書法異於時史、諱書與《左傳》相關書法說等,說明《春秋》書法價值來源得自孔子的可能性,以說明楊伯峻從史學視域論述《春秋》與《左傳》,並不足以推翻傳統對孔子與《春秋》、書法的關聯。
This thesis explores the confusion issues of Yang Bo-jun to research Chun-Qiu Zuo-Zhuan. Yang illustrated Zuo-Zhuan was believable by examples at the preface of his book, and declared the author of Chun-Qin was not Confucius but Luguo(魯國) historian. Nevertheless, Zuo-Zhuan not only explained the meaning of Chun-Qin but also indicated the author of Chun-Qin was Confucius. By exploring Chun-Qiu’s description of the events of murdering monarch, and comparing rules for writing between Chun-Qiu and the Classics in the ancient Zhou(周) dynasty , this thesis explains Yang’s preface disaccorded with the content of his book and his wrong concept of Chun-Qin’s author.
Other Identifiers: 58275B79-FBB6-6199-7A0E-D94090C6FBB9
Appears in Collections:中國學術年刊

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
ntnulib_ja_B0101_3502_081.pdf740.13 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.