從《春秋》書「弒」論楊伯峻（1909-1992）書法觀

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.