敘事、論說與徵引──論《左傳》《國語》的典故運用

Abstract

本文以先秦敘史文獻─《左傳》與《國語》─所載論說文辭中「徵引典故」的現象為主要探討論題，針對各類「典故」於《左》、《國》所載春秋時人論說中的徵引、應用等相關議題進行討論。 本文之第一章〈緒論〉先說明春秋時期之用典現象、論說風氣與敘史文獻三者的互涉及其衍伸出的各種相關學術議題，並說明本文研究之立場，乃嘗試運用先秦敘史文獻敘事詳明的體裁特色，企圖針對下述議題做出分析與詮釋：一、徵引典故的具體語境；二、典故本身在言論中的意義與效用；三、言說者徵引典故的意圖與觀念；四、敘事者的書寫觀點或立場對論說與徵引典故的影響；五、在上述基礎上，吾人應該如何看待徵引典故及其延伸出的各類學術議題。 本文之第二、三章以「典籍」為主，亦即論析《易》、《詩》、《書》在《左傳》、《國語》中徵引、運用的現象、特色與意義。指出春秋時人引用經典，並非墨守字句、講究訓詁，而是取合己意、應對時勢，而將自身話語與經典文句相互交融、辯證與闡發，以此達成明德、教化、尚友先賢之論述目的，並略論其對經典的態度與應用與戰國諸子可能的差異。第四、五章則討論各種「故事」、「史事」的徵引現象。分析各種徵引歷史事件的論說方式與應用情境，並比較《左傳》、《國語》二書載錄之異同，藉此釐清春秋時人對古史與近、當代史事的態度與詮釋傾向；同時也反思《左傳》、《國語》的敘事觀點、書籍性質對於史事剪裁取捨，乃至詮釋應用的異同。第六章〈結論〉則在上述對於「典」與「故」的論析基礎上，綜論其內涵與意義，並藉此進一步思索春秋戰國時期，隨著時代變遷、政局動盪，時人對於過往之典範如何接受、辯證，又如何建立、尋求切合時勢所須的新典範與新價值。最後希望呈現出《左傳》與《國語》除了作為春秋時期重要的歷史敘事文獻外，其所載錄的各種論說與語文現象，亦為吾人研究先秦學術風氣演變與各種相關延伸之文化、學術議題的重要參照。

This thesis analyzes the uses and interpretations of canons（典）and historical events（故）in ZuoZhuan and Guoyu. The first chapter discusses the background of the trend of quoting canons and historical events in argumentations during the Spring and Autumn period. Then the major part of this thesis is divided into two sections: the chapter two and three focus on the uses and interpretations of canons, which are Yi, Shi and Shu; whereas the chapter four and five are concerned with the historical events, which covered ancient kings, mythical stories, and the famed ancestors of Zhou dynasty, were told and might have been changed in different argumentations. The former section, firstly discusses on the different types of referencing canons in ZuoZhuan and Guoyu. Secondly, basing on aforementioned analyses, points out the remarkable features: （1） although people in the Spring and Autumn period had already shown respect to these canons, the text of Yi, Shi and Shu were still used and understood circumstantially and without fixed meaning. （2） The canons were not only used as a rhetorical method quoted in discourses, but also played an important role in the narrative in ZuoZhuan and Guoyu. Thirdly, it compares the accounts of canons in ZuoZhuan and Guoyu with Pre-Qin scholarly work which also references the same ones.The later section, which centers on historical events, firstly distinguishes out the different types, purposes and context in which the historical events were cited. Secondly, it analyzes how the historical events were modified and cater to the listeners’ background and needs. Also it discusses how the people’s conception of history and paragon were changed or even replaced with new ones in this turbulent period when the Zhou dynasty was declining. In the conclusion, through observing the variety of citing canons and historical events in argumetations, we can see how the values were gradually transformed from the Spring and Autumn period toward the Warring States period. Also we can see how the author（s） of ZuoZhuan and Guoyu orchestrated both the quotations, argumentations and historiography with an ingenious narrative, which made them the macrocosm of the Pre-Qin literature.