英文摘要
|
Chun Qiu's words toward demise means that a country had been destroyed and the nationality had been sonless. The conduct of demise can only be done by one without kindheartedness and justice, or he wouldn’t be hardhearted enough to do it. Therefore, no matter it was Huaxia that demised the country in Huaxia or that it was Barbarians, Chun Qiu mostly use straight words according to the incidents without conceal and avoidance. Confucius denounce them and that their sin would be impregnable. Zuo Zhuan elucidated the words and meanings in Chun Qiu through narating the history, namely, word connection and event arrangement, to form the narration method of detailed and abbreviated, emphasized and unstressed, different and same, circular and straight, obvious and obscure, unique and normal, and separated and combined to either enhance and glorify the aim of Chun Qiu or to replenish what Chun Qiu didn't mention about. While Chun Qiu use straight words to describe the demise of Huaxia, Zuo Zhuan usually narrated in a discussion form which it pointed out the sin that dukes' kingdom demised, especially the reason it succeed or faied, flourished or declined, or existed or demised, which can allow others to learn to carry on the country or to refer as reference. The paper will discuss five incidents of countries of Huaxia demised each other, we will see how powerful countries neglected the affection between them and other countries but only focusing on mergering them. Then, this paper will discuss five incidents of Di and Wu demised Huaxia and one incident of Huaxia demised Barbarians. These incedents all falls to powerful countries bully weak countries through exuses only wanting their lands. Zuo Zhuan explains the classics through history. When describing the two aspect of demising others and being demised, it often show both appraise and criticize. It emphasizes small objects and gradual and accumulation to make the method of dealing with things and managing stand out, which brought out history viewpoint that Zuo Zhuan referred to.
|
参考文献
|
-
張高評(2014)。《春秋》曲筆書滅與《左傳》屬辭比事—以史傳經與《春秋》書法。成大中文學報,45,1-62。
連結:
-
(1972).皇清經解.臺北:復興書局.
-
(1979).十三經注疏.臺北:藝文印書館.
-
(1983).文淵閣《四庫全書》本.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
(1970).通志堂經解.臺北:大通書局.
-
(2005).文津閣《四庫全書》本.北京:商務印書館.
-
(1970).通志堂經解.臺北:大通書局.
-
(2000).故宮珍本叢刊.海口:海南出版社.
-
(1968).皇清經解.臺北:藝文印書館.
-
(2002).續修四庫全書.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
(1966).四部叢刊續編.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
-
(1995).四庫全書存目叢書.臺南:莊嚴文化公司.
-
(1965).皇清經解續編.臺北:藝文印書館.
-
(宋)呂祖謙(1973).東萊博議.臺北:廣文書局.
-
(宋)李昉(勑編)(1992).太平御覽.北京:中華書局.
-
(宋)黎靖德(編),王星賢(點校)(1986).朱子語類.北京:中華書局.
-
(宋)蘇軾,孔凡禮(點校)(1986).蘇軾文集.北京:中華書局.
-
(明)陳禹謨(1956).左氏兵略.臺北:武學書局.
-
(唐)陸淳(1970).春秋集傳纂例.臺北:大通書局.
-
(清)王源(1979).左傳評.臺北:新文豐出版公司.
-
(清)全祖望,朱鑄禹(彙校集注)(2000).全祖望集彙校集注.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
(清)姜炳璋(1968).讀左補義.臺北:文海出版社.
-
(清)馬國翰(輯)(2004).玉函山房輯佚書.揚州:廣陵書社.
-
(清)馬驌,徐連城(校點)(1992).左傳事緯.濟南:齊魯書社.
-
(清)高士奇(1980).左傳紀事本末.臺北:里仁書局.
-
(清)章學誠(1980).文史通義.臺北:華世出版社.
-
(清)劉沅:《春秋恆解》,同治壬申重刊玉成堂藏版,日本國立大阪大學懷德堂藏書。
-
(清)顧炎武,(清)黃汝成(集釋),欒保群(點校),呂宗力(點校)(2006).日知錄集釋.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
(漢)司馬遷,瀧川資言(考證)(1993).史記會注考證.臺北:萬卷樓圖書公司.
-
(漢)董仲舒,(清)蘇輿(注)(1975).春秋繁露義證.臺北:河洛圖書出版社.
-
(戰國)孟軻,(清)焦循(疏),沈文倬(點校)(1987).孟子正義.北京:中華書局.
-
安井衡(1979).左傳輯釋.臺北:廣文書局.
-
竹添光鴻(2008).左氏會箋.成都:巴蜀書社.
-
阮元(刊)(1955).十三經注疏.臺北:藝文印書館.
-
張其淦(1988).左傳禮說.臺北:新文豐出版公司.
-
張高評(2016)。比事屬辭與明清《春秋》詮釋學。經學研究集刊,20,17-52。
-
張高評(2018)。《春秋》直筆書滅與《左傳》以史傳經—以楚滅華夏為例。漢籍與漢學,2
-
張高評(2015)。朱熹之《春秋》觀—據實直書與朱子之徵實精神。第八屆中國經學國際學術研討會論文選集
-
張高評(2016).比事屬辭與古文義法—方苞「經術兼文章」考論.臺北:新文豐出版公司.
-
張高評(2016)。比屬觀義與宋元《春秋》詮釋學。經學文獻研究集刊,15,81-114。
-
許倬雲(2009).我者與他者:中國歷史上的內外分際.香港:中文大學出版社.
-
童書業(1983).春秋左傳研究.上海:上海人民出版社.
-
楊樹達(2007).春秋大義述.上海:上海古籍出版社.
-
劉伯驥(1962).春秋會盟政治.臺北:中華叢書編審委員會.
-
錢杭(1991).周代宗法制度研究.上海:學林出版社.
-
錢鍾書(1979).管錐編.北京:中華書局.
-
韓席籌(編註)(1975).左傳分國集註.臺北:華世出版社.
|