陳壽之「尊魏」、「尊蜀」論題再議──以劉咸炘《三國志知意》的相關考辨切入

The Reconsideration of Political Ideologies of “Revering Shu Regime” and “Revering Wei Regime”in ChenShou’sWritings─Approaching with relative analysis of Liu XinXi’s Sanguozhizhiyi

後世往往過度同情東漢、季漢（蜀漢）政權，以至於指責陳壽未能「帝蜀」、「尊蜀」，又或者試圖袒護史家，進而以「讀者之意」認定《三國志》充滿了「大義」暗碼，此皆非篤論。《三國志知意》力辯前人之失，還《三國志》本真、得陳壽本旨，力主「帝魏」、「尊魏」之說，彰顯了譙周、陳壽的師徒關係，兩人皆屬於後世所稱的巴蜀學派。該學派於魏晉時期抱持著「尊上國」、「紓民患」乃「義當如是」的觀點，至於「邪正之辨」則非關注的重點。還藉具體例證指出：史家「別蜀于吳」、「尊蜀過吳」背後的主要動機，並非試圖陰予正統於故國，係屬站在曹魏政權的中原本位視野，分判出「偏方非我臣者」的蜀漢政權與「藩臣而叛」的孫吳政權。避免正統觀與道德同情、地域情結的混淆，孤鳴先發地掌握了史家之師承學派與歷史敘述的連結性，以及強調「承祚自晉人，後賢勿誣古。」以劉氏該書為基礎，檢視魏晉之際的著史實況，可以發現《三國志》偏向尊重西晉北人的立場，動機或不單純僅僅因政治壓力，同時包含了渴望晉人認同的企圖以及感念之情。

Posterity may over-sympathize the political powers of Eastern Han and ZiHan(Shu Han), so as to criticize Chen Shou’s inability to “crown Shu Regime” and failureto “revere Shu Regime”. Otherwise, readers may rationalize historian’s narratives, and further imply them by “readers’ purposes”, thus recognize Sanguozhi full of codes of “national right”. However, conclusions are undetermined. In Sanguozhizhiyi, Liu strongly refuted formers’ deficiencies, and advocated for “crowning Wei Regime” and “revering Wei Regime”. Liu signified that Chen Shou accepted academic inheritance from Qiao Zhou; also, they same belonged to the “Bashu School”, and emphasized in perspective of “righteous to do so” of Shu Regime’s “respecting the noble power” and” relieving the sufferers under the rule”, as for the “debate between the evil and the righteous legitimacy”, it’s not the main point school focusing on. They also specified the project through certain historical evidences to indicate that the primary motive behind the discourses claiming by historians such as “differing Shu Regime from Wu Regime” and “revering Shu Regime while blaming Wu Regime”, is not trying to subtly induce the legitimacy of the former government, but to stand on the Cao Wei-oriented perspective, and thus to differentiate Shu Regime (“the rebels remoted and disobedient ”) and Wu Regime (“the mutinied vassals”) from Wei’s central plains historical view. To avoid the ambiguities of political views (legitimacy) , ethical sympathies, and geographical paradoxes, Liu himself first apprehend the correlation between the historical narratives and the mentorship/academic community of former historians, and emphasize that “since we succeed to Jin Dynasty, don’t you later scholars blunder the ancestry.” Base on Liu’s book and inspect the actual historical writing situation during Wei-Jin period, we can observe that Sanguozhi tend to respect the stance of Northern people in Western Jin, and the motive may not simply direct by political pressures, but also include the pursuing of identification and the nostalgic emotion.