父子君臣——春秋三傳與宋代理學家對蒯聵、衛輒評論之比較

Discussion of an Ethical Choice: A Comparison between Three Commentaries on the Chunqiu and Song Dynasty Neo-Confucianist Interpretations

《春秋》學的重要特質之一是「即事見義」，所以歷來儒者也都透過對《春秋》中各個事件的評論，用以展現不同的價值論述。在《春秋》定公與哀公年間記有衛國蒯聵及輒父子爭國一事，其中不但涉及了「王父命」與「父命」的衝突，而且孔子與子路兩人也都親見其事。本文首先爬梳三傳及相關學者對此事的描述及評論，論述問題的起源，統述三傳在事、義兩方面的看法。繼而整理宋代程頤、楊時、謝湜、胡安國、高閌、朱熹及張洽等人對於此事的評判，說明宋代理學家對於此事的共見與歧說。由此進一步對比三傳及宋代理學家的看法，用以說明學術發展的軌跡，並對《春秋》學的方法及宋代理學家的解經特色做一歸納反省。

One of the special qualities of traditional Chunqiu 春秋 scholarship is its goal of finding the meaning of historical events. Confucian scholars down the ages have expressed their values through written commentaries on the historical events recorded in the Chunqiu. The Chunqiu records that during the reigns of Duke Ding 定公 and Duke Ai 哀公, Kuai Kui 蒯聵 and his son Wei Zhe 衛輒 vied with each other to become the king of Wei 衛. Confucius and his student Zi Lu 子路 were both witness to this power struggle, which is one that involved a clash of two ethical principles: loyalty to the family and loyalty to the state. This article begins by summarizing the three main commentaries on this incident, discussing the origins of the problem, and gathering together the three views on the incident and its meaning. Next, this article explores the opinions of a variety of Song dynasty scholars, identifying the commonalities and differences in the views of Neo-Confucians on the incident. This article then contrasts the views of the three early commentaries with those of the Song Neo-Confucians. This allows us to see the trajectory of academic development and reflect on the particular qualities of traditional Chunqiu 春秋scholarship and Song Neo-Confucian interpretation of the classics.