【閱前提醒】本篇專欄的外語原文部分出自蘇格蘭經(jīng)學家理雅各所著的《The Chinese Classics》。理雅各先生出生于1815年（清嘉慶二十年），一生致力于中西方文化的交流，其最重要的成果就是詳盡譯釋了種花家傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)典。由于理雅各先生的本職是傳教士，因此其譯作非常注重釋經(jīng)（不少傳教士譯者都有這種職業(yè)習慣，例如傳教士柯大衛(wèi)翻譯的《論語》也是注重釋經(jīng)），這種緊抓釋經(jīng)權(quán)的翻譯模式至今仍是獨一份。不過由于理雅各的譯作卷帙浩繁，因此目前人們常常刪去釋經(jīng)只取譯文。但我感覺此書的釋經(jīng)部分才是精華，直接丟棄實在是有些買櫝還珠了。因此就計劃用業(yè)余時間對理雅各的譯作原文進行整理上傳。當然此書規(guī)模實在龐大，以我的業(yè)余精力和水平，只能是能整理多少算多少，能整理成什么樣算什么樣。?

一、隱公元年

01.01.01、元年春王正月。

01.01.02、三月，公及邾儀父盟于蔑。

01.01.03、夏五月，鄭伯克段于鄢。

01.01.04、秋七月，天王使宰咺來歸惠公、仲子之赗。

01.01.05、九月，及宋人盟于宿。

01.01.06、冬十有二月，祭伯來。

01.01.07、公子益師卒。

二、BOOKⅠ. DUKE YIN. 01. FIRST YEAR.

01.01.01、[It was his] first year, the spring, the king’s first month.

01.01.02、In the third month, the duke and E-foo?of Choo（Yifu of Zhu）made a covenant in Meeh（Mie）.

01.01.03、In summer, in the fifth month, the earl of Ch'ing（Zheng）overcame Twan（Duan）in Ye（Yan）.

01.01.04、In autumn, in the seventh month, the king [by] Heaven’s [grace] sent the [sub-]administrator Heuen（Xuan）with a present of [two] carriages and their horses for the funerals of duke Hwuy（Hui）and [his wife] Chung?Tsze（Zhong Zi）.

01.01.05、In the ninth month, [the duke] and an officer of Sung（Song）made a covenant in Suh（Su）.

01.01.06、In winter, in the twelfth month, the earl of Chae（Zhai）came [to Loo（Lu）].

01.01.07、King-tsze（Gongzi）Yih-sze（Yishi）died.

三、春秋釋經(jīng)

01.01.01、元年春王正月。

[It was his] first year, the spring, the king’s first month.

（一）山話嵓語

1）引子——蹊蹺的元年記載

????????左氏、公羊、榖梁都對春秋的第一條記載進行了大量解讀。原因就是這一條記載中出現(xiàn)了一個十分蹊蹺的狀況，即為什么《春秋》的魯隱公元年沒有記載隱公繼位之事。

? ? ? ? ——左氏認為這是由于魯隱公并不是繼位，而只是暫攝魯桓之位，所以不算繼位，故不記。

????????——公羊認為這是成全魯隱公后來讓位給魯恒公的美德，故不記。以此彰顯其義，并防止普通人以隱公繼位之事為依據(jù)錯誤否定“立嫡”原則擾亂綱常。

????????——榖梁認為這是成全魯隱公后來讓位給魯恒公的心意，故不記。但這不是美德，魯隱為了完成父親立桓公的心愿，就將國家和君位讓給成事不足敗事有余的魯桓，這是小惠而不是大義。

2）前因——仲子宮斗小記

????? ? 那魯隱公的這次繼位為什么會出現(xiàn)這么復(fù)雜的情況呢？左氏為我們還原了魯隱公攝位之事的前因，此事源于魯隱之父魯惠公后宮中的一場宮斗：

????????——魯惠公原配正宮夫人是孟子，但孟子無子，而孟子早亡，之后正宮空懸，那么一場宮斗也就順理成章并在所難免了！此處孟子不是亞圣之姓的孟，而是孟仲叔季的孟，即其在后宮中的排序，即第一個正宮夫人。

????????——魯惠公續(xù)弦聲子，聲子生魯隱公，按資歷，聲子本應(yīng)為新夫人，但不承想聲子宮斗失敗，未能成為正宮夫人，導(dǎo)致魯隱公只是庶長子，地位較低。聲子應(yīng)該是陪嫁孟子的娣或姪，聲為謚號，聲子死時，其子隱公在位，故可為母加謚。

????????——晚年的魯惠公迎娶了宋武公的嫡女仲子，仲子生魯桓公，而宋仲子宮斗勝利，后來居上，成為新正宮夫人，因此魯桓公成為嫡長子，是繼承人中順位最高的。同“孟子”，仲子表示此女是魯惠公的第二個正宮夫人。

? ? ? ? 依周禮，魯國應(yīng)該由嫡長子魯桓公繼位，但魯桓公剛出生魯惠公就死了，魯桓公此時估計還沒斷奶，根本不可能處理朝政，甚至連被垂簾親政的能力都沒有，所以經(jīng)過公室商議，先由魯隱公繼位，等到魯桓成年后再還政給魯桓公。左氏以此為憑，認為此魯隱公只是攝位，以此解釋春秋不記魯隱登基之事。

3）揭秘——仲子宮斗秘訣

????????左氏認為仲子之所以能宮斗勝利，是因為其有兩大優(yōu)勢：一則，仲子的母族乃是大國宋，并且其是宋武公的嫡女，地位尊崇；二則，仲子的手掌紋上有“為魯夫人”四字，此乃天命所歸之兆。有此兩條，方使仲子宮斗獲勝成功上位。

????????但我們吃瓜群眾就比較八卦了，認為仲子宮斗成功的原因除了上面說的兩條以外，還有更重要的三點：①仲子比聲子年輕得多；②仲子很漂亮；③衛(wèi)惠公很好色。

????????——左氏記載仲子剛生下魯桓公不久，魯惠公就死了；而根據(jù)太史公記載，魯惠公光執(zhí)政就執(zhí)政了46年，也就是說仲子是在魯惠公晚年才嫁過來的，而此時魯惠公至少已經(jīng)五六十歲了，但仲子卻剛剛成年，而此時其宮斗之敵聲子已經(jīng)連兒子魯隱公都成年了，可見此時的仲子要比聲子年輕得多的多。

????????——仲子和魯惠公的年紀差少說也有三四十歲，但魯惠公依然硬要娶仲子，仲子要是不漂亮，怎么可能這個老不羞如此不顧廉恥。而最后魯惠公還能在自己五六十歲的時候成功播種，那除了衛(wèi)惠公身體底子不錯外，另一個重要因素應(yīng)該就是仲子很漂亮。

? ? ? ? ——仲子的掌紋僅僅是“為魯夫人”，也就是說，她只是命中注定要做魯國的夫人，但老天并沒有寫明一定是做魯惠公的夫人，魯隱公也可以??！如果不是魯惠公太好色，其應(yīng)該將仲子嫁給長子魯隱公，而不是自己一個已經(jīng)五六十歲都能當人家小姑娘爺爺?shù)娜嗽谶@里老當益壯。

? ? ? ? ——左傳還是遮掩了一下，太史公直接說，魯惠公就是扒灰，即仲子本來是嫁給魯隱公的，結(jié)果太漂亮，引得魯惠公扒灰截胡。太史公的說法比較可信，因為掌紋的緣故，宋肯定是要與魯國聯(lián)姻，但正值壯年的魯惠公怎么會對一個嬰兒產(chǎn)生欲望，正?？隙ㄊ墙o儲君兒子定親，這亦能應(yīng)“為魯夫人”之讖，只是女大十八變后，呵呵……

????????對于好色如命的魯惠公來說，一方是青春不再的昨日黃花；而另一方是年輕美貌青春靚麗的可愛嬌妻。那這場宮斗的結(jié)果還用猜嗎？

4）后果——從隱桓之亂到三桓亂魯

????????由于魯惠公的這次老當益壯，直接引出了之后的隱桓之亂——魯隱公賢而有德，因此政績很好，使魯國國力蒸蒸日上，但這卻引起了魯桓公的忌憚，其以小人之心度君子之腹，認為魯隱公肯定不愿還政，遂勾結(jié)權(quán)臣羽父弒殺了正在準備還政的魯隱公，篡權(quán)奪位。

????????而隱桓之亂造成魯桓公得國不正，導(dǎo)致魯桓公不得不迎娶聲名狼藉的文姜以獲取齊國的大力支持，要知道文姜當時的名聲已經(jīng)臭到連鄭國的一個世子都堅決不娶的地步，也就是成語“齊大非偶”的典故由來。

????????魯桓娶文姜，是一場極為骯臟的政治交易，魯桓迎娶聲名狼藉的文姜，而作為交換，老丈人齊僖公則竟然頂著全天下的罵名，親自送嫁到魯，以給自己這個乖女婿強勢站臺。而魯桓靠著老丈人的鼎力相助，終于消弭了弒君引起的反噬，坐穩(wěn)了君位。但，代價呢？十六年后，妻子文姜勾結(jié)大舅哥兼德骨奸夫刺殺掉了魯桓。

????????魯桓死后，其子莊公繼位，文姜與德骨奸夫齊襄公順勢又逼迫魯桓的兒子魯莊公拋妻棄子以迎娶齊襄的閨女，即魯莊的表妹哀姜，結(jié)果婚后哀姜勾搭小叔子慶父，又引出了慶父之亂，而等到魯國好不容易熬過了慶父之亂，新君抬頭一看，驚悚的發(fā)現(xiàn)此時魯侯嫡系勢力已經(jīng)嚴重衰弱，而魯桓三個庶子的家族卻已經(jīng)尾大不掉。

? ? ? ? 新君為了保命，不得不妥協(xié)分封這三大家族，而由于這三大家族的家祖都是魯桓的庶子，因此被合稱為“三桓”，沒錯，正是孔圣一生的夢魘——魯國三桓。魯國國政至此逐漸由三桓把持，而這個曾經(jīng)的東土大國周禮之邦至此便逐漸淪為諸侯爭霸的背景板。

????????孔子作《春秋》的一大主線任務(wù)，就是探究自己一生的夢魘——三桓——的發(fā)展歷程。而歸根結(jié)底，魯國的衰落，三桓的誕生，就始于魯惠公的這次老當益壯。故有觀點認為《春秋》以魯隱元年起首，《左傳》以魯惠宮斗起首，皆暗指三桓之興魯國之衰皆源于魯惠這場荒唐的婚姻和傳位。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????惠公元妃孟子。孟子卒，繼室以聲子，生隱公。

? ? ? ? 宋武公生仲子。仲子生而有文在其手，曰為魯夫人，故仲子歸于我。生桓公而惠公薨，是以隱公立而奉之。

? ? ? ? 元年春王周正月。不書即位，攝也。

2）公羊傳

????????元年者何？君之始年也。

????????春者何？歲之始也。

????????王者孰謂？謂文王也。

????????曷為先言王，而后言正月？王正月也。

????????何言乎王正月？大一統(tǒng)也。

????????公何以不言即位？成公意也。

????????何成乎公之意？公將平國而反之桓。

????????曷為反之桓？桓幼而貴，隱長而卑。其為尊卑也微，國人莫知，隱長又賢，諸大夫扳隱而立之，隱于是焉而辭立，則未知桓之將必得立也；且如桓立，則恐諸大夫之不能相幼君也，故凡隱之立，為桓立也。

????????隱長又賢，何以不宜立？立適以長不以賢，立子以貴不以長。

????????桓何以貴？母貴也。

????????母貴則子何以貴？子以母貴。母以子貴。

3）榖梁傳

????????雖無事，必舉正月，謹始也。

????????公何以不言即位？成公志也。

????????焉成之？言君之不取為公也。

????????君之不取為公，何也？將以讓桓也。

????????讓桓正乎？曰，不正。

????????《春秋》成人之美，不成人之惡。隱不正而成之，何也？將以惡桓也。

????????其惡桓何也？隱將讓而桓弒之，則桓惡矣。

????????桓弒而隱讓，則隱善矣。善則其不正焉，何也？《春秋》貴義而不貴惠，信道而不信邪。孝子揚父之美，不揚父之惡。先君之欲與桓，非正也，邪也。雖然，既勝其邪心以與隱矣。已探先君之邪志而遂以與桓，則是成父之惡也。兄弟，天倫也。為子受之父，為諸侯受之君。已廢天倫而忘君父，以行小惠，曰小道也。若隱者，可謂輕千乘之國，蹈道則未也。

（三）理雅各釋

1）缺失的繼位記錄

Par.1.This paragraph, it will be seen, is incomplete, the adjunct merely of a 公即位〖山注||? 此處是說，正常情況應(yīng)該有“公即位”三個字〗，which is found at the beginning of nearly every other book. The reason of the incompleteness will be considered below.

2）有意思的歷法“建首”

元 年，-'the 1st year.' The Urh-ya〖山注||《爾雅》〗explains 元 by 始 'the beginning,' 'first,’ and Kung-yang〖山注||??公羊〗 makes the phrase simply ＝君之始年，'the prince's 1st year.' Too Yu〖山注||? 杜預(yù)〗 tries to find a deeper meaning in the phrase, saying that the 1st year of a rule stands to all the following years in the relation of the original chaos to the subsequent kosmos, and is therefore called yuen, to intimate to rulers that from the first moment of their sway they are to advance in the path of order and right. This consideration explains also, he thinks, the use of 正月，‘the right month’for‘the 1st month (凡人君即位，欲其體元以居正，故不言一年一月也),'?The Urh-ya, however, gives 正 as = 長，“the most elevated,' 'the senior’ But in the denomination of the 1st month as ‘the right or correct month,’we must acknowledge a recognition of what are called ‘the three ching(三正),'-the?three different months, with which the dynasties of H?a, Shang, and Chow〖山注||? 夏商周〗 commenced the year. H?a began the year with the 1st month of spring; Shang, a month, and Chow, 2 months earlier. 〖山注||??此處是指的夏商周歷法建首的區(qū)別，周人以十二地支命名十二月，故建首在子；商歷建首在丑；夏歷建首在寅，而寅月是春季第一個月，因此我們?nèi)缃袷褂玫淖辖饸v是夏歷〗It became so much a rule for the beginning of the year to be changed by every new dynasty, that Ts‘in made its f?irt month commence a lunation before that of Chow. 〖山注||? 此處是說秦建首在亥，比周之首還早一個月〗To a remark of Confucius, Ana. XV.x., we are indebted for the disuse of this foolish custom, so that all dynasties have since used ‘the seasons of H?a’一After all, there remains the question why the first month of the year should be called ching (正).〖山注||? 這一段是關(guān)于夏商周秦歷法建首的規(guī)律，建首指的是確定一年的首月，夏商周秦確立歷法時，都會比前朝提前一個月，所以，夏歷建首在寅，商歷建首在丑，周歷建首在子，秦歷建首在亥，但由于秦首亥月還是初冬，過于反直覺，連緊隨秦制的漢都受不了，因此之后很快廢除了秦首，如今我們使用的紫金歷是夏歷，建首在寅。〗

3）王正月

王正月，一“the king's first month’ The ‘king’here can hardly be any other than P‘ing〖山注||? 周平王，東周開國之君，原為西周幽王之子，后為奪權(quán)勾結(jié)戎夷弒殺幽王，至此西周滅亡，后東遷洛邑，建國東周〗, the king of Chow for the time then being, as Too Yu says;一and in this sty?e does the account of very many of the years of the Ch'un Ts'?w〖山注||? 春秋〗 begin,as if to do homage to the supremacy of the reigning House. Kung-yang〖山注||??公羊〗 makes the king to be W?n〖山注||? 周文王，西周武王之父，原為商之西方伯，后其子武王滅商，追封其為文王。今有出土甲骨，認為文王生前已稱王，此處不詳述〗; but though he was the founder of the Chow dynasty, the commence?nent of the year was not yet changed in his time.

4）周歷的春天

The remaining character in this par. occasions the foreign student considerable perplexity. The commencement of the year was really in the 2d month of winter, and yet it is here said to have been in the spring. -春王正月. We have spring when it really was not spring. It must be kept in mind that the usual names for the seasons-春，夏，秋，冬，only denote in the Ch'un Ts'?w〖山注||??春秋〗the four quarters of the Chow year, beginning with the 2d month of winter. ít was, no doubt, a perception of the inconvenience of such a calendar which made Confucius, loyal as he was to the dynasty of Chow, say that he preferred that of H?a to it. Strange as it is to read of spring, when the time is really winter, and of winter when the season is still autumn, it will appear, as we go on, that such is really the style of the Ch'un Ts‘?w. Maou, fully admitting all this, yet contends for a strange interpretation of the text, in which he joins 春 and 王?together, making the phrase to stand for the kings of Chow,一“Spring kings,’ who reigned by the virtue of wood, the first of the five elements(五行之首). He presses, in support of this view, the words of Tso-she on this paragraph,-元年春王周正月， which show, he aays, that Tso-she joined 春 with 王，as he himself would do; but Tso-she's language need not be so construed, and 春?evidently stands by itself, just as the names of the other seasons do.〖山注||? 周歷的春正月是夏歷的冬十一月，也就是說，此時并不是現(xiàn)實中的春天，因此孔夫子雖尊周禮，但反而喜歡夏歷?！?/span>

5）缺失的“公即位”

We come now to the incompleteness of the par., already pointed out. According to the analogy of the style in the first years of other dukes, it should be stated that in his 1st year and the 1st month of it, the duke took the place (即位) of his predecessor. According to the rule of Chow, on the death of a sovereign—and all the princes were little kings in their several States —his successor, acknowledged to be such as the chief mourner on the occasion and taking the direction of the proper ceremonies for the departed,'ascended the throne by the bier.’ There is an interesting account of such an accession in the Shoo, V.xxii〖山注||《尚書·周書·顧命》〗. The thing was done so hurriedly because‘the State could not be a single day without a sovereign (國家不可一日無君); or because, as we phrase it,“the king never dies: What remained of the year, however, was held to belong to the reign of the deceased king, and the new reign began with the beginning of the next year, when there was a more public taking of the place,’ though I do not know that we have any accouut of the ceremonies which were then performed. The first ‘place-taking’ was equivalent to our ‘a(chǎn)ccession;'?the second, to our 'coronation.’ The proper explanation, therefore, of the incompleteness of the paragraph is that Yin omitted the ordinary 'place-taking’ ceremonies, and of course there could be no record of them. Perhaps he made the omission, having it in mind to resign ere long in favour of his younger brother (so, Tso-she); but to say that the usual 公即位 was here omitted by Confucius, either to show his approval or disapproval of Yin, as Kuh-l?ang does, followed by Hoo Gan-kwoh (胡安國，A.D.1,074一1,138) and a hundred other commentators, is not to explain the text, but to perplex the reader with vain fancies.

6）理雅各譯公羊傳

The Chuen of Kung-yang says:—?〖山注||? 譯文位置在原書AppendixⅠ-?speciments of the commentaries of Kung-yang and Kuh-leang〗

What is meant by 元年？ The first year of the ruler.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——元年者何？君之始年也?！?/span>

What is meant by 春 (spring)? The first season of the year.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——春者何？歲之始也。〗

What is meant by 王(the king)?It means king W?n.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——王者孰謂？謂文王也?！?/span>

Why does [the text] first give “king,” and then “first month?” [To show that] it was the king's first month.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——曷為先言王而后言正月？王正月也。〗

Why does it [so] mention the king's first month ??To magnify the union of the kingdom [under the dynasty of Chow].〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——何言乎王正月？大一統(tǒng)也?！?/span>

Why is it not said that the duke came to the [vacant] seat ? To give full expression to the duke's mind.?〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——公何以不言即位？成公意也?！?/span>

In what way does it give full expression to the duke's mind? The duke intended to bring the State to order, and then restore it to Hwan.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——何成乎公之意？公將平國而反之桓?！?/span>

What is meant by restoring it to Hwan?Hwan was younger, but nobler [than the duke by birth]; Yin was grown up, but lower [than Hwan by birth]. The difference between them in these respects, however, was small, and the people of the State did not know [their father's intention about the succession]. Yin being grown up and a man of worth, the great officers insisted on his being made marquis. If he had refused to be made so, he did not know for certain that Hwan would be raised to the dignity; and supposing that he were raised to it, he was afraid that the great officers might not give their assistance to so young a ruler. Therefore the whole transaction of Yin's elevation was with a view [in his mind] to the elevation of Hwan.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——曷為反之桓？桓幼而貴，隱長而卑，其為尊卑也微，國人莫知。隱長又賢，諸大夫扳隱而立之。隱于是焉而辭立，則未知桓之將必得立也。且如桓立，則恐諸大夫之不能相幼君也，故凡隱之立為桓立也?！?/span>

But since Yin was grown up and a man of worth, why was it not proper that he should be made marquis?Among the sons of the wife proper, the succession devolved on the eldest, and not on the worthiest and ablest. Among a ruler's sons by other ladies of his harem, the succession devolved on the noblest, and not on the eldest.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——隱長又賢，何以不宜立？立適以長不以賢，立子以貴不以長。〗

In what respect was Hwan nobler [in rank] than Yin?His mother was of higher position [than Yin's mother].〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——桓何以貴？母貴也?！?/span>

Though the mother was nobler, why should the son be [also] nobler? A son was held to share in the nobility of his mother; and a mother shared in the [subsequent] nobility of her son.〖山錄||《公羊傳·隱公元年》——母貴則子何以貴？子以母貴，母以子貴。〗

7）理雅各譯榖梁傳

The Chuen of Kuh-l?ang says:—〖山注||??譯文位置在原書AppendixⅠ-?speciments of the commentaries of Kung-yang and Kuh-leang〗

Although there was nothing to be recorded [under the first month], it was necessary to specify it;一its being the commencement [of the rule] required this attention to be paid to it.〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——雖無事，必舉正月，謹始也。〗

Why is it not said that the duke came to the [vacant] seat? To give full expression to the duke's mind.〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——公何以不言即位？成公志也。〗

In what way does this give full expression to the duke's mind? It tells that Yin did not himself care to be duke.〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——焉成之？言君之不取為公也。〗

What is meant by saying that he did not himself care to be duke? That he intended to resign the marquisate to Hwan.〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——君之不取為公，何也？將以讓桓也。〗

Was it correct in [to~wish] to resign it to Hwan ?It was not correct.?〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——讓桓正乎？曰：不正?！?/span>

The Ch‘un Ts'?w gives full expression? to men's excellent qualities, but does not do so to their evil;一why should it give such expression to [the intention of] Yin which was not correct?With a view to show detestation of Hwan.〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——《春秋》成人之美，不成人之惡。隱不正而成之，何也？將以惡桓也。〗

How does that detestation of Hwan appear??Yin intended to resign in his favour, and yet Hwan murdered him;一showing Hwan's wickedness. Hwan murdered him, and yet Yin would have resigned in his favour;—showing Yin's goodness.〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——其惡桓，何也？隱將讓而桓弒之，則桓惡矣；桓弒而隱讓，則隱善矣?！?/span>

If Yin was thus good, why do you say that he was not correct??In the Ch'un Ts'?w,what is righteous is held to be noble, and not what is [merely] kind. It would lead forward in the [straight] path, and not in the crooked. A filial son tries to display the excellent qualities of his father, and not the evil ones. The father was not correct, but perverse, in seeking to give the State to Hwan. Notwithstanding, he overcame this perversity of mind, and the State was given [at last] to Yin; but Yin had fathomed the purpose of their father, and thereon would have given the State to Hwan;一carrying out their father's wickedness. That there should be elder brother and younger brother is in the order of Heaven. A man receives his sonship from his father; and a feudal prince receives his rank from the king. To disannul the order of Heaven, and forget his ruler and father in order to do a small kindness, is what is called walking in a small path. Iooking at Yin, we may say that he could make light of a State of a thousand chariots, but could not tread the way that is right.'〖山錄||《榖梁傳·隱公元年》——桓弒而隱讓，則隱善矣。善則其不正焉，何也？《春秋》貴義而不貴惠，信道而不信邪。孝子揚父之美，不揚父之惡。先君之欲與桓，非正也，邪也。雖然，既勝其邪心以與隱矣。已探先君之邪志而遂以與桓，則是成父之惡也。兄弟，天倫也。為子受之父，為諸侯受之君。已廢天倫而忘君父，以行小惠，曰小道也。若隱者，可謂輕千乘之國，蹈道則未也?！?/span>

01.01.02、三月，公及邾儀父盟于蔑。

In?the?third month, the duke and E-foo?of Choo（Yifu of Zhu）made a covenant in Meeh（Mie）.

（一）山話嵓語

????????因為魯惠公荒唐的傳位，造成魯隱公執(zhí)政合法性不足，于是執(zhí)政的第三個月，堂堂魯國國君竟然以“求好”的態(tài)度盟會鄰魯小國邾的國君。春秋三傳對此事的觀點較為一致，但也略有差異。

????????——關(guān)于“及”字，公羊和榖梁都認為是《春秋》在表達這場盟會中，魯國是迫切主動的一方。

????????——關(guān)于“儀父”的稱呼，三傳都認同是魯隱公是為“求好”邾國而使用的超規(guī)格敬稱。其中公羊和榖梁記載“儀”是邾國國君的字，所以是敬稱。

????????——但關(guān)于為什么不稱對方的爵位“子”，三傳出現(xiàn)了分歧，左氏認為此次盟會是諸侯私下的會面，沒有王命，所以不書寫爵位“子”；公羊認為，稱呼是漸進的，即“州、國、氏、人、名、字、子”中此時稱到字就可以了，關(guān)系進一步發(fā)展后，再稱“子”；而榖梁傳認為，邾國壓根就不配稱子爵，上古立國時，邾國就是個草臺政權(quán)，周天子并沒有冊封過它。

????????——關(guān)于榖梁認為周天子并沒有冊封邾國之事，在之后的昭公三十一年記錄中，公羊有一段比較微妙的記載，這一年公羊追敘了西周宣王改立邾國國君的事情，這說明邾國，在宣王時，至少是獲得了周天子的認可，至于是不是正式冊封，不確定，因為天子也可以參與大夫家族的族長改立事宜，比如西周孝王就曾欲改犬丘大駱家族的繼承人選。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????三月，公及邾儀父盟于蔑——邾子克也。未王命，故不書爵。曰“儀父”，貴之也。公攝位而欲求好于邾，故為蔑之盟。

????????夏四月，費伯帥師城郎。不書，非公命也。

2）公羊傳

????????及者何？與也。

????????會、及、暨，皆與也。曷為或言會，或言及，或言暨？會猶最也。及猶汲汲也，暨猶暨暨也。及，我欲之。暨，不得已也。

????????儀父者何？邾婁之君也。

????????何以名？字也。

????????曷為稱字？褒之也。

????????曷為褒之？為其與公盟也。

????????與公盟者眾矣，曷為獨褒乎此？因其可褒而褒之。

????????此其為可褒奈何？漸進也。

????????眜者何？地期也。

3）榖梁傳

????????及者何？內(nèi)為志焉爾。

????????儀，字也。父猶傅也，男子之美稱也。

????????其不言邾子何也？邾之上古微，未爵命于周也。

????????不日，其盟渝也。眜，地名也。

（三）理雅各釋

1）邾國

Par.2. There was nothing proper for record in the 1st and 2d months of the year, and we come here to the third month. Choo (we have Choo-low, 邾 婁，in Kung-yang) was a small State, nearly all surrounded by Loo,一the pres. dis. of Tsow (鄒), dep. Yen-chow. At this time it was only a Foo-yung (附庸), attached to Loo (see Mencius, V. 下，ii.4.); but in a few years after this its chief was raised to the dignity of viscount (子). The House had the surname of Ts'aou (曹), and had been invested with the territory by king Woo, as being descended from the ancient emperor Chuen-h?uh. The chief's name,as we learn afterwards from the Ch'un Ts'?w, was K'ih (克); E-foo (父, read in the 2d tone, found appended to many designations, by way of honour) is his designation (字),given to him here, says Tso-she,’by way of honour; for which remark there seems to be no ground. M?eh (Kuh and Kung both have 昧，with the same sound) was a place belonging to Loo,一in the pres. dis. of Sze-shwuy (泗 水), dep. Yen-chow. We know nothing of any special object sought by the ‘covenanting’ here. Tso-she merely says that the duke arranged for it to cultivate friendly relations with his neighbour, at the commencement of his temporary administration, 公 heads the record, here and in most other accounts of meetings and covenants on the part of the marquises of Loo with other princes;-an order proper in the historiographers of that State. I can think of no better word for 盟 than‘covenant’‘to covenant’ On all occasions there was the death of a victim, over which the contracting parties appealed to superior Powers, wishing that, if they violated the terms of their covenant, they might meet with a fate like that of the slain animal. One definition of the term is 誓約，'an agreement with an oath.' Compare the account of Jacob and Laban's covenant, Genesis, xxxi.

2）“公及”

The 及 after 公 is to be taken as simply= 與，‘with;’ ‘a(chǎn)nd’ Kung, Kuh, and others find recondite meanings in it, which will not bear examination.

3）夏四月，費伯帥師城郎。不書，非公命也。

[Tso-she, after this paragraph, gives an incident of the 4th month, in summer, that ‘the earl of Pe led a force, and walled Lang,’ adding that no record of it was made, because it was not done with the duke's order. See the 1st note on ‘The speech at Pe’ in the Shoo. I have translated the notice according to the view of Ch‘in Sze-k‘a(chǎn)e given there; but Tso-she could not have intended 費伯 to be taken as meaning‘Earl of Pe,’but merely‘Pih(some scion of the House of Loo) of Pe.']

01.01.03、夏五月，鄭伯克段于鄢。

In summer, in the fifth month, the earl of Ch'ing（Zheng）overcame Twan（Duan）in Ye（Yan）.

（一）山話嵓語

1）春秋開場大戲——鄭伯克段于鄢

????????鄭伯克段于鄢，乃是春秋開場大戲，其幾乎涵蓋了之后春秋發(fā)生的所有亂象，極具歷史象征意味（篇幅有限，關(guān)于此事的具體情況及前因后果，小伙伴可參見以前我水的專欄CV13063817，此處不再詳述）。

????????——武姜，身為太夫人，竟然僅憑個人好惡就一心想要廢掉自己夫君精心培養(yǎng)的長子，并且這還是自己的親兒子，哪怕最后長子順利登基，成為了名正言順眾望所歸的鄭伯，武姜竟仍不罷休，反變本加厲的欲行謀害之事。武姜忤逆夫命，違背“夫為妻綱”之禮；武姜欲殘害親子之命，違背“夫死從子”之禮；武姜欲以小宗取代大宗，違背“立嫡以長”之禮。

????????——公子段身為臣子以及鄭伯一奶同胞的親弟弟，竟然違背父命、君命，一心想要弒君篡權(quán)，嚴重破壞了周禮建立的“君君臣臣，父父子子”秩序。

????????——鄭莊公本為公子段同胞兄長，但不以孝悌教導(dǎo)公子段，反而不斷助長捧殺，至公子段禍國亂政后，才忽舉大義拿下公子段，手段毒辣，有違“昆弟一體”之禮，“親親相親”之道。不過最后鄭莊公能夠黃泉認母，不絕段嗣，也算是說得過去。

????????鄭伯克段于鄢，包含了親子相殘、兄弟相殘、君臣相殘這春秋三大亂象，標志著周禮所建立的君君臣臣父父子子秩序趨于崩盤，混亂血腥的春秋至此逐漸拉開帷幕。

2）共叔段生死之謎

????????目前，大部分人認為造反的公子段，最后死于鄭伯平亂。這主要是因為歷史演義《東周列國傳》采用了這種說法。但綜合史料分析，公子段并沒有死，其應(yīng)該是在衛(wèi)國的共邑終了了一生。而出現(xiàn)這個爭議并不能全怪馮夢龍，因為這個爭議正是起于春秋三傳。

????????——春秋三傳中，公羊與榖梁都認為此“克”是“殺”的意思，即鄭莊公殺掉了公子段。三票得兩票，且這個結(jié)局也能滿足小說讀者們除惡務(wù)盡的需求，因此馮夢龍等小說家就以這兩傳的說法為依據(jù)，在演義中安排成了公子段身死。

????????——但是，馮夢龍在處理時出現(xiàn)了嚴重罷擱，公子段在演義中被稱為“共叔段”，而此稱呼在三傳中只有左氏傳是這樣稱呼的，而左氏傳之所以這樣稱呼，一個重要的原因是，左氏認為段沒有死，而是出奔到共邑并于之后生活在那里，故名共叔段。而公羊與榖梁認為段被殺了，所以兩傳并沒有共叔段這個稱謂。馮夢龍既然采用公羊和榖梁的說法，就不能再用左傳的共叔說法。

????????——馮夢龍為了解決這個罷擱，就設(shè)定成公子段先被父親鄭武公分封到共邑，故名共叔段。但又產(chǎn)生了新的罷擱，共邑乃是春秋有名有姓的著名城邑，有較豐富的資料記錄：其本為共和三公之一共伯和的領(lǐng)地，共伯和入周干政后，共邑歸衛(wèi)，待宣王繼位后，共伯隱居山林而終（而史記記載后來公子和靠著資歷和財富弒兄篡位，成為衛(wèi)武公，反追封其亡兄為共伯，當然史記觀點“共”是謚號，不是封地，此處不詳究）。后北狄滅衛(wèi)，衛(wèi)國靠著共邑吊命，才堅持到齊桓封衛(wèi)。而根據(jù)記載，共邑從來沒有并入過鄭國，因此鄭武公根本不可能將兒子段分封到外國。

????????而我們綜合史料分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn)共叔段并沒有死于鄭伯平亂，恰恰相反，共叔段晚年應(yīng)該過的還不錯。依據(jù)有三：

????????——公羊與榖梁關(guān)于段被殺的依據(jù)都只是這個“克”字，并且都不是克的意思，只是在那生拉硬扯的引申，過于牽強附會，實在不能服人。

????????——左傳明確記錄了鄭伯克段的時間地點人物和過程，且完全符合邏輯。嚴密的記錄，再加上有理有據(jù)，可以完全令人信服左傳記載的“出奔共”才是段真正的結(jié)局。

????????——太史公對共叔段的記載更加詳細，不僅記載了共叔段之亂的過程，還記載了共叔段出奔共后的境遇：生活不錯，以致于衛(wèi)公子州吁曾經(jīng)前去投奔；地位不低，所以衛(wèi)公子州吁篡權(quán)后，竟然主動為共叔段出頭，率五國聯(lián)軍共伐鄭莊公，當然史記中的衛(wèi)州吁在伐鄭時被自己人干掉了，援頭救段了屬于是。

????????因此綜上分析，一般是認為，共叔段并沒有被鄭伯殺，而是流亡到共邑后，安安穩(wěn)穩(wěn)的渡過了余生。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????初，鄭武公娶于申，曰武姜，生莊公及共叔段。莊公寤生，驚姜氏，故名曰“寤生”，遂惡之。愛共叔段，欲立之。亟請于武公，公弗許。

????????及莊公即位，為之請制。公曰：“制，巖邑也，虢叔死焉。佗邑唯命?！闭埦咕又?，謂之京城大叔。

????????祭仲曰：“都，城過百雉，國之害也。先王之制：大都，不過參國之一；中，五之一；小，九之一。今京不度，非制也，君將不堪?！惫唬骸敖嫌杀俸?？”對曰：“姜氏何厭之有？不如早為之所，無使滋蔓。蔓，難圖也。蔓草猶不可除，況君之寵弟乎？”公曰：“多行不義，必自斃，子姑待之?！?/p>

????????既而大叔命西鄙、北鄙貳于己。公子呂曰：“國不堪貳，君將若之何？欲與大叔，臣請事之；若弗與，則請除之。無生民心?！惫唬骸盁o庸，將自及。”大叔又收貳以為己邑，至于廩延。子封曰：“可矣，厚將得眾?！惫唬骸安涣x不暱，厚將崩?！?/p>

????????大叔完、聚，繕甲、兵，具卒、乘，將襲鄭，夫人將啟之。公聞其期，曰：“可矣！”命子封帥車二百乘以伐京。京叛大叔段。段入于鄢，公伐諸鄢。五月辛丑，大叔出奔共。

????????書曰：“鄭伯克段于鄢?！倍尾坏埽什谎缘?；如二君，故曰克；稱鄭伯，譏失教也；謂之鄭志。不言出奔，難之也。

????????遂置姜氏于城潁，而誓之曰：“不及黃泉，無相見也?！奔榷谥?。潁考叔為潁谷封人，聞之，有獻于公。公賜之食，食舍肉。公問之，對曰：“小人有母，皆嘗小人之食矣，未嘗君之羹，請以遺之?！惫唬骸盃栍心高z，繄我獨無！”潁考叔曰：“敢問何謂也？”公語之故，且告之悔。對曰：“君何患焉？若闕地及泉，隧而相見，其誰曰不然？”公從之。公入而賦：“大隧之中，其樂也融融！”姜出而賦：“大隧之外，其樂也洩洩！”遂為母子如初。

????????君子曰：“潁考叔，純孝也，愛其母，施及莊公?！对姟吩唬骸⒆硬粎T，永錫爾類?！涫侵^乎！”

2）公羊傳

????????克之者何？殺之也。

????????殺之則曷為謂之克？大鄭伯之惡也。

????????曷為大鄭伯之惡？母欲立之，己殺之，如勿與而已矣。

????????段者何？鄭伯之弟也。

????????何以不稱弟？當國也。

????????其地何？當國也。

????????齊人殺無知何以不地？在內(nèi)也。在內(nèi)，雖當國不地也。不當國，雖在外亦不地也。

3）榖梁傳

????????克者何？能也。

????????何能也？能殺也。

????????何以不言殺？見段之有徒眾也。

????????段，鄭伯弟也。何以知其為弟也？殺世子、母弟，目君。以其目君，知其為弟也。段，弟也，而弗謂弟；公子也，而弗謂公子，貶之也。段失子弟之道矣，賤段而甚鄭伯也。

????????何甚乎鄭伯？甚鄭伯之處心積慮成于殺也。于鄢，遠也。猶曰取之其母之懷中而殺之云爾，甚之也。

????????然則為鄭伯者宜奈何？緩追逸賊，親親之道也。

（三）理雅各釋

1）鄭伯克段于鄢

Par.3. Ch‘ing was an earldom which had not been of long duration. In B.C. 805, king Seuen had invested his brother Y?w(友)with the lands of Ch'ing, in the pres. Hwa Chow (華州), dep. T'ung-chow, Shen-se. Y?w's son, Keueh-tuh (掘突), known as duke Woo(武公), conquered a territory more to the east,一the country of Kwoh and Kwei (虢鄶之地)-and settled in it, calling it ‘New Ch‘ing’-the name of which?is still retained in the district of Sin-ch‘ing(新鄭),dep. K‘a(chǎn)e-fung, Ho-nan. Woo's son, Woo-shang (寤生), known as duke Chwang (莊)and born in B.C.756, is the earl of this par. Twan was his younger brother. Yen has left its name in the dis. of Yen-ling (鄢陵).?

2）理雅各譯左氏傳

Tso-she's account of the event in the text is the following:一

Duke Woo of Ch'ing had married a daughter?of the House of Shin,called Woo Keang,who?bore duke Chwang and his brother Twan of?Kung. Duke Chwang was born as she was?waking from sleep [the meaning of the text?here is uncertain],which frightened the lady?so that she named him Woo-shang (=born?in waking),and hated him,while she loved?Twan,and wished him to be declared his?father's heir.Often did she ask this of duke?Woo,but he refused it.〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——初，鄭武公娶于申，曰武姜，生莊公及共叔段。莊公寤生，驚姜氏，故名曰“寤生”，遂惡之。愛共叔段，欲立之。亟請于武公，公弗許。〗

When duke Chwang?came to the earldom,she begged him to confer?on Twan the city of Che."It is too dangerous a?place,”was the reply.“The Younger of Kwoh?died there;but in regard to any other place,you?may command me.”She then requested King;and there Twan took up his residence,and came?to be styled T'ae-shuh (=the Great Younger)?of King city.?〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——及莊公即位，為之請制。公曰：“制，巖邑也，虢叔死焉。佗邑唯命?！闭埦?，使居之，謂之京城大叔。〗

Chung of Chae said to the duke, "Any metropolitan city,whose wall is more?than 3,000 cubits round,is dangerous to the?State.According to the regulations of the former kings,such a city of the 1st order can?have its wall only a third as long as that of the capital;one of the 2d order,only a fifth as long;and one of the least order,only a ninth.Now?King is not in accordance with these measures and regulations. As ruler, you will not be able to endure Twan in such a place.” The duke replied,“It was our mother's wish;—how could I avoid the danger?”“The lady K?ang,”returned the officer,“is not to be satisfied. You had better take the necessary precautions, and not allow the danger to grow so great that it will be difficult to deal with it. Even grass, when it has grown and spread all about, cannot be removed ;-how much less the brother of yourself, and the favoured brother as well !" The duke said,“ By his many deeds of unrighteousness he will bring destruction or himself. Do you only wait a while."〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——祭仲曰：“都，城過百雉，國之害也。先王之制：大都，不過參國之一；中，五之一；小，九之一。今京不度，非制也，君將不堪?！惫唬骸敖嫌杀俸?？”對曰：“姜氏何厭之有？不如早為之所，無使滋蔓。蔓，難圖也。蔓草猶不可除，況君之寵弟乎？”公曰：“多行不義，必自斃，子姑待之?！?/span>〗

‘After this, T'ae-shuh ordered the places on the western and northern borders of the?State to render to himself the same allegiance as they did to the earl. Then Kung-tsze Leu said to the duke,“A State cannot sustain the burden of two services;-what will you do now? If you wish to give Ch'ing?to T'ae-shuh, allow me to serve him as a subject. If you do not mean to give it to him, allow me to put him out of the way, that the minds of the people be not perplexed." “There is no need,” the duke replied, “for such a step. His calamity will come of itself."〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——既而大叔命西鄙、北鄙貳于己。公子呂曰：“國不堪貳，君將若之何？欲與大叔，臣請事之；若弗與，則請除之。無生民心?！惫唬骸盁o庸，將自及?！?/span>〗

' T'ae-shuh went on to take as his own the places from which he had required their divided contributions, as fair as Lin-yen. Tsze-fung「the designation of Kung-tsze Leu above] said, “Now is the time. With these enlarged resources, he will draw all the people to himself," The duke replied, “They will not cleave to him, so unrighteous as he is. Through his prosperity he will fall the more."〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——大叔又收貳以為己邑，至于廩延。子封曰：“可矣，厚將得眾?！惫唬骸安涣x不暱，厚將崩?！?/span>〗

‘T‘a(chǎn)e-shuh wrought at his defences, gathered the people about him, put in order buff-coats and weapons, prepared footmen, and chariots, intending to surprise Ch‘ing, while his mother was to open to him from within. The duke heard the time agreed on between them, and said,“Now we can act" So he ordered Tsze-fung, with two hundred chariots, to attack King. King revolted from T'ae-shuh, who then entered Yen, which the duke himself proceeded to attack; 'and in the 5th month, on the day Sin-ch'ow, T'ae-shuh fled from it to Kung.〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——大叔完、聚，繕甲、兵，具卒、乘，將襲鄭，夫人將啟之。公聞其期，曰：“可矣！”命子封帥車二百乘以伐京。京叛大叔段。段入于鄢，公伐諸鄢。五月辛丑，大叔出奔共。〗

'In the words of the text,-"The earl or Ch‘ing overcame Twan in Yen,”Twan is not called the earl's younger brother, because he did not show himseli to be such. They were as two hostile?princes, and therefore we have the word "overcame." The duke is styled the earl of Ch‘ing simply, to condemn him for his failure to instruct his brother properly. Twan's flight is not mentioned, in the text, because it was difficult to do so, having in mind Ch‘ing's wish that?Twan might be killed.〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——書曰：“鄭伯克段于鄢?！倍尾坏?，故不言弟；如二君，故曰克；稱鄭伯，譏失教也；謂之鄭志。不言出奔，難之也。〗

Immediately after these events, duke Chwang placed his mother K?ang in Shing-ying, and swore an oath, saying,“I will not see you again, till I have reached the yellow spring [i.e., till I am dead, and under the yellow earth]." But he repented of this. By and by, Ying K‘a(chǎn)ou-shuh, the border-warden of the vale of Ying, heard of it, and presented an offering to the duke, who caused food to be placed before him. K‘a(chǎn)ou-shuh put a piece of meat on one side; and when the duke asked the reason, he said,“I have a mother who always shares in what I eat. But she has not eaten of this meat which you, my ruler, have given, and I beg to be allowed to leave this piece for her." The duke said,“You have a mother to give it to. Alas! I alone have none.” K‘a(chǎn)ou-shuh asked what the duke meant, who then told him all the circumstances, and how he repented of his oath. “Why should you be distressed about that?” said the officer. “If you dig into the earth to the yellow springs, and then make a subterranean passage, where you can meet each other, who can say that your oath is not fulfilled?" The duke followed this suggestion ; and as he entered the passage sang,“ This great tunnel, within, With joy doth run."When his mother came out, she sang, “This great tunnel, without, The joy flies about."After this, they were mother and son as before.〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——遂置姜氏于城潁，而誓之曰：“不及黃泉，無相見也?！奔榷谥}考叔為潁谷封人，聞之，有獻于公。公賜之食，食舍肉。公問之，對曰：“小人有母，皆嘗小人之食矣，未嘗君之羹，請以遺之?！惫唬骸盃栍心高z，繄我獨無！”潁考叔曰：“敢問何謂也？”公語之故，且告之悔。對曰：“君何患焉？若闕地及泉，隧而相見，其誰曰不然？”公從之。公入而賦：“大隧之中，其樂也融融！”姜出而賦：“大隧之外，其樂也洩洩！”遂為母子如初。〗

‘A superior man may say,“Ying K‘a(chǎn)ou-shuh was filial indeed. His love for his mother passed over to and affected duke Chwang. Was there not here an illustration of what is said in the Book of Poetry,“A flial son of piety unfailing,?There shall for ever be conferred blessing on you ?"'〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——君子曰：“潁考叔，純孝也，愛其母，施及莊公?！对姟吩唬骸⒆硬粎T，永錫爾類?！涫侵^乎！”〗

3）評《春秋左傳》

Space would fail me were I to make any remarks on the criticisms interspersed by T'so-she in this and other narratives, or vindicate the translation of his narratives which I give. The reader will perceive that without the history in the Chuen, the Confucian text would give very little idea of the event which it professes to record; and there are numberless instances, more flagrant still, in the Book. The 君子，who moralizes, is understood to be Tso-she himself. We have no other instance in the Ch'un?Ts‘?w of 克 used as in this paragraph.

01.01.04、秋七月，天王使宰咺來歸惠公、仲子之赗。

In autumn, in the seventh month, the king [by] Heaven’s [grace] sent the [sub-]administrator Heuen（Xuan）with a present of [two] carriages and their horses for the funerals of duke Hwuy（Hui）and [his wife]?Chung?Tsze（Zhong Zi）.

（一）山話嵓語

1）魯國此次究竟送葬了幾個人

????????《春秋》這條記載的意思是魯國有權(quán)貴去世了，周平王派人來送葬。然后春秋三傳一起吐槽周天子的此次送葬太失禮了，太掉價了。此時看似春秋三傳統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線，但等各自吐槽完后，三傳差點打起來，三傳在此處的爭端都已經(jīng)上升的倫理的地步了。而爭議的關(guān)鍵點比較無厘頭，就是魯國此次究竟送葬了幾個人？

????????——左氏認為，此次送葬了兩個人，一個是魯惠公，一個是魯惠公的新夫人仲子。但是仲子并沒有去世，仲子第二年十二月才死。也就是說，左氏吐槽，人還沒死呢，你周天子就派人跑來送葬了，幾個意思啊？

????????——公羊也認為此次送葬了兩個人，一個是魯惠公，一個是魯惠公的新夫人仲子。但是公羊認為兩個人都已經(jīng)死了。然后公羊吐槽，你周天子送的東西也太少了，魯國死了一個國君外加一個君夫人，你卻只送了赗，并且就這點東西還很晚才送到，你堂堂周天子摳摳搜搜好意思拿出手。

????????——而榖梁反而認為送的東西太多了，違背了禮。因為榖梁認為，這句記載不是“惠公、仲子”而是“惠公仲子”，也就是說榖梁認為此次死的只是一個人，即惠公仲子，然后就上升到倫理了，前面二傳都認為仲子是惠公的夫人，而榖梁認為仲子是惠公的親媽，而惠公的親媽地位低下，只是個妾室，因此你周天子根本不應(yīng)該因為惠公為君，就給一個妾室送赗。也就是說周天子送的太多了，根本不應(yīng)該送。

2）令人后背發(fā)涼的猜測

????????當我試圖將綜合分析這三傳的說法時，得出了一個令我毛骨悚然的可能——惠公后宮的這位宮斗小能手仲子的命運可能很糟糕，她雖宮斗無雙，但在階級森嚴的男權(quán)社會中依然是命如草芥，即，仲子在隱桓爭嫡時失敗了，而失敗的懲罰很可能是被殉葬！

????????——首先，綜合三傳可以明確，就在惠公死的時候，正好有一個尊貴的女人也正巧死了，但哪里有這么多巧合，這位女人的死，很可能不是意外，不是巧合，而是謀殺。

????????——其次，這個女人是誰，榖梁認為的惠公親媽這一條不可信，因為惠公光執(zhí)政就執(zhí)政了46年，他老媽如果還活著，至少八九十，可能性的確不大。所以最大的可能就是左氏與公羊認為的惠公少妻仲子。

????????——再次，仲子此時估計是死了，否則，周天子再胡鬧，也不會給活人送喪葬用品……慢著！我忽然想到一種更可怕的可能！

3）更可怕的一種可能

????????我本想用公羊榖梁來否定左傳上仲子未死的論點，但寫到此處卻忽然想到另外一種可能，另外一種更加殘酷更加可怕的可能?？膳碌矫髅鞔藭r已過初冬，但我竟然有了些許汗意。即，左傳的時間線是完全正確的，此時仲子的確沒有死，的確是死在了第二年十二月。而周天子在此時提前送來了仲子的喪葬用品，不是為了省錢，而是為了暗示仲子該上路了……雖然離譜，但這不是什么新鮮招數(shù)，后世不少君王如果想讓某個權(quán)貴體面，會忽然御賜喪葬用品；如果權(quán)貴不識相，皇帝就派人披麻戴孝去哭喪；再不識相，那就等著被意外吧（比如魯僖公先暗示慶父自己體面，但遠在密地的慶父拒絕遵命，于是魯僖公命公子魚去慶父門口哭喪，慶父知道躲不過，就自縊了，最后公子魚為慶父收完尸回都復(fù)命。）。

????????所以想到此處，我按照左傳時間線，腦補出另一個可怕的故事：魯惠公死后，或是因為魯惠遺言仲子陪葬（可能是擔心嬌妻和其前男友隱公舊情復(fù)燃），或是因為仲子桓公一脈政治斗爭失?。ㄈ缤笫琅瑺柟嗨篮?，愛妻阿巴亥政治斗爭失敗，慘遭殉葬），仲子被要求主動殉葬。

????????但正年輕的仲子肯定不同意，于是就仗著太夫人的身份拒絕殉葬，她倒是要看看誰敢公然弒后，于是魯臣們就請示了周天子，然后周天子送來了喪葬用品。此時對仲子寵愛之極的丈夫已薨；而她的兒子太小，并剛剛被剝奪了君位；而她的母族宋在惠公去世后立刻派兵前來為女兒和桓公站臺，但可惜在黃地被魯國大??；至于前男友隱公，他就是一個只知尊父守禮的傻瓜，他當年但凡剛烈一點兒，小人一點兒，她早就已是他的懷中人了……就這樣，在滔滔大勢下，仲子一個失去夫君、母族和兒子庇護的弱女子只能就范，于次年十二月乙卯日接受了自己的宿命。

????????魯隱公乃是謙謙君子，而仲子又是他的前未婚妻，自幼定親兩小無猜，因此魯隱公實在不忍害其性命，但奈何父命難違，只得如此行事。但后來實在是于心難安，就在三年后的九月，為仲子修建祭廟，并帶大臣，以諸侯之禮，獻六羽以祭……紀念那個曾經(jīng)愛笑愛鬧卻最終被命運裹挾身不由己的的美麗女孩……此時來靈感了，想水一篇權(quán)謀愛情小文……可惜精力有限，以后看心情吧。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????秋七月，天王使宰咺來歸惠公、仲子之赗。緩，且子氏未薨，故名。天子七月而葬，同軌畢至；諸侯五月，同盟至；大夫三月，同位至；士逾月，外姻至。贈死不及尸，吊生不及哀，豫兇事，非禮也。

????????八月，紀人伐夷。夷不告，故不書。

????????有蜚。不為災(zāi)，亦不書。

2）公羊傳

????????宰者何？官也。

????????咺者何？名也。

????????曷為以官氏？宰，士也。

????????惠公者何？隱之考也。

????????仲子者何？桓之母也。

????????何以不稱夫人？桓未君也。

????????赗者何？喪事有赗，赗者蓋以馬，以乘馬、束帛。車馬曰赗，貨財曰賻，衣被曰禭。

????????桓未君，則諸侯曷為來赗之？隱為桓立，故以桓母之喪告于諸侯。

????????然則何言爾？成公意也。

????????其言“來”何？不及事也。

????????其言惠公、仲子何？兼之。兼之，非禮也。

????????何以不言“及”仲子？仲子微也。

3）榖梁傳

????????母以子氏，仲子者何？惠公之母，孝公之妾也。禮，赗人之母則可，赗人之妾則不可。君子以其可辭受之。其志，不及事也。

????????赗者何也？乘馬曰赗，衣衾曰襚，貝玉曰含，錢財曰賻。

（三）理雅各釋

1）天王

Par.4. 天王，‘Heaven's king’ or‘king by Heaven's grace,' is of course king P'ing. The sovereign of China, as Heaven's vice-gerent over the empire,is styled 天子，“Heaven's son;'?in his relation to the feudal princes as their ruler,he was called 天王，‘Heaven's king.’?

2）仲子

仲子 is‘the second Tsze,’i.e., the daughter of the duke of Sung, who became the 2d wife of duke Hwuy as mentioned in the note on the title of this book ;not Hwuy's mother, as Kuh-l?ang absurdly says.?

3）赗

賵?is explained in the dict. as 贈死者，“presents to the dead, and 所以助主人送葬者，“aids to the presiding mourner to bury his dead.'?But such presents were of various kinds, and 賵?denotes the gift specially of one or more carriages and their horses. So both Kung and Kuh.The king sent such presents on the death of any of the princes or their wives ; and here we have an instance in point.?

4）宰

But there is much contention among the critics as to who the messenger was;-whether the king's chief Minister 家宰, or some inferior officer of his department. The former view is taken by Kuh-l?ang, and affirmed by the editors of the K'ang-he Ch'un Ts'?w ;-but，as I must think, erroneously. Under the 家宰 or 太宰，were two 小宰， and four 宰夫，called by Biot Grand-administrateur general’‘Sous-adminstrateurs generaux’and aides-administrateurs generaux.’ It belonged to the department of the last, on all occasions of condolence, to superintend the arrangements, with every thing that was supplied by way of presents or offerings,一the silks, the utensils, the money, &c.?(see the Chow Le Ⅰ.,ⅲ.56-73). The offcer in the text was, no doubt, one of these aid-administrators; and this removes all difficulty which the critics find in the mention of an officer of higher rank by his name.

5）周王奇葩的送赗時機

The rule was that princes should be buried?five months after their death, and Tso-she says that the king's message and gift arrived too late,?so far as duke. Hwuy was concerned. This?criticism may be correct; but he goes on to say that Chung Tsze was not yet dead, and the message and gift were too early, so far as she was concerned. The king could never have been guilty of such an impropriety as to anticipate the lady's death in this way, and the view of Tso-she can only provoke a smile. He adds:-'The king's burial took place 7 months after his death, when all the feudal princes were expected to be present. The prince of a State was buried 5 months after his death, when all the princes, with whom he had covenanted, attended. The funeral of a great officer took?place 3 months after his death, and was attended by all of the same rank; that of an officer, at the end of a month, and was attended by his relatives by affinity. Presents on account of a death were made before the burial, and visits of condolence were paid before the grief had assumed its greatest demonstrations. It was not proper to anticipate such occurrences.'

6）“惠公仲子”還是“惠公之仲子”

On first translating the Ch‘un Ts‘?w, I construed the par. as if these were a 之 between 公 and 仲，and supposed that only one carriage and its horses were sent for the fu?eral of Chung Tsze, who had been the wife of Hwuy. I gave up the constr?ction in deference to the prevailing opinion of the commentators; but it had been adopted by no less a scholar than Ch‘ing E (程頤；A.D.1033一1107).

7）八月，紀人伐夷。夷不告，故不書。有蜚。不為災(zāi)，亦不書。

?[Tso-she has here two other entries under??this season:-“In the 8th month an officer of Ke attacked E;’ and ‘There were locusts.’ He adds that E sent no official announcement of the attack to Loo, and that therefore it was not recorded; and that no notice w?s entered of the locusts,because they did not amount to a plague.]

01.01.05、九月，及宋人盟于宿。

In the ninth?month, [the duke] and an officer of Sung（Song）made a covenant in Suh（Su）.

（一）山話嵓語

????????本來這一條記載沒什么可講的，原準備梳理一下三傳觀點就結(jié)束，但剛剛我在寫上一節(jié)時，忽然悟出（也可能是腦洞大開）仲子殉葬說。然后再看這一條，就突然感覺不一樣了。如果上面我提出的仲子殉葬說是正確的，那這一條就是在解釋，仲子的母國宋為什么不管自己的閨女，放任魯國拿其殉葬。這一條給出的原因很簡單，管了，但是失敗了；或者是，管了，甚至想幫助自己的外甥桓公繼位，但是失敗了，而仲子正是這次失敗的懲罰。

????????——左氏很明確的記載，惠公薨逝時，宋國派軍隊伐魯，以致于魯惠公的葬禮草草了事，等到魯國在黃地擊敗宋軍后，宋國前來求和，之后，魯人以祭祀時原主持者魯桓公太小還不懂事為由重新改葬，這其實是變向的否定了魯桓公的合法性。

????????——這次隱桓之爭，可能非常兇險，因為左氏記載，這次的魯宋之戰(zhàn)才是真正決定隱桓奪嫡的勝負手。以此推測，這一次魯國權(quán)利之爭，初期魯隱公一派是完全處于下風，而最后魯隱繼位，并不是因為魯桓公太小，而是魯桓公的最大底牌母族宋國被打敗了，從而造成隱公一脈的成功上位。

????????——不排除周天子給魯惠公晚送喪葬用品的用意是暗示魯國，天子不承認魯桓公當孝子主持葬禮的合法性，進而否定魯桓公執(zhí)政的合法性，魯隱公繼位后，其派系就順勢改葬魯惠公，以否定魯桓公摔盆孝子的身份（春秋時不知是什么規(guī)矩，如今我們本地是以摔盆為孝子憑據(jù)，摔盆者是可以繼承家產(chǎn)的孝子）。

????????——另外左傳記載衛(wèi)侯親自出面參見魯惠公的第二次葬禮，衛(wèi)宋乃是兄弟之國，皆為殷商遺民組成，因此衛(wèi)侯的目的是想為魯宋說和，但是魯隱公連面都沒有見。可見此時魯宋的關(guān)系已極為緊張，根本不是一場會盟可以解決的。

????????——另外公羊和榖梁對于宋人與魯國會盟觀點比較一致，即魯國此次對于宋國較為蔑視，因此只派了一個連名字都不配記的小人物跑去和宋國會盟。

????????綜上所述，可能事情是這樣的：惠公死后，隱桓爭嫡，魯桓雖是嫡長儲君，但資歷太淺，根基太?。欢旊[雖是庶子，但之前一直是被當做儲君培養(yǎng)，因此根基深厚。爭嫡初期，可能是魯隱不慕君位，可能是魯桓母族宋國來勢洶洶，導(dǎo)致魯隱一脈處于下風。而之后魯隱不忍心自己的手下遭到清洗，被迫出來爭嫡，然后就車翻了宋國，宋國不得已之下，只能求和，魯隱同意了。而作為宋國戰(zhàn)敗的懲罰，外嫁來的仲子必須死，否則魯隱一脈人心不安，而魯隱也只能聽任。

????????嗯，另外，我水專欄時，常會有一些自相矛盾之處，主要是史料論據(jù)自相矛盾，而我只能根據(jù)我的論點來挑選論據(jù)。所以在【春秋01.01.01條】中論述關(guān)于惠公去世時桓公可能還未斷奶的這個觀點時，就刪掉了宋武公的這條線索。正好此處是我的另一個不同論點，即在這里我認為魯桓公當時年紀不大，但應(yīng)該已經(jīng)可以管事。所以此處就補上宋武公這條線索：仲子的父親宋武公是魯惠公二十一年去世，而惠公死于四十六年，也就是說等到惠公死時，仲子至少25歲，而古代女子十四五六就可以嫁娶，因此桓公估計此時也有十來歲了。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????惠公之季年，敗宋師于黃。公立而求成焉。九月，及宋人盟于宿，始通也。

????????冬十月庚申，改葬惠公。公弗臨，故不書。惠公之薨也，有宋師，大子少，葬故有闕，是以改葬。

????????衛(wèi)侯來會葬，不見公，亦不書。

????????鄭共叔之亂，公孫滑出奔衛(wèi)。衛(wèi)人為之伐鄭，取廩延。鄭人以王師、虢師伐衛(wèi)南鄙。請師于邾。邾子使私于公子豫。豫請往，公弗許，遂行，及邾人、鄭人盟于翼。不書，非公命也。

????????新作南門。不書，亦非公命也。

2）公羊傳

????????孰及之？內(nèi)之微者也。

3）榖梁傳

????????及者何？內(nèi)卑者也。宋人，外卑者也。卑者之盟不日。宿，邑名也。

（三）理雅各釋

1）宋國

Par.5. Sung was a dukedom,-having its chief city in the pres. dis. of Shang-k`?w (商邱), dep. Kwei-tih, Ho-nan.?The charge given to the viscount of Wei on his being appointed to the State is still preserved in the Shoo, V.viii. The dukes of Sung were descended from the kings of Yin or Shang; and of course their surname was Tsze(子) . Suh was a small State, in the present Tung-p'ing(東平)Chow, dep. T'ae-gan, Shan-tung. It was thus near Loa, but a good way from Sung. Its chiefs were barons with the surname Fung(風).

2）惠公之季年，敗宋師于黃。公立而求成焉。

Tso-she tells us that in the last year of duke Hwuy, he defeated an army of Sung in Hwang, but that now duke Yin sought for peace. It was with this object that the covenant in the text was made.

3）魯宋雙方立約者的地位

I translate as if 公 preceded 及，for so the want must generally be supplied throughout the classic. Kung and Kuh both understand some inferior officer of Loo (微者),but in other places they themselves supply 公. By.宋人，however, we must understand an officer of Sung. It is better to translate so than to say simply-`aman of Sung.'

4）理雅各譯左氏傳

[Between this par. and the next Tso-she has the three following narratives:—

‘In winter, in the 10th month, on the day K?ng-shin, the body of duke Hwuy was removed and buried a second time: As the duke was not present, the event was not recorded, When duke Hwuy died, there was war with Sung, and the heir-prince was young, so that there was some omission in the burial. He was therefore now buried again, and in another grave. The marquis of Wei came to be present at the burial. He did not have an interview with the duke, and so his visit was not recorded.’〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——冬十月庚申，改葬惠公。公弗臨，故不書?；莨耙?，有宋師，大子少，葬故有闕，是以改葬。衛(wèi)侯來會葬，不見公，亦不書。〗

‘After the confusion occasioned by Kung-shuh of Ch'ing, Kung-sun Hwah [Twan or Kungshuh's son] fled to Wei, and the people of Wei attacked Ch'ing in his behalf, and requested Lin-yen for him. Ch'ing then attacked the southern border of Wei, supported by a king's army and an army of Kwoh, and also requested the aid of troops from Choo. The viscount of Choo sent a private message to Kung-tsze Yu of Loo, who asked leave from the duke to go. It was refused; but he went and made a covenant with an officer of Choo and an officer of Ch'ing in Yih. No record was made of this, because Yu's going was against the duke's order.'〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——鄭共叔之亂，公孫滑出奔衛(wèi)。衛(wèi)人為之伐鄭，取廩延。鄭人以王師、虢師伐衛(wèi)南鄙。請師于邾。邾子使私于公子豫。豫請往，公弗許，遂行，及邾人、鄭人盟于翼。不書，非公命也〗

'The southern gate of the city was made new.' It was done without the duke's order, and so was not recorded.]〖山錄||《左傳·隱公元年》——新作南門。不書，亦非公命也?！?span id="s0sssss00s" class="font-size-12">

01.01.06、冬十有二月，祭伯來。

In winter, in the?twelfth?month, the earl of Chae（Zhai）came [to Loo（Lu）].

（一）山話嵓語

????????對于這一條記載，三傳的觀點較為一致，就是周天子的大夫祭伯，在沒有王命的情況下，竟然私自朝見魯國新君。這一條表現(xiàn)出此時周天子已經(jīng)衰弱到連自己的大夫都管不住的地步了。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????十二月，祭伯來，非王命也。

2）公羊傳

????????祭伯者何？天子之大夫也。

????????何以不稱使？奔也。

????????奔則曷為不言奔？王者無外，言奔，則有外之辭也。

3）榖梁傳

????????來者，來朝也。其弗謂朝何也？寰內(nèi)諸侯，非有天子之命，不得出會諸侯。不正其外交，故弗與朝也。聘弓矢不出竟埸，束脩之肉不行竟中，有至尊者不貳之也。

（三）理雅各釋

1）十二月，祭伯來，非王命也。

Par.6. Chae[so 祭 is here read] was an earldom, in the present Ch'ing Chow( 鄭 州), dep. K'ae-fung, held by the descendants of one of the duke of Chow's sons. Acc. to Tso-she the earl here was a minister at court, and came to Loo, for what purpose we know not, without the orders of the king. Kung-yang, indeed, thinks he came as a refugee, and that 伯 is the designation of the individual merely (字), and not his title; while Kuh-l?ang makes the coming to have been to do a sort of homage to duke Yin. But this is simply guess work.

01.01.07、公子益師卒。

King-tsze（Gongzi）Yih-sze（Yishi）died.

（一）山話嵓語

????????這一條記載是關(guān)于一位魯國公室成員的去世問題。綜合三傳，能大致判斷出，此人名益師，字眾父，應(yīng)該是魯孝公之子，因為此時“公子”之稱還沒有泛化，只有諸侯之子方能稱公子。至于是哪位公子，應(yīng)該是孝公子，也就是隱公的叔叔。因為隱公沒有參加葬禮，如果是隱公的弟弟，那講究“昆弟一體”的魯侯怎么也要意思意思。另外，三傳關(guān)于為什么《春秋》沒有記載公子益師的具體卒日，均有不同看法。

????????——左氏認為是因為魯隱沒有參加葬禮，所以不記卒日，至于為什么魯隱不參加，榖梁的觀點是這位益師生前犯了大錯，所以不記卒日。

????????——而公羊就有意思了，其認為另外兩傳完全想多了，之所以不記就是因為孔子不知道，即孔子距離魯隱已經(jīng)二百年了，雖有史書存世，但二百年時間，滄海桑田，丟失一些細節(jié)太正常了，所以公羊認為，沒那么多陰謀論，就是時間太久了，孔子也查不到益師的卒日，故不記。

（二）春秋三傳

1）左氏傳

????????眾父卒。公不與小斂，故不書日。

2）公羊傳

????????何以不日？遠也。所見異辭，所聞異辭，所傳聞異辭。

3）榖梁傳

????????大夫日卒，正也。不日卒，惡也。

（三）理雅各釋

1）公子

Par.7.Of Yih-sze we know nothing but what this brief par.tells. He was ‘a(chǎn) duke's son,’ but whether the son of Hwuy, or of Hwuy's father, we cannot tell, It is best in such a case to take 公子 as if it were the surname. So Ho H?w (何休)says here, 公子者氏也.Kuh-l?ang finds a condemnation of Yih-sze in the omission of the day of his death; but the old method of interpretation which found praise or blame in the mention of or silence as to days, in the use of the name, the designation, the title, and such matters, is now discarded. 卒 is the proper term to use for the death of an officer.〖山注||? 此處理雅各傾向于認為“公子”是姓氏，但這種觀點我并不認可，我認為“公子”“公孫”應(yīng)該是春秋之后逐漸變成了姓氏，即有人身份本為“公子”“公孫”，后就以此為氏，最后逐漸演變成為了姓氏。包括黃帝，我同樣認為“公孫”應(yīng)該是其身份，而不是其姓氏。〗

2）小斂

Tso-she gives the designation of·Yih-sze as Chung-foo, and says that the day of his death is not recorded, because the duke did not attend at the ceremony of dressing the corpse, to it into the coffin.