《左传》源于史官“传闻”制度考

A Study of “Hearsay” System for the Historical Data of Zuo-zhuan

《春秋》经、传各有自己的材料来源。古代史官通过“承告”和“传闻”两种方式获得信息 ,所谓“承告”是指别国史官的正式通报 ,构成官方史录 ,它遵守巫史传统的表达方式 ,所以隐约难懂 ;而所谓“传闻” ,则是史官私下交流的信息 ,其内容涉及事件发生的原因、过程等 ,以补充前者的不足。“承告”记载于正式的“典策” ,而“传闻”则记录于“简牍”。后者成为史官个人的或内部的文献。“传闻”和“承告”的内容相差很大 ,所以古人有“所见异辞 ,所闻异辞 ,所传闻异辞”的说法。孔子所谓“质胜文则野 ,文胜质则史”的话 ,也反映了这一历史事实。“传闻”之史是《左传》的源头。

The main parts and their commentaries of Chun-qiu (The Spring and Autumn Annals) have their respective material sources. There were two ways of information access for ancient historiographers, i.e. 'Cheng Gao' (Official Aviso) and 'Chuan Wen' (Hearsay; Personal Communication). The former refers to the official reports from the historiographers of other states, which constitute the official recordings of history and are usually vague in interpretation because they followed the expression style of the witch history tradition. The latter is the information communicated personally among historians. The content of it is concerned with the reason and process of the event in question, and it may serve supplements to the deficiency of the former. While the former was officially recorded in 'Dian Ce' (official recordings) while the latter in 'Jian Du' (informal recordings) and became the personal or confidential documents. The two types of recordings usually vary to a large extent. And 'hearsay' is the source of Zuo-zhuan.