《谷梁传》叙事比论(转载)

"Guliang Zhuan" Narrative Theory

通过《谷梁传》十五则叙事文字与《左传》《公羊传》同题故事逐一比较可以发现,有谷梁氏优于左氏、公羊氏者,有三家各有千秋者,有谷梁氏不如二氏者。谷梁氏多数故事不如左氏,少数互有短长。谷梁氏叙事与公羊氏相差无几。出现上述差异的原因在于,谷梁氏、公羊氏是经学家,重在解释《春秋》经义,故事只是为释义的补充而已,因而忽视叙事的完整性和生动性。左氏是史学家兼史传文学家,长于叙事,重视细节的真实性和情节的完整性,解释《春秋》经义只是偶尔为之。

Through the one-by-one comparison of fifteen narrative texts of same titles between ＂Guliang Zhuan＂ and ＂Zuo Zhuan＂ ＂Gongyang Zhuan＂ it is found in some pieces ＂Guliang Zhuan＂ is better than ＂Zuo Zhuan＂ ＂Gongyang Zhuan＂, and equally good in some pieces and worse in other pieces. Most stories in Guliang Zhuan are not good as Zuozhuan, and there are just a few stories in which both are equally good. Guliang Zhuan is almost the same as, Zuozhuan in narration. The reasons of the above are Guliang and Gongyang were scribes who focusing on the interpretation of the classics and the stories were just supplements. So the integrity and interests were ignored. Zuo was a historian and biography writer and better at narration, who stressed the authenticity and integrity of the plot. Explaining the meaning of ＂Spring and Autumn＂ was only an occasional event.