论文部分内容阅读
自1993年以来,姚曼波女士在多种刊物连续发表六篇系列文章,提出《春秋》一书当不起孟子、司马迁的推崇,《左传》才当得这种推崇,从而认定孟、马所说“《春秋》”必定是指《左传》。并且说从《孟子》、《史记》、《论语》、《左传》及“汉初学坛”,都能证明孔子写下的是《左传》,左丘明不过是《左传》的评论者。自认为廓清了千年疑案。本文观点与姚文相反,认为孟、马对《春秋》的推崇,含有对儒家祖师孔子的美化、圣化,对于这种美化,不能轻率地相信,更不能作为立论的出发点。文章具体分析了《孟子》、《史记》对孔子作“春秋”的论述,并比较了《论语》和《左传》在思想观点、语言运用方面的不同,论定孔子从未有作《左传》之事。姚文的论点论据不能成立,写作的出发声、论证的主观性,都不可取。系误入歧途。
Since 1993, Ms. Yao Manbo has continuously published six series of articles in various publications, proposing that “Spring and Autumn” can not afford to be respected by Mencius and Sima Qian and should be regarded as “Zuo Zhuan” Say “Spring and Autumn” must mean “Zuo Zhuan.” And from “Mencius”, “Shi Ji”, “The Analects of Confucius”, “Zuo Zhuan” and “Beginning of the Han Learning School”, we can prove that Confucius wrote “Zuo Zhuan” and Zuo Qiu Ming is only a comment on “Zuo Zhuan” By. Self-confident resolution of the millennium doubt. Contrary to Yao Wen, this paper holds that Meng and Ma ’s admiration of Spring and Autumn contains the beautification and sanctification of Confucian Confucian ancestor Confucius. For this kind of beautification, we can not believe it lightly, nor can we take it as the starting point of our argument. The article concretely analyzes the “Spring and Autumn” made by Confucius and Mencius in the Records of the Historian and compares the differences between the Analects of Confucius and Zuozhuan in their ideological and linguistic applications. Biography "thing. Yao Wen’s argument can not be established, the starting voice of writing, argument subjectivity, are not desirable. Department of astray.