【阅前提醒】本篇专栏的外语原文部分出自苏格兰经学家理雅各所著的《The Chinese Classics》。理雅各先生出生于1815年（清嘉庆二十年），一生致力于中西方文化的交流，其最重要的成果就是详尽译释了种花家传统经典。由于理雅各先生的本职是传教士，因此其译作非常注重释经（不少传教士译者都有这种职业习惯，例如传教士柯大卫翻译的《论语》也是注重释经），这种紧抓释经权的翻译模式至今仍是独一份。不过由于理雅各的译作卷帙浩繁，因此目前人们常常删去释经只取译文。但我感觉此书的释经部分才是精华，直接丢弃实在是有些买椟还珠了。因此就计划用业余时间对理雅各的译作原文进行整理上传。当然此书规模实在庞大，以我的业余精力和水平，只能是能整理多少算多少，能整理成什么样算什么样。 

一、隐公元年

01.01.01、元年春王正月。

01.01.02、三月，公及邾仪父盟于蔑。

01.01.03、夏五月，郑伯克段于鄢。

01.01.04、秋七月，天王使宰咺来归惠公、仲子之赗。

01.01.05、九月，及宋人盟于宿。

01.01.06、冬十有二月，祭伯来。

01.01.07、公子益师卒。

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、春秋释经

01.01.01、元年春王正月。

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

（一）山话嵓语

1）引子——蹊跷的元年记载

        左氏、公羊、榖梁都对春秋的第一条记载进行了大量解读。原因就是这一条记载中出现了一个十分蹊跷的状况，即为什么《春秋》的鲁隐公元年没有记载隐公继位之事。

        ——左氏认为这是由于鲁隐公并不是继位，而只是暂摄鲁桓之位，所以不算继位，故不记。

        ——公羊认为这是成全鲁隐公后来让位给鲁恒公的美德，故不记。以此彰显其义，并防止普通人以隐公继位之事为依据错误否定“立嫡”原则扰乱纲常。

        ——榖梁认为这是成全鲁隐公后来让位给鲁恒公的心意，故不记。但这不是美德，鲁隐为了完成父亲立桓公的心愿，就将国家和君位让给成事不足败事有余的鲁桓，这是小惠而不是大义。

2）前因——仲子宫斗小记

        那鲁隐公的这次继位为什么会出现这么复杂的情况呢？左氏为我们还原了鲁隐公摄位之事的前因，此事源于鲁隐之父鲁惠公后宫中的一场宫斗：

        ——鲁惠公原配正宫夫人是孟子，但孟子无子，而孟子早亡，之后正宫空悬，那么一场宫斗也就顺理成章并在所难免了！此处孟子不是亚圣之姓的孟，而是孟仲叔季的孟，即其在后宫中的排序，即第一个正宫夫人。

        ——鲁惠公续弦声子，声子生鲁隐公，按资历，声子本应为新夫人，但不承想声子宫斗失败，未能成为正宫夫人，导致鲁隐公只是庶长子，地位较低。声子应该是陪嫁孟子的娣或姪，声为谥号，声子死时，其子隐公在位，故可为母加谥。

        ——晚年的鲁惠公迎娶了宋武公的嫡女仲子，仲子生鲁桓公，而宋仲子宫斗胜利，后来居上，成为新正宫夫人，因此鲁桓公成为嫡长子，是继承人中顺位最高的。同“孟子”，仲子表示此女是鲁惠公的第二个正宫夫人。

        依周礼，鲁国应该由嫡长子鲁桓公继位，但鲁桓公刚出生鲁惠公就死了，鲁桓公此时估计还没断奶，根本不可能处理朝政，甚至连被垂帘亲政的能力都没有，所以经过公室商议，先由鲁隐公继位，等到鲁桓成年后再还政给鲁桓公。左氏以此为凭，认为此鲁隐公只是摄位，以此解释春秋不记鲁隐登基之事。

3）揭秘——仲子宫斗秘诀

        左氏认为仲子之所以能宫斗胜利，是因为其有两大优势：一则，仲子的母族乃是大国宋，并且其是宋武公的嫡女，地位尊崇；二则，仲子的手掌纹上有“为鲁夫人”四字，此乃天命所归之兆。有此两条，方使仲子宫斗获胜成功上位。

        但我们吃瓜群众就比较八卦了，认为仲子宫斗成功的原因除了上面说的两条以外，还有更重要的三点：①仲子比声子年轻得多；②仲子很漂亮；③卫惠公很好色。

        ——左氏记载仲子刚生下鲁桓公不久，鲁惠公就死了；而根据太史公记载，鲁惠公光执政就执政了46年，也就是说仲子是在鲁惠公晚年才嫁过来的，而此时鲁惠公至少已经五六十岁了，但仲子却刚刚成年，而此时其宫斗之敌声子已经连儿子鲁隐公都成年了，可见此时的仲子要比声子年轻得多的多。

        ——仲子和鲁惠公的年纪差少说也有三四十岁，但鲁惠公依然硬要娶仲子，仲子要是不漂亮，怎么可能这个老不羞如此不顾廉耻。而最后鲁惠公还能在自己五六十岁的时候成功播种，那除了卫惠公身体底子不错外，另一个重要因素应该就是仲子很漂亮。

        ——仲子的掌纹仅仅是“为鲁夫人”，也就是说，她只是命中注定要做鲁国的夫人，但老天并没有写明一定是做鲁惠公的夫人，鲁隐公也可以啊！如果不是鲁惠公太好色，其应该将仲子嫁给长子鲁隐公，而不是自己一个已经五六十岁都能当人家小姑娘爷爷的人在这里老当益壮。

        ——左传还是遮掩了一下，太史公直接说，鲁惠公就是扒灰，即仲子本来是嫁给鲁隐公的，结果太漂亮，引得鲁惠公扒灰截胡。太史公的说法比较可信，因为掌纹的缘故，宋肯定是要与鲁国联姻，但正值壮年的鲁惠公怎么会对一个婴儿产生欲望，正常肯定是给储君儿子定亲，这亦能应“为鲁夫人”之谶，只是女大十八变后，呵呵……

        对于好色如命的鲁惠公来说，一方是青春不再的昨日黄花；而另一方是年轻美貌青春靓丽的可爱娇妻。那这场宫斗的结果还用猜吗？

4）后果——从隐桓之乱到三桓乱鲁

        由于鲁惠公的这次老当益壮，直接引出了之后的隐桓之乱——鲁隐公贤而有德，因此政绩很好，使鲁国国力蒸蒸日上，但这却引起了鲁桓公的忌惮，其以小人之心度君子之腹，认为鲁隐公肯定不愿还政，遂勾结权臣羽父弑杀了正在准备还政的鲁隐公，篡权夺位。

        而隐桓之乱造成鲁桓公得国不正，导致鲁桓公不得不迎娶声名狼藉的文姜以获取齐国的大力支持，要知道文姜当时的名声已经臭到连郑国的一个世子都坚决不娶的地步，也就是成语“齐大非偶”的典故由来。

        鲁桓娶文姜，是一场极为肮脏的政治交易，鲁桓迎娶声名狼藉的文姜，而作为交换，老丈人齐僖公则竟然顶着全天下的骂名，亲自送嫁到鲁，以给自己这个乖女婿强势站台。而鲁桓靠着老丈人的鼎力相助，终于消弭了弑君引起的反噬，坐稳了君位。但，代价呢？十六年后，妻子文姜勾结大舅哥兼德骨奸夫刺杀掉了鲁桓。

        鲁桓死后，其子庄公继位，文姜与德骨奸夫齐襄公顺势又逼迫鲁桓的儿子鲁庄公抛妻弃子以迎娶齐襄的闺女，即鲁庄的表妹哀姜，结果婚后哀姜勾搭小叔子庆父，又引出了庆父之乱，而等到鲁国好不容易熬过了庆父之乱，新君抬头一看，惊悚的发现此时鲁侯嫡系势力已经严重衰弱，而鲁桓三个庶子的家族却已经尾大不掉。

        新君为了保命，不得不妥协分封这三大家族，而由于这三大家族的家祖都是鲁桓的庶子，因此被合称为“三桓”，没错，正是孔圣一生的梦魇——鲁国三桓。鲁国国政至此逐渐由三桓把持，而这个曾经的东土大国周礼之邦至此便逐渐沦为诸侯争霸的背景板。

        孔子作《春秋》的一大主线任务，就是探究自己一生的梦魇——三桓——的发展历程。而归根结底，鲁国的衰落，三桓的诞生，就始于鲁惠公的这次老当益壮。故有观点认为《春秋》以鲁隐元年起首，《左传》以鲁惠宫斗起首，皆暗指三桓之兴鲁国之衰皆源于鲁惠这场荒唐的婚姻和传位。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        惠公元妃孟子。孟子卒，继室以声子，生隐公。

        宋武公生仲子。仲子生而有文在其手，曰为鲁夫人，故仲子归于我。生桓公而惠公薨，是以隐公立而奉之。

        元年春王周正月。不书即位，摄也。

2）公羊传

        元年者何？君之始年也。

        春者何？岁之始也。

        王者孰谓？谓文王也。

        曷为先言王，而后言正月？王正月也。

        何言乎王正月？大一统也。

        公何以不言即位？成公意也。

        何成乎公之意？公将平国而反之桓。

        曷为反之桓？桓幼而贵，隐长而卑。其为尊卑也微，国人莫知，隐长又贤，诸大夫扳隐而立之，隐于是焉而辞立，则未知桓之将必得立也；且如桓立，则恐诸大夫之不能相幼君也，故凡隐之立，为桓立也。

        隐长又贤，何以不宜立？立適以长不以贤，立子以贵不以长。

        桓何以贵？母贵也。

        母贵则子何以贵？子以母贵。母以子贵。

3）榖梁传

        虽无事，必举正月，谨始也。

        公何以不言即位？成公志也。

        焉成之？言君之不取为公也。

        君之不取为公，何也？将以让桓也。

        让桓正乎？曰，不正。

        《春秋》成人之美，不成人之恶。隐不正而成之，何也？将以恶桓也。

        其恶桓何也？隐将让而桓弑之，则桓恶矣。

        桓弑而隐让，则隐善矣。善则其不正焉，何也？《春秋》贵义而不贵惠，信道而不信邪。孝子扬父之美，不扬父之恶。先君之欲与桓，非正也，邪也。虽然，既胜其邪心以与隐矣。已探先君之邪志而遂以与桓，则是成父之恶也。兄弟，天伦也。为子受之父，为诸侯受之君。已废天伦而忘君父，以行小惠，曰小道也。若隐者，可谓轻千乘之国，蹈道则未也。

（三）理雅各释

1）缺失的继位记录

Par.1.This paragraph, it will be seen, is incomplete, the adjunct merely of a 公即位〖山注||  此处是说，正常情况应该有“公即位”三个字〗，which is found at the beginning of nearly every other book. The reason of the incompleteness will be considered below.

2）有意思的历法“建首”

元 年，-'the 1st year.' The Urh-ya〖山注||《尔雅》〗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||  杜预〗 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 Hëa, Shang, and Chow〖山注||  夏商周〗 commenced the year. Hëa began the year with the 1st month of spring; Shang, a month, and Chow, 2 months earlier. 〖山注||  此处是指的夏商周历法建首的区别，周人以十二地支命名十二月，故建首在子；商历建首在丑；夏历建首在寅，而寅月是春季第一个月，因此我们如今使用的紫金历是夏历〗It became so much a rule for the beginning of the year to be changed by every new dynasty, that Ts‘in made its fُirt month commence a lunation before that of Chow. 〖山注||  此处是说秦建首在亥，比周之首还早一个月〗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 Hëa’一After all, there remains the question why the first month of the year should be called ching (正).〖山注||  这一段是关于夏商周秦历法建首的规律，建首指的是确定一年的首月，夏商周秦确立历法时，都会比前朝提前一个月，所以，夏历建首在寅，商历建首在丑，周历建首在子，秦历建首在亥，但由于秦首亥月还是初冬，过于反直觉，连紧随秦制的汉都受不了，因此之后很快废除了秦首，如今我们使用的紫金历是夏历，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，东周开国之君，原为西周幽王之子，后为夺权勾结戎夷弑杀幽王，至此西周灭亡，后东迁洛邑，建国东周〗, the king of Chow for the time then being, as Too Yu says;一and in this styłe does the account of very many of the years of the Ch'un Ts'ëw〖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 Wăn〖山注||  周文王，西周武王之父，原为商之西方伯，后其子武王灭商，追封其为文王。今有出土甲骨，认为文王生前已称王，此处不详述〗; but though he was the founder of the Chow dynasty, the commenceınent of the year was not yet changed in his time.

4）周历的春天

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'ëw〖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 Hëa 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‘ëw. 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||  周历的春正月是夏历的冬十一月，也就是说，此时并不是现实中的春天，因此孔夫子虽尊周礼，但反而喜欢夏历。〗

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||《尚书·周书·顾命》〗. 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 ‘accession;' 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-lëang 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）理雅各译公羊传

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

What is meant by 元年？ The first year of the ruler.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——元年者何？君之始年也。〗

What is meant by 春 (spring)? The first season of the year.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——春者何？岁之始也。〗

What is meant by 王(the king)?It means king Wăn.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——王者孰谓？谓文王也。〗

Why does [the text] first give “king,” and then “first month?” [To show that] it was the king's first month.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——曷为先言王而后言正月？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].〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——何言乎王正月？大一统也。〗

Why is it not said that the duke came to the [vacant] seat ? To give full expression to the duke's mind. 〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——公何以不言即位？成公意也。〗

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.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——何成乎公之意？公将平国而反之桓。〗

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.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——曷为反之桓？桓幼而贵，隐长而卑，其为尊卑也微，国人莫知。隐长又贤，诸大夫扳隐而立之。隐于是焉而辞立，则未知桓之将必得立也。且如桓立，则恐诸大夫之不能相幼君也，故凡隐之立为桓立也。〗

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.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——隐长又贤，何以不宜立？立适以长不以贤，立子以贵不以长。〗

In what respect was Hwan nobler [in rank] than Yin?His mother was of higher position [than Yin's mother].〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——桓何以贵？母贵也。〗

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.〖山录||《公羊传·隐公元年》——母贵则子何以贵？子以母贵，母以子贵。〗

7）理雅各译榖梁传

The Chuen of Kuh-lëang says:—〖山注||  译文位置在原书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.〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——虽无事，必举正月，谨始也。〗

Why is it not said that the duke came to the [vacant] seat? To give full expression to the duke's mind.〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——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.〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——焉成之？言君之不取为公也。〗

What is meant by saying that he did not himself care to be duke? That he intended to resign the marquisate to Hwan.〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——君之不取为公，何也？将以让桓也。〗

Was it correct in [to~wish] to resign it to Hwan ?It was not correct. 〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——让桓正乎？曰：不正。〗

The Ch‘un Ts'ëw 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.〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——《春秋》成人之美，不成人之恶。隐不正而成之，何也？将以恶桓也。〗

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.〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——其恶桓，何也？隐将让而桓弒之，则桓恶矣；桓弒而隐让，则隐善矣。〗

If Yin was thus good, why do you say that he was not correct? In the Ch'un Ts'ëw,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.'〖山录||《榖梁传·隐公元年》——桓弑而隐让，则隐善矣。善则其不正焉，何也？《春秋》贵义而不贵惠，信道而不信邪。孝子扬父之美，不扬父之恶。先君之欲与桓，非正也，邪也。虽然，既胜其邪心以与隐矣。已探先君之邪志而遂以与桓，则是成父之恶也。兄弟，天伦也。为子受之父，为诸侯受之君。已废天伦而忘君父，以行小惠，曰小道也。若隐者，可谓轻千乘之国，蹈道则未也。〗

01.01.02、三月，公及邾仪父盟于蔑。

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

（一）山话嵓语

        因为鲁惠公荒唐的传位，造成鲁隐公执政合法性不足，于是执政的第三个月，堂堂鲁国国君竟然以“求好”的态度盟会邻鲁小国邾的国君。春秋三传对此事的观点较为一致，但也略有差异。

        ——关于“及”字，公羊和榖梁都认为是《春秋》在表达这场盟会中，鲁国是迫切主动的一方。

        ——关于“仪父”的称呼，三传都认同是鲁隐公是为“求好”邾国而使用的超规格敬称。其中公羊和榖梁记载“仪”是邾国国君的字，所以是敬称。

        ——但关于为什么不称对方的爵位“子”，三传出现了分歧，左氏认为此次盟会是诸侯私下的会面，没有王命，所以不书写爵位“子”；公羊认为，称呼是渐进的，即“州、国、氏、人、名、字、子”中此时称到字就可以了，关系进一步发展后，再称“子”；而榖梁传认为，邾国压根就不配称子爵，上古立国时，邾国就是个草台政权，周天子并没有册封过它。

        ——关于榖梁认为周天子并没有册封邾国之事，在之后的昭公三十一年记录中，公羊有一段比较微妙的记载，这一年公羊追叙了西周宣王改立邾国国君的事情，这说明邾国，在宣王时，至少是获得了周天子的认可，至于是不是正式册封，不确定，因为天子也可以参与大夫家族的族长改立事宜，比如西周孝王就曾欲改犬丘大骆家族的继承人选。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        三月，公及邾仪父盟于蔑——邾子克也。未王命，故不书爵。曰“仪父”，贵之也。公摄位而欲求好于邾，故为蔑之盟。

        夏四月，费伯帅师城郎。不书，非公命也。

2）公羊传

        及者何？与也。

        会、及、暨，皆与也。曷为或言会，或言及，或言暨？会犹最也。及犹汲汲也，暨犹暨暨也。及，我欲之。暨，不得已也。

        仪父者何？邾娄之君也。

        何以名？字也。

        曷为称字？褒之也。

        曷为褒之？为其与公盟也。

        与公盟者众矣，曷为独褒乎此？因其可褒而褒之。

        此其为可褒奈何？渐进也。

        眜者何？地期也。

3）榖梁传

        及者何？内为志焉尔。

        仪，字也。父犹傅也，男子之美称也。

        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）理雅各释

1）邾国

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-hëuh. The chief's name,as we learn afterwards from the Ch'un Ts'ëw, 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. Mëeh (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;’ ‘and’ Kung, Kuh, and others find recondite meanings in it, which will not bear examination.

3）夏四月，费伯帅师城郎。不书，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‘ae 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，郑伯克段于鄢。

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

（一）山话嵓语

1）春秋开场大戏——郑伯克段于鄢

        郑伯克段于鄢，乃是春秋开场大戏，其几乎涵盖了之后春秋发生的所有乱象，极具历史象征意味（篇幅有限，关于此事的具体情况及前因后果，小伙伴可参见以前我水的专栏CV13063817，此处不再详述）。

        ——武姜，身为太夫人，竟然仅凭个人好恶就一心想要废掉自己夫君精心培养的长子，并且这还是自己的亲儿子，哪怕最后长子顺利登基，成为了名正言顺众望所归的郑伯，武姜竟仍不罢休，反变本加厉的欲行谋害之事。武姜忤逆夫命，违背“夫为妻纲”之礼；武姜欲残害亲子之命，违背“夫死从子”之礼；武姜欲以小宗取代大宗，违背“立嫡以长”之礼。

        ——公子段身为臣子以及郑伯一奶同胞的亲弟弟，竟然违背父命、君命，一心想要弑君篡权，严重破坏了周礼建立的“君君臣臣，父父子子”秩序。

        ——郑庄公本为公子段同胞兄长，但不以孝悌教导公子段，反而不断助长捧杀，至公子段祸国乱政后，才忽举大义拿下公子段，手段毒辣，有违“昆弟一体”之礼，“亲亲相亲”之道。不过最后郑庄公能够黄泉认母，不绝段嗣，也算是说得过去。

        郑伯克段于鄢，包含了亲子相残、兄弟相残、君臣相残这春秋三大乱象，标志着周礼所建立的君君臣臣父父子子秩序趋于崩盘，混乱血腥的春秋至此逐渐拉开帷幕。

2）共叔段生死之谜

        目前，大部分人认为造反的公子段，最后死于郑伯平乱。这主要是因为历史演义《东周列国传》采用了这种说法。但综合史料分析，公子段并没有死，其应该是在卫国的共邑终了了一生。而出现这个争议并不能全怪冯梦龙，因为这个争议正是起于春秋三传。

        ——春秋三传中，公羊与榖梁都认为此“克”是“杀”的意思，即郑庄公杀掉了公子段。三票得两票，且这个结局也能满足小说读者们除恶务尽的需求，因此冯梦龙等小说家就以这两传的说法为依据，在演义中安排成了公子段身死。

        ——但是，冯梦龙在处理时出现了严重罢搁，公子段在演义中被称为“共叔段”，而此称呼在三传中只有左氏传是这样称呼的，而左氏传之所以这样称呼，一个重要的原因是，左氏认为段没有死，而是出奔到共邑并于之后生活在那里，故名共叔段。而公羊与榖梁认为段被杀了，所以两传并没有共叔段这个称谓。冯梦龙既然采用公羊和榖梁的说法，就不能再用左传的共叔说法。

        ——冯梦龙为了解决这个罢搁，就设定成公子段先被父亲郑武公分封到共邑，故名共叔段。但又产生了新的罢搁，共邑乃是春秋有名有姓的著名城邑，有较丰富的资料记录：其本为共和三公之一共伯和的领地，共伯和入周干政后，共邑归卫，待宣王继位后，共伯隐居山林而终（而史记记载后来公子和靠着资历和财富弑兄篡位，成为卫武公，反追封其亡兄为共伯，当然史记观点“共”是谥号，不是封地，此处不详究）。后北狄灭卫，卫国靠着共邑吊命，才坚持到齐桓封卫。而根据记载，共邑从来没有并入过郑国，因此郑武公根本不可能将儿子段分封到外国。

        而我们综合史料分析可以发现共叔段并没有死于郑伯平乱，恰恰相反，共叔段晚年应该过的还不错。依据有三：

        ——公羊与榖梁关于段被杀的依据都只是这个“克”字，并且都不是克的意思，只是在那生拉硬扯的引申，过于牵强附会，实在不能服人。

        ——左传明确记录了郑伯克段的时间地点人物和过程，且完全符合逻辑。严密的记录，再加上有理有据，可以完全令人信服左传记载的“出奔共”才是段真正的结局。

        ——太史公对共叔段的记载更加详细，不仅记载了共叔段之乱的过程，还记载了共叔段出奔共后的境遇：生活不错，以致于卫公子州吁曾经前去投奔；地位不低，所以卫公子州吁篡权后，竟然主动为共叔段出头，率五国联军共伐郑庄公，当然史记中的卫州吁在伐郑时被自己人干掉了，援头救段了属于是。

        因此综上分析，一般是认为，共叔段并没有被郑伯杀，而是流亡到共邑后，安安稳稳的渡过了余生。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        初，郑武公娶于申，曰武姜，生庄公及共叔段。庄公寤生，惊姜氏，故名曰“寤生”，遂恶之。爱共叔段，欲立之。亟请于武公，公弗许。

        及庄公即位，为之请制。公曰：“制，岩邑也，虢叔死焉。佗邑唯命。”请京，使居之，谓之京城大叔。

        祭仲曰：“都，城过百雉，国之害也。先王之制：大都，不过参国之一；中，五之一；小，九之一。今京不度，非制也，君将不堪。”公曰：“姜氏欲之，焉辟害？”对曰：“姜氏何厌之有？不如早为之所，无使滋蔓。蔓，难图也。蔓草犹不可除，况君之宠弟乎？”公曰：“多行不义，必自毙，子姑待之。”

        既而大叔命西鄙、北鄙贰于己。公子吕曰：“国不堪贰，君将若之何？欲与大叔，臣请事之；若弗与，则请除之。无生民心。”公曰：“无庸，将自及。”大叔又收贰以为己邑，至于廪延。子封曰：“可矣，厚将得众。”公曰：“不义不暱，厚将崩。”

        大叔完、聚，缮甲、兵，具卒、乘，将袭郑，夫人将启之。公闻其期，曰：“可矣！”命子封帅车二百乘以伐京。京叛大叔段。段入于鄢，公伐诸鄢。五月辛丑，大叔出奔共。

        书曰：“郑伯克段于鄢。”段不弟，故不言弟；如二君，故曰克；称郑伯，讥失教也；谓之郑志。不言出奔，难之也。

        遂置姜氏于城颍，而誓之曰：“不及黄泉，无相见也。”既而悔之。颍考叔为颍谷封人，闻之，有献于公。公赐之食，食舍肉。公问之，对曰：“小人有母，皆尝小人之食矣，未尝君之羹，请以遗之。”公曰：“尔有母遗，繄我独无！”颍考叔曰：“敢问何谓也？”公语之故，且告之悔。对曰：“君何患焉？若阙地及泉，隧而相见，其谁曰不然？”公从之。公入而赋：“大隧之中，其乐也融融！”姜出而赋：“大隧之外，其乐也洩洩！”遂为母子如初。

        君子曰：“颍考叔，纯孝也，爱其母，施及庄公。《诗》曰：‘孝子不匮，永锡尔类。’其是之谓乎！”

2）公羊传

        克之者何？杀之也。

        杀之则曷为谓之克？大郑伯之恶也。

        曷为大郑伯之恶？母欲立之，己杀之，如勿与而已矣。

        段者何？郑伯之弟也。

        何以不称弟？当国也。

        其地何？当国也。

        齐人杀无知何以不地？在内也。在内，虽当国不地也。不当国，虽在外亦不地也。

3）榖梁传

        克者何？能也。

        何能也？能杀也。

        何以不言杀？见段之有徒众也。

        段，郑伯弟也。何以知其为弟也？杀世子、母弟，目君。以其目君，知其为弟也。段，弟也，而弗谓弟；公子也，而弗谓公子，贬之也。段失子弟之道矣，贱段而甚郑伯也。

        何甚乎郑伯？甚郑伯之处心积虑成于杀也。于鄢，远也。犹曰取之其母之怀中而杀之云尔，甚之也。

        然则为郑伯者宜奈何？缓追逸贼，亲亲之道也。

（三）理雅各释

1）郑伯克段于鄢

Par.3. Ch‘ing was an earldom which had not been of long duration. In B.C. 805, king Seuen had invested his brother Yëw(友)with the lands of Ch'ing, in the pres. Hwa Chow (華州), dep. T'ung-chow, Shen-se. Yëw'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‘ae-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）理雅各译左氏传

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.〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——初，郑武公娶于申，曰武姜，生庄公及共叔段。庄公寤生，惊姜氏，故名曰“寤生”，遂恶之。爱共叔段，欲立之。亟请于武公，公弗许。〗

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. 〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——及庄公即位，为之请制。公曰：“制，岩邑也，虢叔死焉。佗邑唯命。”请京，使居之，谓之京城大叔。〗

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 Këang,”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."〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——祭仲曰：“都，城过百雉，国之害也。先王之制：大都，不过参国之一；中，五之一；小，九之一。今京不度，非制也，君将不堪。”公曰：“姜氏欲之，焉辟害？”对曰：“姜氏何厌之有？不如早为之所，无使滋蔓。蔓，难图也。蔓草犹不可除，况君之宠弟乎？”公曰：“多行不义，必自毙，子姑待之。”〗

‘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."〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——既而大叔命西鄙、北鄙贰于己。公子吕曰：“国不堪贰，君将若之何？欲与大叔，臣请事之；若弗与，则请除之。无生民心。”公曰：“无庸，将自及。”〗

' 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."〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——大叔又收贰以为己邑，至于廪延。子封曰：“可矣，厚将得众。”公曰：“不义不暱，厚将崩。”〗

‘T‘ae-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.〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——大叔完、聚，缮甲、兵，具卒、乘，将袭郑，夫人将启之。公闻其期，曰：“可矣！”命子封帅车二百乘以伐京。京叛大叔段。段入于鄢，公伐诸鄢。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.〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——书曰：“郑伯克段于鄢。”段不弟，故不言弟；如二君，故曰克；称郑伯，讥失教也；谓之郑志。不言出奔，难之也。〗

Immediately after these events, duke Chwang placed his mother Këang 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‘aou-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‘aou-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‘aou-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.〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——遂置姜氏于城颍，而誓之曰：“不及黄泉，无相见也。”既而悔之。颍考叔为颍谷封人，闻之，有献于公。公赐之食，食舍肉。公问之，对曰：“小人有母，皆尝小人之食矣，未尝君之羹，请以遗之。”公曰：“尔有母遗，繄我独无！”颍考叔曰：“敢问何谓也？”公语之故，且告之悔。对曰：“君何患焉？若阙地及泉，隧而相见，其谁曰不然？”公从之。公入而赋：“大隧之中，其乐也融融！”姜出而赋：“大隧之外，其乐也洩洩！”遂为母子如初。〗

‘A superior man may say,“Ying K‘aou-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 ?"'〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——君子曰：“颍考叔，纯孝也，爱其母，施及庄公。《诗》曰：‘孝子不匮，永锡尔类。’其是之谓乎！”〗

3）评《春秋左传》

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‘ëw of 克 used as in this paragraph.

01.01.04、秋七月，天王使宰咺来归惠公、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）山话嵓语

1）鲁国此次究竟送葬了几个人

        《春秋》这条记载的意思是鲁国有权贵去世了，周平王派人来送葬。然后春秋三传一起吐槽周天子的此次送葬太失礼了，太掉价了。此时看似春秋三传统一战线，但等各自吐槽完后，三传差点打起来，三传在此处的争端都已经上升的伦理的地步了。而争议的关键点比较无厘头，就是鲁国此次究竟送葬了几个人？

        ——左氏认为，此次送葬了两个人，一个是鲁惠公，一个是鲁惠公的新夫人仲子。但是仲子并没有去世，仲子第二年十二月才死。也就是说，左氏吐槽，人还没死呢，你周天子就派人跑来送葬了，几个意思啊？

        ——公羊也认为此次送葬了两个人，一个是鲁惠公，一个是鲁惠公的新夫人仲子。但是公羊认为两个人都已经死了。然后公羊吐槽，你周天子送的东西也太少了，鲁国死了一个国君外加一个君夫人，你却只送了赗，并且就这点东西还很晚才送到，你堂堂周天子抠抠搜搜好意思拿出手。

        ——而榖梁反而认为送的东西太多了，违背了礼。因为榖梁认为，这句记载不是“惠公、仲子”而是“惠公仲子”，也就是说榖梁认为此次死的只是一个人，即惠公仲子，然后就上升到伦理了，前面二传都认为仲子是惠公的夫人，而榖梁认为仲子是惠公的亲妈，而惠公的亲妈地位低下，只是个妾室，因此你周天子根本不应该因为惠公为君，就给一个妾室送赗。也就是说周天子送的太多了，根本不应该送。

2）令人后背发凉的猜测

        当我试图将综合分析这三传的说法时，得出了一个令我毛骨悚然的可能——惠公后宫的这位宫斗小能手仲子的命运可能很糟糕，她虽宫斗无双，但在阶级森严的男权社会中依然是命如草芥，即，仲子在隐桓争嫡时失败了，而失败的惩罚很可能是被殉葬！

        ——首先，综合三传可以明确，就在惠公死的时候，正好有一个尊贵的女人也正巧死了，但哪里有这么多巧合，这位女人的死，很可能不是意外，不是巧合，而是谋杀。

        ——其次，这个女人是谁，榖梁认为的惠公亲妈这一条不可信，因为惠公光执政就执政了46年，他老妈如果还活着，至少八九十，可能性的确不大。所以最大的可能就是左氏与公羊认为的惠公少妻仲子。

        ——再次，仲子此时估计是死了，否则，周天子再胡闹，也不会给活人送丧葬用品……慢着！我忽然想到一种更可怕的可能！

3）更可怕的一种可能

        我本想用公羊榖梁来否定左传上仲子未死的论点，但写到此处却忽然想到另外一种可能，另外一种更加残酷更加可怕的可能。可怕到明明此时已过初冬，但我竟然有了些许汗意。即，左传的时间线是完全正确的，此时仲子的确没有死，的确是死在了第二年十二月。而周天子在此时提前送来了仲子的丧葬用品，不是为了省钱，而是为了暗示仲子该上路了……虽然离谱，但这不是什么新鲜招数，后世不少君王如果想让某个权贵体面，会忽然御赐丧葬用品；如果权贵不识相，皇帝就派人披麻戴孝去哭丧；再不识相，那就等着被意外吧（比如鲁僖公先暗示庆父自己体面，但远在密地的庆父拒绝遵命，于是鲁僖公命公子鱼去庆父门口哭丧，庆父知道躲不过，就自缢了，最后公子鱼为庆父收完尸回都复命。）。

        所以想到此处，我按照左传时间线，脑补出另一个可怕的故事：鲁惠公死后，或是因为鲁惠遗言仲子陪葬（可能是担心娇妻和其前男友隐公旧情复燃），或是因为仲子桓公一脉政治斗争失败（如同后世努尔哈赤死后，爱妻阿巴亥政治斗争失败，惨遭殉葬），仲子被要求主动殉葬。

        但正年轻的仲子肯定不同意，于是就仗着太夫人的身份拒绝殉葬，她倒是要看看谁敢公然弑后，于是鲁臣们就请示了周天子，然后周天子送来了丧葬用品。此时对仲子宠爱之极的丈夫已薨；而她的儿子太小，并刚刚被剥夺了君位；而她的母族宋在惠公去世后立刻派兵前来为女儿和桓公站台，但可惜在黄地被鲁国大败；至于前男友隐公，他就是一个只知尊父守礼的傻瓜，他当年但凡刚烈一点儿，小人一点儿，她早就已是他的怀中人了……就这样，在滔滔大势下，仲子一个失去夫君、母族和儿子庇护的弱女子只能就范，于次年十二月乙卯日接受了自己的宿命。

        鲁隐公乃是谦谦君子，而仲子又是他的前未婚妻，自幼定亲两小无猜，因此鲁隐公实在不忍害其性命，但奈何父命难违，只得如此行事。但后来实在是于心难安，就在三年后的九月，为仲子修建祭庙，并带大臣，以诸侯之礼，献六羽以祭……纪念那个曾经爱笑爱闹却最终被命运裹挟身不由己的的美丽女孩……此时来灵感了，想水一篇权谋爱情小文……可惜精力有限，以后看心情吧。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        秋七月，天王使宰咺来归惠公、仲子之赗。缓，且子氏未薨，故名。天子七月而葬，同轨毕至；诸侯五月，同盟至；大夫三月，同位至；士逾月，外姻至。赠死不及尸，吊生不及哀，豫凶事，非礼也。

        八月，纪人伐夷。夷不告，故不书。

        有蜚。不为灾，亦不书。

2）公羊传

        宰者何？官也。

        咺者何？名也。

        曷为以官氏？宰，士也。

        惠公者何？隐之考也。

        仲子者何？桓之母也。

        何以不称夫人？桓未君也。

        赗者何？丧事有赗，赗者盖以马，以乘马、束帛。车马曰赗，货财曰赙，衣被曰禭。

        桓未君，则诸侯曷为来赗之？隐为桓立，故以桓母之丧告于诸侯。

        然则何言尔？成公意也。

        其言“来”何？不及事也。

        其言惠公、仲子何？兼之。兼之，非礼也。

        何以不言“及”仲子？仲子微也。

3）榖梁传

        母以子氏，仲子者何？惠公之母，孝公之妾也。礼，赗人之母则可，赗人之妾则不可。君子以其可辞受之。其志，不及事也。

        赗者何也？乘马曰赗，衣衾曰襚，贝玉曰含，钱财曰赙。

（三）理雅各释

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-lëang 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-lëang, and affirmed by the editors of the K'ang-he Ch'un Ts'ëw ;-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）周王奇葩的送赗时机

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”还是“惠公之仲子”

On first translating the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw, 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 fuṇeral of Chung Tsze, who had been the wife of Hwuy. I gave up the constrųction in deference to the prevailing opinion of the commentators; but it had been adopted by no less a scholar than Ch‘ing E (程颐；A.D.1033一1107).

7）八月，纪人伐夷。夷不告，故不书。有蜚。不为灾，亦不书。

 [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 wąs 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）山话嵓语

        本来这一条记载没什么可讲的，原准备梳理一下三传观点就结束，但刚刚我在写上一节时，忽然悟出（也可能是脑洞大开）仲子殉葬说。然后再看这一条，就突然感觉不一样了。如果上面我提出的仲子殉葬说是正确的，那这一条就是在解释，仲子的母国宋为什么不管自己的闺女，放任鲁国拿其殉葬。这一条给出的原因很简单，管了，但是失败了；或者是，管了，甚至想帮助自己的外甥桓公继位，但是失败了，而仲子正是这次失败的惩罚。

        ——左氏很明确的记载，惠公薨逝时，宋国派军队伐鲁，以致于鲁惠公的葬礼草草了事，等到鲁国在黄地击败宋军后，宋国前来求和，之后，鲁人以祭祀时原主持者鲁桓公太小还不懂事为由重新改葬，这其实是变向的否定了鲁桓公的合法性。

        ——这次隐桓之争，可能非常凶险，因为左氏记载，这次的鲁宋之战才是真正决定隐桓夺嫡的胜负手。以此推测，这一次鲁国权利之争，初期鲁隐公一派是完全处于下风，而最后鲁隐继位，并不是因为鲁桓公太小，而是鲁桓公的最大底牌母族宋国被打败了，从而造成隐公一脉的成功上位。

        ——不排除周天子给鲁惠公晚送丧葬用品的用意是暗示鲁国，天子不承认鲁桓公当孝子主持葬礼的合法性，进而否定鲁桓公执政的合法性，鲁隐公继位后，其派系就顺势改葬鲁惠公，以否定鲁桓公摔盆孝子的身份（春秋时不知是什么规矩，如今我们本地是以摔盆为孝子凭据，摔盆者是可以继承家产的孝子）。

        ——另外左传记载卫侯亲自出面参见鲁惠公的第二次葬礼，卫宋乃是兄弟之国，皆为殷商遗民组成，因此卫侯的目的是想为鲁宋说和，但是鲁隐公连面都没有见。可见此时鲁宋的关系已极为紧张，根本不是一场会盟可以解决的。

        ——另外公羊和榖梁对于宋人与鲁国会盟观点比较一致，即鲁国此次对于宋国较为蔑视，因此只派了一个连名字都不配记的小人物跑去和宋国会盟。

        综上所述，可能事情是这样的：惠公死后，隐桓争嫡，鲁桓虽是嫡长储君，但资历太浅，根基太薄；而鲁隐虽是庶子，但之前一直是被当做储君培养，因此根基深厚。争嫡初期，可能是鲁隐不慕君位，可能是鲁桓母族宋国来势汹汹，导致鲁隐一脉处于下风。而之后鲁隐不忍心自己的手下遭到清洗，被迫出来争嫡，然后就车翻了宋国，宋国不得已之下，只能求和，鲁隐同意了。而作为宋国战败的惩罚，外嫁来的仲子必须死，否则鲁隐一脉人心不安，而鲁隐也只能听任。

        嗯，另外，我水专栏时，常会有一些自相矛盾之处，主要是史料论据自相矛盾，而我只能根据我的论点来挑选论据。所以在【春秋01.01.01条】中论述关于惠公去世时桓公可能还未断奶的这个观点时，就删掉了宋武公的这条线索。正好此处是我的另一个不同论点，即在这里我认为鲁桓公当时年纪不大，但应该已经可以管事。所以此处就补上宋武公这条线索：仲子的父亲宋武公是鲁惠公二十一年去世，而惠公死于四十六年，也就是说等到惠公死时，仲子至少25岁，而古代女子十四五六就可以嫁娶，因此桓公估计此时也有十来岁了。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        惠公之季年，败宋师于黄。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。公弗临，故不书。惠公之薨也，有宋师，大子少，葬故有阙，是以改葬。

        卫侯来会葬，不见公，亦不书。

        郑共叔之乱，公孙滑出奔卫。卫人为之伐郑，取廪延。郑人以王师、虢师伐卫南鄙。请师于邾。邾子使私于公子豫。豫请往，公弗许，遂行，及邾人、郑人盟于翼。不书，非公命也。

        新作南门。不书，亦非公命也。

2）公羊传

        孰及之？内之微者也。

3）榖梁传

        及者何？内卑者也。宋人，外卑者也。卑者之盟不日。宿，邑名也。

（三）理雅各释

1）宋国

Par.5. Sung was a dukedom,-having its chief city in the pres. dis. of Shang-k`ëw (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，败宋师于黄。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）鲁宋双方立约者的地位

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）理雅各译左氏传

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

‘In winter, in the 10th month, on the day Kăng-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.’〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——冬十月庚申，改葬惠公。公弗临，故不书。惠公之薨也，有宋师，大子少，葬故有阙，是以改葬。卫侯来会葬，不见公，亦不书。〗

‘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.'〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——郑共叔之乱，公孙滑出奔卫。卫人为之伐郑，取廪延。郑人以王师、虢师伐卫南鄙。请师于邾。邾子使私于公子豫。豫请往，公弗许，遂行，及邾人、郑人盟于翼。不书，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.]〖山录||《左传·隐公元年》——新作南门。不书，亦非公命也。〗

01.01.06、冬十有二月，祭伯来。

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

（一）山话嵓语

        对于这一条记载，三传的观点较为一致，就是周天子的大夫祭伯，在没有王命的情况下，竟然私自朝见鲁国新君。这一条表现出此时周天子已经衰弱到连自己的大夫都管不住的地步了。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        十二月，祭伯来，非王命也。

2）公羊传

        祭伯者何？天子之大夫也。

        何以不称使？奔也。

        奔则曷为不言奔？王者无外，言奔，则有外之辞也。

3）榖梁传

        来者，来朝也。其弗谓朝何也？寰内诸侯，非有天子之命，不得出会诸侯。不正其外交，故弗与朝也。聘弓矢不出竟埸，束脩之肉不行竟中，有至尊者不贰之也。

（三）理雅各释

1）十二月，祭伯来，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-lëang makes the coming to have been to do a sort of homage to duke Yin. But this is simply guess work.

01.01.07、公子益师卒。

King-tsze（Gongzi）Yih-sze（Yishi）died.

（一）山话嵓语

        这一条记载是关于一位鲁国公室成员的去世问题。综合三传，能大致判断出，此人名益师，字众父，应该是鲁孝公之子，因为此时“公子”之称还没有泛化，只有诸侯之子方能称公子。至于是哪位公子，应该是孝公子，也就是隐公的叔叔。因为隐公没有参加葬礼，如果是隐公的弟弟，那讲究“昆弟一体”的鲁侯怎么也要意思意思。另外，三传关于为什么《春秋》没有记载公子益师的具体卒日，均有不同看法。

        ——左氏认为是因为鲁隐没有参加葬礼，所以不记卒日，至于为什么鲁隐不参加，榖梁的观点是这位益师生前犯了大错，所以不记卒日。

        ——而公羊就有意思了，其认为另外两传完全想多了，之所以不记就是因为孔子不知道，即孔子距离鲁隐已经二百年了，虽有史书存世，但二百年时间，沧海桑田，丢失一些细节太正常了，所以公羊认为，没那么多阴谋论，就是时间太久了，孔子也查不到益师的卒日，故不记。

（二）春秋三传

1）左氏传

        众父卒。公不与小敛，故不书日。

2）公羊传

        何以不日？远也。所见异辞，所闻异辞，所传闻异辞。

3）榖梁传

        大夫日卒，正也。不日卒，恶也。

（三）理雅各释

1）公子

Par.7.Of Yih-sze we know nothing but what this brief par.tells. He was ‘a 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 Hëw (何休)says here, 公子者氏也.Kuh-lëang 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||  此处理雅各倾向于认为“公子”是姓氏，但这种观点我并不认可，我认为“公子”“公孙”应该是春秋之后逐渐变成了姓氏，即有人身份本为“公子”“公孙”，后就以此为氏，最后逐渐演变成为了姓氏。包括黄帝，我同样认为“公孙”应该是其身份，而不是其姓氏。〗

2）小敛

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.