官史与裴《注》《三国志卷二十八》疑问疏证.PDF

官史 與裴《注》：《三國志‧卷二十八》疑問疏證 陳惠玲 國立 清華大學中文所博士生 黎明技術學院通識中心國文講師 摘 要 同列《三國志 ‧卷二十八》諸將有：「王淩」、（令狐愚）；「毋丘儉」、（文欽）； 「諸葛誕」；「鄧艾」、「鍾會」，悉為 「起兵事敗」而遭滅族的「曹魏叛將」 。王淩 為司馬懿所誅；毋丘儉 、文欽為司馬師所誅；諸葛誕 、鄧艾、鍾會悉為司馬昭所 誅。司馬氏執國盜鼎，沈約一語：「誅鉏勝己，靡或有遺」直指司馬氏猜疑嫉才 的性情，致使滅門血案接二連三，令人瞠目。陳壽《三國志》成於西晉， 王鳴盛 《十七史商榷》認為：「以見其皆亡身殉國者，而皆貶其以過取禍，則廋詞以避 咎耳，世愈近，言愈隱，作史之良法也 」本卷即具此特色。每一部歷史悉以成王 敗寇為其敘述觀點，卻也總有私家史錄流傳於世； 本卷較之於 裴松之 《注》，差 異甚夥 ，矛盾窒礙，發人疑竇，藉以隨文互見，其隱其顯，總有端倪。又諸此私 家史錄，是否值得採信？筆者就此閱讀上的疑問提出疏證，目的在於：平心設問。 關鍵詞：三國志、王淩、毋丘儉、諸葛誕 、鄧艾、鍾會 Doubt between official history and private historical writings ：The Vol. 28 of the History of the Three Kingdoms Hui-Ling Chen Doctoral Student of Chinese Language Department of National Tsing Hua University General Education Center of Lee-Ming Institute of Technology Abstract William H. Nienhauser, Jr.(CLEAR,1990:1), Literature as a Source for Traditional History: The Case of Ou-yang Chan , cited David Der-wei Wang (1985) said: “Historical writing could be a “function” not of the factuality of the past, but more precisely of its narrative form …historical writing is not simply a way of organizing and forming experiences, but also a process of form giving which is destined to fulfill ideological, or even proto-political functions.”According to this point, we can see clearly that different between official history and private historical writings on the vol. 28, in which writes down five incidents that general turn traitor of in Vol. 28 but in history of the private savings there are different view and record, of the History of the Three Kingdoms. I presume that have a lot of queries that must be distinguished among them, and we should think that the long-standing of problem: Thro