《尚书》诸篇阐释与宋代复仇论
The Political Theory of Revenge in the Interpretations of Shang Shu in the Song Dynasty

《尚书》中本复仇话题，苏轼《书传》率先批评周穆王、平王复仇、中兴之志。靖康之难后，这一新说受到士大夫的普遍关注。南宋高宗朝主张对金复仇的士大夫，如张九成、陈鹏飞等，均袭用苏轼新说，借批评穆王、平王指责高宗推动和议、放弃复仇；而赞成和议或经历过高宗朝末期对金宣战以及孝宗朝初期符离之败、隆兴和议的士人，如范浚、林之奇等，他们以维护《尚书》的“轨范”特质为由批评苏轼新说。相较其它经典，直接指向君主，且与中兴话题密切相关，是南宋初年《尚书》学中复仇论的特点。而士人对《书传》的继承或批评，也反映出苏轼之学在南宋前期受到极大的关注，并未沉寂。
In the various political theories derived from the Classic Shang Shu, the theory of revenge is one of the innovations by Su Shi (1037-1101) in the Northern Song. Su Shi’s critique on King Mu and King Ping’s reluctance on revenge and the reluctance on revival of the Zhou Dynasty, had been discussed a lot by Scholar-officials in the Song court after the collapse of the Northern Song under the attack of the Jurchen. The officials and literati who insisted on the revenge on the Jurchen, such as Zhang Jiucheng and Chen Pengfei, followed Su Shi’s innovative critique in order to criticize Song Gao-zong (r. 1127-1162)’s policy of making peace treaty with the Jurchen. On the other hand, those who supported the policy or underwent the Song-Jurchen wars in the 1160s, such as Fan Jun, Lin Zhi-qi, strongly objected to Su Shi’s interpretations. They restated that Shang Shu is one of the Classics designed to provide only ideal models for kings and emperors. Its targeting on the emperors and dynastic revival differentiated the Shang Shu based theory of revenge from the same topic generated from other Classics. The debate also demonstrated the prevailing of the Learning of Shu（蜀学） in early Southern Song, which is overlooked by most of the intellectual historians.