「譙周勸降」歷來議論甚夥，且評價迥異。《三國志》作者陳壽對此給予極高評價。然而，歷來大多數的史論者卻都對譙周其事其人，嚴加貶抑，明清之際的王夫之，對於譙周之責，大致涵蓋了歷來貶抑譙周之重要面向，可謂其中最具代表性者。然而，筆者考核史料，發現其中有許多與史實相悖，故嘗試還其原貌，對「譙周勸降」提出一較公允合理的評價；並探賾歷來對其「勸降」負面論述形成的原因，或與「正統論」密不可分。

There are numerous and diverse appraisals of Qiao Zhou’s efforts to induce Liu Chan to capitulate. Chen Shou, the author of The Chronicle of Three Kingdom (Sanguozhi), values it highly. However, most scholars of history, such as Wang Fu-zhi, disagree and reproach Qiao Zhou for his efforts. Wang Fu-zhi’s appraisal can be regarded as the representation of those critical discourses on Qiao Zhou on account of it containing most discussion on various aspects of the subject. On serious examination, it’s obvious that Wang’s appraisal is not supported by those historic documents of that time. For this reason, this paper tries to rediscover the historic truth and it is expected that it will propose an equitable and reasonable evaluation of such an issue. Furthermore, this paper also explores the reason for those disagreements regarding inducement of capitulation and observes that it is deeply related to the orthodox idea of legitimacy in traditional Chinese history.

譙周; 劉禪; 勸降; 王夫之; 三國志; 正統論

Qian Zhou; Liu Chan; Inducement of capitulation; Wang Fu-zhi; The Chronicle of Three Kingdom; Sanguozhi; The orthodox idea of legitimacy