本文由敘事學角度省視魯隱公在三《傳》中之特殊形象，並回應傳統之經、史學議題，或有助於了解《春秋》何以始於魯隱公此一「春秋學」重大論題。《春秋》行文至簡，讀《春秋》不能不依傍三《傳》，讀《春秋》而不依傍三《傳》，將流於徒逞胸臆，故釐清三《傳》之敘事立場，尋求理解三《傳》之敘事與詮釋，實不可不為之事。本文之〈一〉先簡要爬梳歷代學者對魯隱公之正反評價，以見隱公形象在《春秋》學之關鍵地位，亦可見學者之評價魯隱公，往往專據某《傳》，對立場不同之其他二《傳》多未統合而觀，故多未能全面周延。〈二〉、〈三〉、〈四〉節，即分論三《傳》之「隱公敘事」特色，並抽繹其重要議題，如：隱桓身分之尊卑、攝位／讓位之別、隱公為政之合「禮」與否等，嘗試比較三《傳》之不同立場與敘事態度。最後，在前述基礎上，進而論析三《傳》之詮釋差異：《公》、《穀》中之隱公，往往作為一「個人」而被直接評價、褒貶。不同的是，《穀梁》極力營造魯隱深陷私領域之「孝道」與公領域之「君權」難以兼顧之困境，批判其於「禮」有缺，行事多有可議，終遭殺身之禍；《公羊》之隱公，其困境雖近似《穀梁》，形象卻更為複雜，乃形塑一戰戰兢兢、勉力維持平衡之形貌，與《穀梁》所描繪之不知輕重與負面迥異。《左傳》之隱公更為不同，由於《左傳》較《公》、《穀》對春秋國際情勢載述較多，因此隱公除其「個人」形象之外，也作為「群體」之象徵－魯國的縮影《左傳》之隱公，乃在魯國內部與國際局勢雙重摧打下一再屈折而難以貫徹個人意志之國君，足見魯國在春秋初期列強崛起下之無奈，由此可見「敘事體式」對人物形象、敘事意義之決定性影響。

The purpose of this essay is to provide an analysis of the images of Duke Yin of Lu in the Three Commentaries on the "Chunqiu" (Spring and Autumn Annals), so as to answer the question which has been central to the studies of classics and history: why the chronology of the "Chunqiu" begins with Duke Yin of Lu? The "Chunqiu" is so sparing in words that the "Three Commentaries" has been essential to understanding the text. As a result, to clarify the point of views and ways of interpretation of the "Three Commentaries" is prerequisite to answering the question at stake.The paper first indicates the pivotal importance of the images of Duke Yin of Lu in the studies of the "Chunqiu" with critical review of past research, as well as the lack of a comprehensive approach in the previous studies. The paper continues by comparing the variance in the narrative of Duke Yin among the three commentaries, focusing particularly on the hierarchy between Duke Yin and Duke Huan, the difference between regent and abdication, and the conformity of Duke Yin's involvement in state affairs to ritual. The paper argues that the Duke Yin of Lu is often appraised in both Gongyang and Guliang commentaries as an individual human being but in different manners. The Guliang commentary makes efforts to depict Duke Yin’s dilemma between filial piety and political sovereignty, and attributes his murder to his failure to fulfill the ritual expectations and controversies in behavior. In the Gongyang commentary, however, there is a more complicated kind of image, which stresses more on his efforts to balance the dilemma than the depreciation of his having no sense of priority as in the Guliang commentary. In the Zuo’s commentary, Duke Yin, aside from being evaluated as an individual, is treated as a symbol of the state of Lu due to the Zuo’s commentary’s emphasis on the inter-states affairs of the Chunqiu era. The Duke Yin of Lu in the Zuo’s commentary is treated as a leader who fails to implement his agenda in the difficult situation from inside and outside the state. Such an interpretation reveals the state’s frustration caused by the rise of the great power in early Chunqiu era. And all these differences demonstrate how decisive genre could be in shaping characters and in the meanings of the narrative.