《春秋》三《傳》對復仇的態度不同：《公羊》最重復仇，《穀梁》肯定復仇而主張復仇之動機與手段皆須正當，《左傳》則較不傾向復仇。《公羊》較為特殊的復仇觀主要顯示在：一、莊四年之「紀侯大去其國」，涉及國君被殺，則臣子有九世／百世復仇之責；二、定四年之「吳入郢」，涉及人臣是否可對國君復仇。後者因事涉敏感，不易暢論，故清代學者主要皆就「九世復仇說」展開討論。本文以時代為經，先述論清初反對「九世復仇說」學者的論點，再述論清末支持「九世復仇說」學者的回應，並提出筆者對雙方論點的省察與詮釋。支持「九世復仇說」的學者，對反對者所提的諸多論點雖大都做了回應，但仍無法使其論述合理化，特別是在允許國對國復仇將有失「尊王」之義的論點，支持的學者全無回應，可知這確為「九世復仇說」的致命傷。延續此一思考與筆者近年來的系列研究，可知「復仇」對國家法制其實是一種挑戰，乃至破壞，如何因應，向為禮／法爭議的焦點。因而，若《春秋》確實存在「榮復仇」之旨，勢必與《春秋》「尊王」之說衝突。筆者透過辨析「榮復仇」諸說，認為「榮復仇」應非《春秋》撰作本意，而是《公羊》的一家之言。

Among the three Commentaries of the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals), the Gongyang zhuan espouses the most extreme view on the idea of revenge. The Gongyang zhuan’s attitude toward revenge is most salient in the fourth year of Duke Zhuang, when “The Marquis of Ji made a great departure from his state,” an incident that involves the issue of responsibility that falls upon descendant sons and ministers to exact revenge on behalf of a past ruler even after nine/a hundred generations after his murder. This essay first discusses early Qing scholars’ opposition to “the revenge of nine generations,” then late Qing scholars’ support of the idea. The rationales of the latter, as the essay points out, were not unassailable. None of the supporters was able to formulate an adequate response to the argument that the enactment of inter-state revenge violates the idea of “absolute reverence for the king.” The challenge, and even the destruction, that the practice of “revenge” would bring to the legal framework of the state, as well as the resolution to this conflict has always been a matter of tension between ritualism and legalism. Therefore, had the Chunqiu truly glorified “revenge,” it would surely have conflicted with the idea of “absolute reverence for the king.” The present study argues that Chunqiu does not endorse this practice, and that it is the Gongyang tradition that has developed its own line of thinking to validate the practice.