〈隆中對〉缺失評議

Abstract

〈隆中對〉之得失，海峽兩岸均有論文探究，臺灣學者主要把蜀漢不能復興漢室的責任，歸諸於關羽大意失荊州，此說過於直觀單一，難免忽略其他因素；大陸一些學者已注意到〈隆中對〉本身的缺失，唯諸說各有焦點，未能全面性探究此一問題。故本文主旨，乃全面性檢討〈隆中對〉之缺失。本文主張〈隆中對〉先天存在五大無解之難題，故雖有三分之功，卻無定鼎之業。知其得，則知其失；知其失，則益知其得。經由檢討〈隆中對〉之缺失，則更能體認諸葛亮卓越的眼光與智慧，能為當時尚無根據地的劉備，規劃一確實可行的建國藍圖，並導演半世紀餘的歷史走向。但由於外在環境限制，興復漢室本就是在不可能中尋求一絲機會，斷不可以成敗論英雄也。

The credit and negligence of Long-Zhong Strategic Plan has always been the topic of thesis across the Strait. Taiwanese scholars are inclined to attribute Shu Han’s failure of reviving Han Dynasty to Guan Yu’s negligence in losing Jingzhou; yet this theory may be quite subjective and has ignored other possibility. Scholars in mainland China have gradually directed the negligence to Long-Zhong Strategic Plan, but their arguments varied from positions which end up failing to comprehensively explore this point. Thus, the thesis will aim at discussing and analyzing the negligence of Long-Zhong Strategic Plan.The thesis suggests that Long-Zhong Strategic Plan has five major unsolved questions which it did have credits for determining the Three Kingdoms but failed to strengthen the reign. The success sheds light on its loss, and vice versa. By criticizing the negligence of Long-Zhong Strategic Plan, one can realize the history that Zhuge Liang helped Liu Bei who yet owned any bases at the time plan a precise and feasible kingdom blueprint with his outstanding vision and intelligence, and further played an influential role for nearly half of a century. However on account of environmental predicament, reviving Han Dynasty has been an impossible mission in the very beginning which one cannot judge whether whom is a hero by one failure or success.