本文藉由剖析陸機〈辨亡論〉對其故國歷史想像與詮釋的用心，開拓該文的論述空間。透過史實核對，能察見陸機對孫氏政權始祖孫堅、奠基者孫策的推崇；尤其特重在型塑孫權的聖君形象，忽略其稱帝後日漸昏聵，導致吳國逐步走向衰亡的錯誤施政。且除對故國百般推揚之外，還對魏、蜀兩國非常敵視，揚己抑彼的立場非常鮮明，往往踰越史論基本上需尊重歷史真相的原則，呈現出「為國紀」的強烈意圖。與同期反映南人群體話語原貌的地方志──《江表傳》論述頗有異曲同工之處，當見〈辨亡論〉實具保存群體記憶的性質。唯獨面對孫吳何以滅亡的詮釋時，〈辨亡論〉與《江表傳》雖皆將孫皓時期與孫吳歷史論述切割，但也產生差異。陸機除更特別強調家族的重要性，使該文頗有融入「家乘」的意味所在之外；對孫皓的批判僅點到為止而非反覆盡情抨擊，傳統對此已有解釋，本文則將之置諸同期南人群體的孫皓論述之中，從而發現該論述在南人群體之中亦未取得統一，形成兩派幾乎是天差地遠的聲音。

Departing from the history of Dong Wu carefully depicted and interpreted in Lu Ji’s Comments on the Perishing of Dong Wu, this paper aims to probe into the backbone as well as details of this literary work. Through carefully reviewing with references from other historical sources and facts, Lu Ji’s praise of Sun Jian and Sun Ce, the pilot and the founder of the Sun’s Regime, is clearly there to be seen. More importantly, in order to create this image of Sun Quan as a “Brilliant King”, Lu Ji intentionally overlooked the fact that after he took the throne he gradually became decrepitude and muddleheaded, and therefore made some wrong administration putting Dong Wu on the track to its perishing. In addition to highly praising his Motherland by every means, the attitude of Lu Ji toward Cao Wei and Shu Han, the other two of the Three Kingdoms, was unusually hostile. Instead of adopting a framework showing respects for truth like general historical discussions and comments do, Lu Ji intended for his Comments to serve as a historical biography of Dong Wu. Comparing with the Chronicle of Jiangbiao, a local chronicle in the same period of time reflecting the collective discourse of the southern community, both literary works bore the same purpose while employing different approaches. The Comments on the Perishing of Dong Wu and the Chronicle of Jiangbiao both aimed to preserve to a certain extent the collective memory, as far as the factors leading Dong Wu to its perishing are concerned however, differences occur. Although both works excluded the period of Sun Hao’s ruling from the history of the Sun’s Regime, Lu Ji merely touched on it without going deeply into it. Moreover, he especially highlighted the importance of family with an intention to add some flavor of family history. Although the previous literature have offered a common explanation for Lu Ji’s exclusion of Sun Hao, this paper finds discussions and comments on Sun Hao from the southern community recorded in both works dramatically different after closely examining and comparing both works.