《左傳》解釋《春秋經》之書法，有所謂「發凡言例」的五十凡例，對《經》文書法的解釋提供了概括性的論述，可作為理解《經》文、《傳》文的指標。但由於簡略不文，闡述不夠詳盡，或者與《經》文內容相異，因此歷來爭議紛綸。《左傳．隱公七年》第一凡曰：「凡諸侯同盟，於是稱名，故薨則赴以名，告終稱嗣也，以繼好息民，謂之禮經。」據此，則《春秋》中凡記載外諸侯（其他國家國君）之「卒」而記名者，應當都是魯國的同盟國。其次，隱公元年《左傳》云：「天子七月而葬，同軌畢至；諸侯五月，同盟至；大夫三月，同位至；士踰月，外姻至。贈死不及尸，弔生不及哀，豫凶事，非禮也。」顯示同盟諸侯「卒」，依禮，魯君應派卿大夫參與發葬事，則《春秋》書「葬」者，亦當為魯國締結盟約之國。由於前儒對於此說多有駁斥，本文擬就《經》文所錄外諸侯書「卒」且稱名，以及書「葬」者，校覈查驗該國與魯國的聯盟關係。統計《經》文記載，書外諸侯「卒」者 125人，其中 115人稱名；書「葬」者 87人。細查《經》、《傳》內文，凡有盟、會、蒞盟、會盟、會伐，以及朝、來朝等，皆可視為與魯有同盟關係之國。一一核閱魯同盟國與《春秋》書「卒」、「葬」者之聯繫，可推知魯之會葬，當是遵同盟會葬禮而行，魯往會葬，則皆據實而載「葬」，若《經》、《傳》皆無會盟紀錄，恐是史闕之故。又因諸侯世系間斷，或不書「卒」、「葬」者多矣，而《春秋》不書「卒」者，當非遺漏，而是因於舊史，舊史乃據赴告而書，赴告稱名則書，不赴告亦不書名。考察《春秋》書「卒」稱名、書「葬」而與魯同盟之比例約 87%~88%，史闕同盟紀錄約 12%~13%，由此觀知，《傳》例同盟赴告稱名之說當是通例、禮例，故未能盡合。

Fifty notes on the use of Zuo Zhuan, not only offer the explanationsof how Chun Qiu was written, but also indications to readers on how to understand these two books.However, the abridgmentof ZuoZhuanand the different narration between these notes and the classic has already drawn a lot of attention for centuries. This paper focuses on the inspection of how the death (zu卒 or zang葬)and names of feudal lords were recorded in Chun Qiu, to examine the relationship between theirmanor territories and Lu. It alsocomparesthe records in Chun Qiuwith the notes on the use of ZuoZhuan, and then explains the difference between these two. This paper points out that,althoughaccording to the notes on the use of ZuoZhuan, the death of feudal lords recorded as “zu” with their names on the record, should be of lords allied with Lu. Similarly, the feudal lords’ whose death were recorded as “zang” were also allied with Lu. However, a comparison ofthe alliances of Lu mentioned in Chun Qiu with history records showsthe existence ofa gap between their numbers. Therefore, this paper argues that the notes of the use of ZuoZhaung could be taken as a general guide to understanding the classic, and that is the reason why the notes cannot completely match the narration of Chun Qiu.