「復仇觀」堪稱一重要的文化概念。本文即以此一普世共真的文化觀念為探討重點，而將時間鎖定在先秦至漢初這一中華民族復仇觀確立的關鍵時期，以先棄至漢代的儒家經典為對象，並以跨領域/跨文化的研究方式，企圖探索中國傳統思想、社會的復仇觀與復仇現象，追溯、分析此一觀念的起源與確立的過程。 首先探究復仇觀的起源及其形成社會/文化意義的過程，指出：復仇作為一種理所當然的觀念，應源自「生物性的本能」，並在人類文明發展的歷程中，滲入諸多思維而漸趨複雜，脫離原始意義；中國的復仇觀，更因儒家思想的影響，發展為超越血緣的「五倫」復仇觀。 其次依序探索儒家的復仇觀，指出：孔、孟時期，復仇觀念並不明顯，但大抵認同正當的復仇行為；到了《禮記》 、 《周禮》等禮書，則充分表達出後代儒者對復仇的觀念與態度：結合儒家的倫理觀，發展出「親疏有別」的復仇觀，並依受害者的身分而有不同的復仇原則與過失殺人的「避仇」方法等；不過禮書中的復仇觀雖看似相同，實則其體顯示儒家不同派別的歧異復仇觀。再次，比對三傳在闡釋《春秋》經文中所呈現復仇觀的異同，發現：《公羊》 、 《穀梁》都肯定復仇，《公羊》的復仇觀尤其強烈，但亦有故意將經文套上復仇框架以達其詮釋目的的現象，且存在不少疑點與矛盾，未可盡信；《穀梁》則強調復仇的動機與手段皆須正當；《左傳》則似乎並不贊成復仇，與《公羊》形成有趣的對比。 〈餘論〉先探討「報」與「報仇」的關係，推測兩種觀念看似同源，實則出自不同思維，卻因概念的相關性，造成其觀念的相互融合；其次以實例說明西方的復仇觀。〈結論〉則藉由中、西復仇觀的比較，凸顯中國復仇觀在社會化的過程中受儒家思想影響/規範/型塑，及經典化/學術化的現象，指出儒家思想對復仇傳統確立的漢代無所不在的影響力。

Revenge is an important concept to be found across cultures and times. The aim of this article is to discuss the Chinese views of revenge as they appeared during the key, consolidating period, i.e. from the pre-Qin to the early Han. Based on a study of the Confucian classics from this period, the article adopts a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural approach to explore the traditional Chinese views of revenge by tracing their origins and the process of their formation. We first investigate the origins and formation process of the social/ cultural meanings of revenge. We indicate that as an unquestionable principle, revenge might have originated from biological instinct; yet with the advent of civilization, it undoubtedly became complicated by absorbing some of the newly developed notions, thereon gradually cleansing off its primitive meaning. In due course, and under the influence of Confucianism, the Chinese views of revenge developed into a "Five Relations" (wulun) pattern which transcended the primitive premise of blood ties. We then analyze the Confucian views of revenge. During the times of Cofucius and Mencius, the deeds of revenge for justice were generally approved, despite that ~he idea of revenge was not fully developed. Later on, in The Book of Rituals (Liji) and The Rituals of Zhou (Zhouli), we begin to see explicit expressions of the Confucian scholars' views of and attitudes toward revenge. Under the influence of the Five Relations ethics, the principle of revenge was set to vary according to the differences within the Five Relations. In addition, the social status of the victim was viewed as a significant variable to determine the actual content of revenge and the method of "escaping revenge" in the case of manslaughter. For all their apparent commonalities, we find that there were indeed noticeable differences among the various Confucian schools in their views on revenge. We further compare the views expounded in the Chunqiu sanzhuan (The Three Commentaries on The Annals of the Spring and Autumn) and explore their differences. Both The Gongyang and The Guliang approve the practice of revenge, with the former expressing a stronger view. Yet both of them show a tendency to frame their interpretations of the classic within their own preconceived ideas of revenge, leading to some frank distortions of the classic. In addition, The Guliang emphasizes the moral purity of motives and means, whereas The Zuo Commentaries entirely denies moral sanction to revenge, and thus features an intriguing contrast to the The Gongyang. Finally, we discuss the relationship between "repayment" (pao) and "revenge" (paochou). On the surface, the two concepts might seem to share the same origin; but a close investigation shows that they actually came from very different intellectual sources. Furthermore, we indicate that there had been mutual absorption between the two due to conceptual affinities. We then use some concrete examples to explain the Western views of revenge. In the conclusion, by way of comparing the Chinese and the Western views of revenge, we highlight the power of Confucianism to influence, regulate, and shape both the socialization of the Chinese views of revenge, and the processes of canonization and intellectualization. We point out the overwhelming effectuality of Confucianism during the Han Dynasty.