本文旨在釐清《公羊》「復仇理論」與兩漢復仇風氣的關係，檢討學界認為兩漢／東漢復仇風氣盛行之說及其對《公羊》學「復仇理論」導致復仇盛行的論點，進而詮釋漢代復仇盛行的可能原因。 首先，本文儘可能推定每一復仇事例發生的帝世，得知兩漢復仇風氣較盛者實為東漢，與「公羊學」盛行於西漢的事實並不相符；進而指出《公羊》「復仇理論」，實際上在兩漢並未被付諸實踐，難以將東漢復仇盛行的現象歸因於《公羊》復仇學說。其次，本文詳細考察東漢各復仇事例，指出：盛行於朝廷的《公羊》復仇經說對東漢民間士人旣未有實際影響，也沒有影響地方官吏的判決，終兩漢之世，復仇始終以「殺人律」論處。最後，本文指出兩漢間復仇事例最多的時期分別為武帝朝、王莽至光武間、東漢至漢末三期，尤以漢末為特盛。其中武帝朝的復仇事例與武帝時的政治局勢及其個人性格密切相關；王莽至光武間則因天下動亂，復仇事件自然較多；而復仇風氣由東漢初的盛行以至於漢末的特盛，則與東漢整體士風由「激揚」、「激詭」而至「更形激詭」的發展若合符節；加上東漢末大赦頻繁、官府社會控制力減弱等因素，漢末復仇的盛極一時實屬自然而合理。

Scholars have long argued that the reason why acts of revenge were so prevalent during the Western and Eastern Han dynasties can be attributed to views on revenge articulated in the Gongyang zhuan (公羊傳). This paper will point out, however, that most acts of revenge occurred during the Eastern Han, whereas the Gongyang zhuan enjoyed popularity during the earlier Western Han. Furthermore, a closer look at the historical record shows that the theory of revenge expounded in the Gongyang zhuan was never seriously put into practice during either period. Under further scrutiny, we find that the imperially sanctioned Gongyang zhuan, complete with its theory of revenge, was in fact never an influence on individuals during the Eastern Han. The same was true during this period for local officials, who widely treated acts of revenge as homicide cases. We therefore conclude that the widespread practice of taking revenge had less to de with Gongyang scholarship than with weakened control of the government as it was forced to focus most of its resources on putting down rebellions.