This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http : //books . google . com/|
tllJT'
THE CHINESE CLASSICS.
VOL. V.
THE CH-UN TS'EW, with THE TSO OHUBN.
^o M
B
MBNcitrs, V. Pt. i. IV, 2.
^
7;
THE
CHINESE CLASSICS:
WITH
A TRANSLATION, CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES, PROLEGOMENA, AND COPIOUS INDEXES.
BT
JAMES LEGGE, D.D., LL.D.,
OV THB LONDON MIBSIONAXT 80CXSTT.
m SEVEN VOLUMES.
VOL. V.-PART L,
OOKTAimitO
DUKES YIN, HWAN, CHWANG, MIN, HE, WAN, SEUEN AND CH'ING ;
AND THE PBOLEGOMENA.
HONGKONG: LANE, CRAWFORD & CO.
LONDON : TRIJBNER & Co., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1872.
PL pt.l
HONGKONG: Pbintbd at the Lokdok Missionary Sogibtt^s
Pbiittiho OrriCB.
\».
) u •J^ 1 ^ •
PREFACE.
The author is glad to be able to publish his fifth volume in loss than twelve months after the publication of the fourth. There remain now only the Le Ke and the Yih King to be translated and annotated, and then the task which he undertook will be fully accomplished. As he must return to England in the course of next year, he cannot say when the publication of those two Works may be looked for. He will certainly not allow anything to interfere with the completion of his labours upon them; but the Le Ke is so very voluminous, find the Yih King is so entirely sui generis^ that this will yet require some years. It will then have to be considered whether he can get them printed in England, or must return once more to Hongkong for that purpose. Moreover, the publication of them must depend in a good measure on the sale which the volumes already issued may continue to have.
The present volume contains not only the Ch*un Ts*ew of Confu- cius, but also the Commentary on it by Tso K^ew-ming. Had the author been content to publish merely the text of the Classic, with a translation of it, the volume would have been of small compass. But without the narratives of Tso the annals of the Sage would have given a most meagre and unsatisfactory account of the period covered by them. He did not therefore shrink from the great addi- tional labour required to translate the whole of Tso's Work; and he believes it will be acknowledged that he has thereby rendered an important service to students of Chinese literature and to his readers generally. From the narratives of Tso there may be gathered as full and interesting an account of the history of China, from B.C. 721 to about 460, as we have of any of the nations of Europe during th^ Middle Ages.
Xi PREFACE.
The translation of the Ch^un Ts^ew itself may be made by an ordinar}^ Chinese scholar currente calamo; but it is not so with the translation of the Tso Chuen. And the author had not the benefit of the labours of previous translators with either of them. In pre- paring his former volumes, he did liis work in the first place without reference to those who had traversed the same fields before him, but he afterwards found it occasionally of advantage to com- pare his versions with those of others. This he has not been able to do in the present case. If any Sinologue be at times inclined to differ from him in the rendering of a passage of Tso, the author would ask him to suspend his judgment for a little. Prolonged study nuiy perhaps show him that the meaning has seldom been mistaken. To have introduced notes vindicating his renderings, where the meaning was not immediately evident, would have greatly increased the size of the volume, already sufficiently large. His object has always been to translate faithfully, without resorting to paraphrase, which he considers a slovenly and unscholarly practice; yet he hopes that his versions are not in language that can be represented as uncouth, or unpleasant to read.
He has received the same assistance as in the case of the fourth volume in reading most of the proofs. And his obligations to the Rev. Mr. Chalmers have been even greater than before. Not only did he prepare the indexes of Subjects and Proper Names, but the author is indebted to him for the valuable maps of China in the Ch'un Ts'ew period, for the chronological table of the lunar months during it, and for various assistance on other points.
Hongkong, September 26th, 1872.
CONTENTS.
I. THE PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER I.
THE KATUBB AND VALUE OF THE CH^UN TS^BW. SECTION PAGE
L Disappointment of the expectations raised by the earliest accoants of the Ch*un
Tsew 1
n. Tlie Sources of the Ch*un Ts'ew, and its Nature. Did Confucius nilow himself
any liberty of addition or retrenchment in the use of his authorities? 6
III. Recovery of the Ch'un Ts'ew during the Han dynasty. Was this indeed the
Ch*un Ts*ew of Confucius? 16
rV. The three early Commentaries on the Ch*un T8*ew 22
V. The value of the Ch'un Ts*ew 88
L Specimens of the Commentaries of Kunj^-yang and Kuh-Ieansr 54
II. A letter questioning the Confucian authorship of the Ch'un Ts'ew, by Yuen Mei.... 81
CHAPTER II.
THE CHRONOLOOr OF THE CH*UN TS'EW. SECTION
I. The chronology of the Text; — with tables of solar eclipses, and of the lunar
months for tlie whole period 85
II. Tlie dates in tlie Tso Chuen 97
III. Lists of the kings of Chow, and of the princes of tlie principal fiefs, from the
beginning to the close of the Chow dynasty 102
CHAPTER III.
THE CHINA OF THE CH*UN TB*BW PKRIOD: — CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO ITS TERRITORIAL EXTENT: THE DISOBDER WHICH PREVAILED; THE GROWTH AND ENCROACHMENTS OF
THE LAEOES STATES; AND THE BARBAROUS TRIBES WHICH iSCRROUNDEO IT 112
CHAPTER IV.
LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL WORKS WHICH HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE
PREPARATION OF THIS VOLUME.
SECTION
I. Chinese Works ; with brief notices of them 136
II. Translations and other Foreign Works 147
via
CONTENTS.
11. THE BODY OP THE VOLUME.
BOOK
I. Duke Yin.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XL
XU.
>»
Hwan , 35
Cliwang 73
Mill 123
He ,\ 132
Wftn 227
Seuen 284
Ching 336
Seang 411
Cli'rtou 568
Ting 742
Gae....; 792
Supplement of Tso 838
»*
III. INDEXES.
I. Index of Subjects 865
11, Index of Pn)per Names 876
III. Index of Chinese characters and phrases 888
ERRATA.
IX
ERRATA.
1. IN TBK CH1NB8B TEXT OF THE CH^UN T6*BW.
|
Page |
Column |
Pay< |
|
8. |
5, for ISfifH read ^1^. |
168, |
|
)» |
6;etaL, „ j/^ n ^. |
231, |
|
»» |
'> " ^ " i&- |
291, |
|
22, |
5, after ^S de/e comniR. |
471, |
|
*6. |
4, for ;jg read Ip. |
742, |
|
186, |
8, e/a/., „ ;;;^ ^ read ^^ ^. |
4, after J^ dele comina.
6, A/«g[ff.
2, for^ |^,^readg{|r |> -^,.
7, „ JJSP '^"d Jlg.
2, " ^3E'^d^'3E-
More than one half of the above are merely errors as regards the text of the K'ang-he Ch*un Tfl^ew, and have arisen from the compositors gathering the characters from copies in which the text of Tso-she was alto{;ether adiiered ta In the same way is to be explained the occasional
occurrence of J^ for "-r* in the text, and of "-p for J^ in the Chnen.
II. IN THE CHIKESB TBXT OF THE CHUBK.
Page Cobtmn
20, 11, for ^ read
29, 2, „ JM 3[£ should begin a column.
i> o. 9, ^ ^ do. do.
128, 9, before jj^ insert ^&.
135, 3, deie o beside fiS^*
148, 16, for^ »»1^*
304, 9, „ B " B-
380, 8, „ ^ „ 1^.
Page Ci^umn 418, 8,
451,
645, 646,
679, 721, 776. 816, 822, 823,
8,
12, H, 10, 16, 10,
for
m
m
n
n
„
,,
„
,,
m
read
,»
», f, „
„
m
41-
III. CHIKS8B CHARAOTBBB IH THB NOTES.
59,
77,
319, 387, 387, 291,
40,
2, . 8, 1, 6,
^€ige Cdwnn Line 4, 1, 8, for ^ read 3E- 30, 2, 32, insert Eung and Kah have
„ Kunghas^forJl^.
„ KunghasM„jg. „ Knng and Kuh have ^ for ^.
67, „ Kuh has ^ for ^.
80, for ^ read ^.
8, insert Kung has MJ for ^L
10, „ Kung hM 1^ 1^ for
2, 2, 2,
1,
Pc^s Column Line
305,
385,
427,
465, 696,
688, 791, 806, 829,
1,
1,
2.
1, 1,
2, 2, 1,
1,
6, insert ^^ after jST.
12, „ Kung has g for Jl^. 14, for ^ read ffi^.
7, insert kung and Kuh hmvt for
72, for ^ read ^j^.
4, ,. :?E „ J^
18, insert KuDg hat j|B for gR.
IV. CHINE8B 0HABACTEB8 IN IKDEZ HI.
Page Col. LL Page Col, LL
880, 32, 82,33, for ;ji0_^ read ;J8^Q. 1898, 2, 47, for ^ read ^.
X
ERRATA.
V. IN THE PBOLEGOMENA.
|
Page |
Notes Line |
|
8; |
<> |
|
12, |
12, |
|
21, |
11, |
|
26, |
2, |
|
26, |
*. |
after Ig insert ^.
for % ;|C rend fflt >J<. „ fQ read ^.
Page Line
126, 1, for ]^ road
»»
f»
»»
±.
Col. 2, X. 2, for v^ read ^. „ 1, ., 18, after ffi insert^.
VI. IN THE TRANSLATION.
''^^ tL ^
64, 08, 79,
I. iv. 4, for invakcd read invaded.
ILU. 6; vu. 3, „ T*ftng, „ Tftng.
in. xxvii. l;«/fl/.,»a7«, „ Ke(i:g) „ K*e.
V. ix.2, „ Tsaou „ Ts'aou.
„ xxiz. 4, for great fall a „agreat fall.
VI. ii. 1. 1. 2, „ he „ the
VIII. ii. 9, „ Kung-tg*e „ Kungtsze.
IX. xvi. 7, for T«*e n*ad Tsin.
„ thirty-second „ twenty- second, „ K'c-sun ,. Ke-suu.
„ XXII.,
X. ii. 4,
„ vii. 8, „ Ling
„ xiii. 4, „ T'ing-K'ew
„ xix. 2, „ Slic
,, XX. 4, „ Ch-ing
XI. xiv. 16, „ SluHi
.. Seang.
„ P»ing-k*ew.
„ c:ho.
„ Cliin.
„ Ch()o.
Nearly all the above errors might be corrected from Index HI.
VII. IN THE NOTES.
Page 15,
|
23, |
2, |
|
42, |
1, |
|
50, |
1. |
|
»» |
2, |
|
61, |
2, |
|
90, |
2, |
|
112, |
1. |
Column Line
1, I; eta/., for Keread K*e. The ac*count of K*e*8 capital in the par. is also wrong; but this and some otlier geographical mistakes in tlie notes can be corrected from Index III. 30, for 5 read 4. 40, dele dis..
13, for a marquisate read an
earldom. 2, for earldom read marquisate 86, „ 8 „ 3.
20, „ Yen-chow „ T*ae-gan. 47, „ Yuen-chung read Yuen
Chung.
Page 119, 125, 199,
214, 217, 304, 305, 357,
Cohnnn Line 2, 12,
1, 1,
1,
9
— »
2, 1, 1,
for o ronil 6. ,, Koo>loli ,. Loh-koo. „ dis. of Kwei-chow n*ad
Kwei Chow.
2 read 3.
3 „ 4. 3 of Inst read 2 of 7th.
4, after K*ih insert K'wan. 47, for 3 read 4.
16, 31,
15, 15, 10,
|
»» |
If |
51, |
|
«» |
« |
57, |
|
372, |
2, |
6, |
|
404, |
1, |
8, |
|
581, |
2, |
30, |
|
650, |
2, |
62, |
Par. 4
5
12
„ Jin-shin „ „ diarists „ 9
>»
»,
Par. 3. 4.
13. Jin-yin. chariuts.
JK).
VIII. 15 THE PROLEGOMENA.
Page 2, 16,
21, 23,
23,
24.
25,
Line
I, note, for Pt. i. read Pt. ii.
8, after thing insert a comma.
17, for sufflcint read sufficient.
30, after period dele^.
6, note, carry 2 jS ^E -^ over to
page 24. 10, for title read title^.
4, „ King „ king.
Page 43, 44, 45, 79, 88,
112,
118,
122,
dele
Line
22, after 9th (tele comma.
37, „ Ch4ng „ ].
22, „ remonstrances „ comma. 17, col. 1, for appiont read Hp|)oiiit. 9, note, „ Mouments „ MtinumenU.
„ Ch'un.
8,
Ch'nn
15, after States insert a coinmu. 20, before commerce insert of.
PEOLEGOMENA.
CnAPTER I.
THE NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH'UN TS'EW.
APPENDIXES.—
I. SPECIMENS OF THE COMMENTARIES OF KUNQ^TANO AND KUH-LEANO.
II. A LETTER QUESHONING THE CONFUCUN AUTHORSHIP OF THE CHUN TS'EW BY YUEN
MEI OF THE PRESENT DYNASTY.
SECTION I.
DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE EXPECTATIONS RAISED BY THE EARLIEST
ACCOUNTS OF THE CH»UN T8*EW.
1 . In the prolegomena to vol. L, on page 1, I have said that of the five King or classical works, the authorship, or compilation rather, of which is loosely attributed to Confucius, ' the Ch'un Ts^ew
Was the Ch^un Ts^ew model '^^ ^^^ ^"^^ ^"® which Can rightly be described by Confucius? / ^g q£ j^-g ^^^ making.' If I had been as familiar
with the Ch^un Ts'evv in 1861 as I am now, instead of appearing, as in that judgment, to allow that it is an original Work of the sage, I should have contented myself with saying that of it alone has the making been claimed for him. The question as to what he really did in the matter of this Classic is one of great perplexity.
2. The earliest authority who speaks on the subject is Mencius. No better could be desired; and the glowing account which he gives
Mencius' account of the I ^f ^'^^ Work excites our liveliest expectations. Ch*unT8*ew. f jjj^ language puts it beyond doubt that in his
time, not far removed from that of Confucius, there was a book current in China, called the Ch'un Ts'ew, and accepted without question by him and others as having been made by the sage.
iKiLKooJiByA.] NATURE AXD VALUE OF THE CII'UK TS*EW. [ch. i.
*'The world," lie says, * was fallen into decay, and right principles had dwindled away. Perver>e discourses and oppressive deeds were again waxen rife. Cases were occurring of ministers who murdered their rulers, and of sons who murdered their fathers. Confucius was afraid, and made the Ch'un Ts'ew.'^ He describes the work as of equal value with Yu's regulation of the waters of the deluge, and the duke of Chow's establishuig his dynasty amid the desolations and disorder which had been wrouj^ht bythelatersovereignsof thedynasty of Shang. 'Confucius completed the Ch'un Ts'ew, and rebellious ministers and villainous sons were struck with terror.'^ Going more particularly into the nature of the Work, and fortifying himself with the words of the Master, Mencius says, 'Thesubjectsof theCh'unTs'ew ore Hwan of Ts'e and Wan of Tsin, and its style is the historical. Con- fucius said, "Its righteous decisions I ventured to make."'^ And again, 'What the Ch'un Tsew contains are matters proper to the son of Heaven. On this account Confucius said, " Yes! It. is the Ch'un Ts'ew which will make men know me; and it is the Ch'un Ts'ew which will make men condemn me.''* Tlie words of Mencius, that 'Confucius made the Ch'un Ts'ew/ becjimj thereafter part of the stock phraseology of Chinese scholars. If the Work itself had not been recovered under the Han dynasty, after the efforts of the tyrant of Ts'in to destroy the ancient monuments of literature, we should have regretted its loss, thinking of it as a history from the stylus of the sage of China in which had been condensed the grandest utterances of his wisdom and the severest lessons of his virtue.
3. The making of a history, indeed, is different from the making of a poem, the development of a philosophy, and other literary
1 Mencla., UI. Ft. I IX. 7, 8 :- (It ^ |g ^H^, ^ |^ ^ fj >g^ ff, g^ |^ Jt
^ ^ -=i^ ^ ^ *1i ^^ tK' fffi ^ T ^' iS >g^ ^ II ^^ !^ l£ i^' rm •@-jjia£,ifLi^;i)t^^JfnEeMi^t&^- 3 mcp., iv. pt. h. xxr.
j^. We imi9t supptMc that Hwan of Ts'e and W&n uf Tsin arc here adduced as two of tlic mosi
remarkable personHges hi the Ch*uii T«'ew, and that the first clause is not intended to convey the idea that the Work whs all about \\\m\\\. I have mused often and long over the other parts of the
paragraph. iMl "^ BlJ d^ might be translatetl:— *The text is from the historiographers.'
But where then wouhi there be any room for * the righteous decisions' of Confucius liimself ? I
must holtl to the version I have given of the observation quoted from the sage, and it seems to
require the translation of the previous clsiuse as I liave published it. Julien has: — Ejus stylus, tunc
kisWricus, Con/ucius aiebat; IJiec tquitas, tunc ego Khieon privalim sumpsi UUim* 4 III. Pt. i. I\.
2]
— r- y
SKCT. 1.] DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE WORK. [pkolkoomkxa.
achievements in which we expect large results of original thought.
What we are to expect in a history, [n thosC We look for neW COnfiblliationS
of the phflBuomena of human character, and new speculations on the divine order of the universe, — 'things unattempted yet in prose or rh3Mne.' But from the historian all that we are entitled to require is a faithful record of facts. If he would win our special approval, he must weave his facts into an interesting nar- rative, trace their connexion with one another, and by unfolding the motives of the actors teach lessons that may have their fruit in guiding and directing the course of events in future generations. Tlie making of history should be signalized by the vigour and elegance of the composition, and by the correct discrimination, im- partiality, and comprehensiveness of the author's judgments.
When, with these ideas of what a history should be, we look into
the Ch'un Ts'ew, we experience immediately an intense feeling of
Our disappointment in reading with^ disappointment. Instead of a history
such expectaiioiis the Ch'un Ts^ew. j ^f eveuts woven artistically together,
we find a congeries of the briefest possible intimations of matters in which the court and State of Loo were more or less concerned, extending over 242 years, without the slightest tincture of literary ability in the composition, or the slighest indication of judicial opinion on the part of the writer. The paragraphs are always brief. Each one is designed to commemorate a fact; but whether that fact be a display of virtue calculated to command our admira-* tion, or a deed of atrocity fitted to awaken our disgust, it can hardly be said that there is anything in the language to convey to us the shadow of an idea of the authors feeling about it. The notices, for we cannot call them narratives, are absolutely unimpas- sioned. A base murder and a shining act of heroism are chronicled just as the eclipses of the sun are chronicled. So and so took place; — that is all. No details are given; no judgment is expressed. The reader may be conscious of an emotion of delight or of indigna- tion according to the opinion which he forms of the event mentioned, especially when he has obtained a fuller account of it from some other quarter; but there is notliing in the text to excite the one feeling or the other. Whether the statements found in the Ch'un Ts'ew be all reliable, and given according to the truth of the facts, is a point of the utmost importance, which will be duly considered by and b)^ I am at present only concerned to affirm that the Work is not at all of the nature which we should suppose from our
3]
PROLBOOMBWA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH UN TSEW. [ch. i.
previous conception of it as a history by a great man, and from the accounts given of it by Confucius himself and by Mencius.^
4. If 1 have given in these remarks a correct, though brief, idea of what the Ch*un Ts'ew is, we know not what to make of the state-
The saying of Confutiiie that lie bad made) ment of ConfuciuS qUOted by Men- the righteous decisiona in the Ch^n T.^ew. | ^j^^^ ^^^^ j^^ j^^j himself Ventured
to make the righteous decisions contained in it. Whether the book which we now have be that wliich Confucius is said to have made, or another, we examine it in vain for any ' righteous decisions,' for any decisions indeed of any kind, on the events which are indicated in it. This difficulty is a Gordian knot which I do not see any way of Tin tying, and I have often wished that I could cut it by denying the genuineness of the present Ch^un Ts^ew altogether.^ But, as will by and by appear, the evidence which connects and identifies the existing Work with that inadey whatever be the sense in which -we are to take that term, by the sage, cannot be rebutted. The simplest way of disposing of the matter is to set the testimony of
1 It is amusing to read the following account of the Chhin Ts^ew given by the writer of the treatise *0n the Antiquity of the Chinese/ on pp. 47, 48 of the 1st vol. of the 'Meniuires Con- cernant les Chiiioisf —
' Le Tcliun-tsieoH est un livre ecrit de gdnie. Notre Socrate y manie THistoire en horame d*£tat, en (Htoyen, en Philosophe, en Savant, et en Moraliste. Son laconisme naif et sublime le force k serrer sa narration, pour presenter les faits tout nouds et ddtachc^^, pour ainsi dire, de U chaine des ev^nemens ; inais ils sont dessin^s, culor^s, ombres et peints avec tant de force et de feu, qu'on sent d'abord pourquoi et jusqu'oii ils sont dignes de louanges ou de blfcme. Nous ne connaissons point de Itvre en Europe, oh Ton voit si bien le commencement, le progr^s, le d^noue* ment, et le remede des revolutions dans TEtat et dans les nicBurs ; les vrais signes de roideur ou de uioUesse, de tyrannic ou de discredit, de moderation simulee ou d'incons^quence dans le Goa- vernement ; les differences du talent, du g^nie, de rexp^rience, de la profondeur des vues, de la bont^ du coap-d'oeil, et des ressources d*un esprit f^cond dans les Princes et dans leur niiniatres, Timposant dVnc administration bruyante et le faux d*une politique pateline, les souterrains de la trahison et les maneges de la negociation, les premieres etincelles d'une re volte qui commence et les derniers eclats d'une ligue epuis^e; la maniere enfin dont le Chang-ti (Dieu) dirige le cours des evi^nemens, [lour elever ou renverser les Trunes, et punir ou recompenser tour-k-tour les Sujeta par leurs Princes et les Princes par leurs Sujets. Le Tchun-tsicou, envisage sous ce point de vue, est le modele do toutes les Histoires. Confucius a un style qui ne va qu*k lui. II semble que chaque caractere ait et^ fait pour Tendroit oil 11 le place. Plus il est avare de mots, plus ceux qu*il emploie sout clairs et expressifs.'
The above is certainly of a piece with the estimate of tlie ancient odes of China which I quoted from the same article in the prolegomena to vol. IV., pp. 114, 115. Dr. Williams (Middle King- dom, vol. I., p. 512) gives a more fair account of the Ch*un Ts'cw, but even he thinks that it contains mucli good matter of which we find no trace: — ^It is but little better than a dry detail of facts, enlivened by few incidents, but containing many of those practical observations which distinguish the writings of the sage.' Anyone who looks into the body of this volume will see that the text consists of nothing but a dry detail of facts or incidents, without a single practical observation, Confucian or non- Confucian.
1 There have been Chinese scholars who have taken up this position. Wang Taou, in a mono- graph on the subject, places Ma Twan-lin among them ; but this is more than Ma*8 words, quoted
in the third section, will sustain. With more reason he gives the name of Hoh King (^R m[)
of the Ming dynasty, who contends that the Ch'un Ts^cw of Confucius was not transmitted, «nd
that we have only frat^inents of it in Tso-she. Wang also snys that according to Tung Chung-
ehoo and Sze-ma Ts*cen the text consisted of ^veral myriads of characters, in several thousand
paragraphs, whereas Cliang Gan of the T*ang dynasty found in it only ISOOO character:*. But
there can be no doubt the present text is siibstantially the same as that known in the Han
dynasty. See Appendix II.
SECT. I.] DISAPrOINTMENT WITH THE WORK. [prolegomena.
Mencius on one side, though that method of proceeding can hardly be vindicated on critical grounds.
There can be no doubt, however, that the expression in Mencius about 'the righteous decisions' has had a most powerful and perni- cious influence over the interpretation of the Classic. Chaou K'e, the earliest commentator on Mencius, explains tlie passage as intimat- ing that the sage in making the Ch'un Ts'ew exercised his preroga- tive as 'the unsceptred king.' A subject merely, and without any order from his ruler, he yet made the Work on his own private authority; and his saying that he ventured to give his own judg- ments on things in it was simply an expression of his humility.^ Chaou gives the same explanation of those words of Mencius, that 'what the Ch'un Ts'ew contains are matters proper to the son of Heaven.' 'Confucius,' says the commentator, 'made the Ch'un Ts'ew by means of the Historical Records of Loo, setting forth his laws as an unsceptred king, which are what Mencius calls "the matters of the Son of Heaven." '^
Hundreds of critics, from Kung-yang and Kuh-leang downwards, have tried to interpret the Classic on the principle of finding in almost every paragraph some 'righteous decision;' and in my notes I have in a hundred places pointed out the absurdities in which such a method lands us. The same peculiarity of the style, such as the omission of a clan-name, becomes in one passage the sign of censure and in another the sign of praise.* The whole Book is a
4 It may be well here to give the diflcasaion of one notable case, the occasional omission of the term king: —taken from Chaou Yih*s RS ^ ^"*' '**' "^
•Every year should commence with "In the sprinjr, in ihe king's first month," or if there was nothing to be recorded under the first month, " In the spring, in the king's second month," or
years
the king had not issued the calendar; but seeing the prime intent of the Ch*un Ts'ew was to lionour the king, is it likely that for such an omission the classic would have denied the year to be the king's? Moreover, such omission was most likely to occur when the court was in confusion, as in the troubles occasioned by the princes T*uy, Tae, and Chaou; and yet we find the years of those times all with the regular formula. How unlikely that the calendar should have been given out in seasons of disorder, and neglected when all was tranquil in the times of Yin and Hwant Too*s explanation is inadmissible.
•Ch'ing R-ch*uen says, " Duke Hwan succeeded to Loo by the murder of bis predecessor, and in his first year the author wrote * the king's,' thereby by a royal law indicating his crime. The same expression in the second year in the same way indicates the crime of Tuh of Sung in murder* ing his ruler. Its omission in the third year shows that Hwan had no [fear of the] king before his eyes." But tliis is very inconsistent. If we say that the omission of " the king's" shows thai Hwan had no fear of the king, surely it ought to Iiave been omitted in his first year, M-hen he was guilty of such a crime. If we say that its occurrence in the first year is to indicate his crime,
5j
proleoomexa] NATrttE AND VALUK OF THE CAWS TSEW. [cii. i.
collection of riddles, to which there are as many answers as there are guessers. It is hardly possible for a Chinese to cast off from his mind the influence of this ' praise-and-censure ' theory in studying the Classic. He has learned it when a child by committing to memo- ry at school the lines of the ' Primer of Three Characters,'^ and it has been obtruded upon him in most of his subsequent reading. Even a foreigner finds himself occasionally casting about for some such way of accounting for the ever varying forms of expression, unwill- ing to believe that the changes have been made at random. I proceed in another section to give a fuller idea of the nature of the Work, and to consider what were its sources, and whether we have reason to think that Confucius, in availing himself of them, made additions of his own or retrenchments,
are we to infer that wherever it occurs it indicates the crime of the ruler? What hnd Loo to do with Tuh of Sung*8 murdering his ruler? Is it reasonable that L-.>o'8 historiographers should haye constructed their annals to punish himf
*Ho Hew says, — "In [jHwan's] 10th year we find * the king's/ bcciusc ten is tlie completion of numbers, and we find it in his 18th year, because that was the last of his rule." According to this we ought to find " the king's " only in the year of a ruler's accession, in his tenth year, and the year of his death ; but the practice in the Ch*un Ts'ew is quite different from this. Ho Hew's remark is unintelligible.
'It may be said that since the Chow commencement of the year was not universally followed during the Clrun Ts'cw period, some States reckoning by the 1st month of Yin and others by that of Hea, although Loo generally held to the ritual of Chow, yet its irregularities in the matter of intercalation show that it did not keep to the first month of Chow. Perliaps the historio- graphers did so sometimes, and then Confucius wrote **the king's first month,'* by way of dislinc- tton, while he left the cases in which they made the year begin dififerently unmarked by such a note, — ^thereby condemning them.' This last is poor Chaou Yih's own explanation of tlie phaeno- menon, not a whit better than the devices of others which he condemns! It shows the correctness of my remark that it is next to impossible for a Chinese scholar to shake off the trammels of the
creed in which he has been educated. ^f^^T^T'^^f^'^J^ S^» S'l
^;-.see the H ^ J^» "• ^9, 80.
SECTION II.
THE SOURCES OF THE CH'UN TS*fi'W, AND ITS NATURE. DID CONFUCIUS ALLOW HIMSELF ANY LIBERTY OF ADDITION OR RETRENCHMENT
IN THE USE OF HIS AUTHORITIES?
1. What were Confucius' authorities for the events which he has chronicled in the Ch'un Ts'ew? In proceeding to an inquiry into the Sources of the Work, it will be well to give at the com- mencement an explanation of its name.
SECT, n.] MEANING OF THE NAME. [pholkgombna.
The two characters, translated literally, simply mean Spring and Autumn. 'Anciently,' says Maou K'e-ling, 'the historiographers, in
Meaningof tho name,— the Ch^anTa'cvr. recording events, did 80 with thc
specification of the day, the month, the season, and the year, to which each event belonged; and to the whole they gave the name of annals. It was proper that under every year there should be written the names of the four seasons, and the entire record of a year went by the name oi Spring and Autumn^ two of the seasons, being a compendious expression for all the four.'^ 'Spring and Autumn ' is thus equivalent to — Annals, digested under the seasons of every year. An inspection of the Work will prove that this is the proper meaning of its title. Even if there were nothing to be recorded under any season, it was still necessary to make a record of the season and of the first month in it. Entries like that in the 6th year of duke Yin, — 'It was autumn, tlie 7th month,' where the next paragraph begins with 'In winter,' are frequent. If now and then a year occurs in which we do not find every season specified, we may be sure the omission is owing to the loss of a character or of a paragraph in the course of time. Chaou K'e explains the title in the same way,^ and so does Too Yu in the preface to his edition of the Tso Chuen.^ Other accounts of the name are only creations of fancy, and have arisen from a misconception of the natnre of the Work. Thus Dr. Williams says, 'The spring and autumn nnnals «re so called, because "their connnendations are life- giving like spring, and their censures are life-Avithering like autumn.'* The Han scholars gave forth this, and otlier accoimts of a similar kind, led away by their notions as to the nature of the Work on which I have touched in the preceding section. Not even, as i have said, in the Work itself do we find such censures and commendations; and much less are they trumpeted in the title of it.
^B^M'^^^^ ^jta'-^ K % J^ #. the Introductory chapter. 2 ^ ^' lit ^ $ 0 B#- Sfi H f^ :<: ;g !-on Men. III. Ft. li. XXt. 8.
ffX §B ^ >8 ill* ^" *^*' passage K'ung Ying-tah quutes the following words from Ching K*uiig-8hing:-^ ^ IS H P3 B# iji ; and then he adds himself, ,g H ^ ^ J£
^^08$^ ^ifc* * ^^^^^ Middle Kingdom, vol. I., p. 512. See to the same effect
Du Hulde's *DestTiplion dc I'Empire de la Chine, et de la Tartarie Chinoisc,' vol. II. p. 318.
7]
PROLEGOMENA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CU'UN TS E\V. [cii. r.
2. That we are not to seek for any deep or mystical meaning in the title is still more evident from the fact that the name was in
The name ChHm T8'ew was in uee^ "^e before it WHS given to the compilu- before the time of Confucius. > ^Jq,j ^f Confucius. The first narrative
of the Tso Chuen under the second year of duke Ch'aou, when Confucius was only eleven years old, shows that this was the case in Loo. Then the principal minister of Tsin, bL»ing on a visit to the court of Loo, examined the documents in the charge of the grand-historiographer, and 'saw,' we are told, *the Yih with its diagrams and the Ch'un Ts'ew of Loo.'^
But the records, or a class of the records, of every State in the kingdom of Chow appear to have been ^culled by this name of Spring and Autumn. In the 'Narratives of the States,' the appoint- ment of Shuh-heang to be tutor to the heir-apparent of the State of Tsin is grounded on *his acquaintance with the Ch'un Ts*c\v.'2 I take the name there as equivalent to history in general, — the liistorical summaries made in the various States of the kingdom. Shuh-heang's appointment was made in B.e. 568, about twenty yeara before Confucius was born. In the same Narratives, at a still earlier date, it is laid down as a rule for the heir-apparent of the State of Ts'oo, that he should be taught the Ch'un Tsew.^ According to Mencius, the annals of Loo went by the name of the Ch'un Ts'ew, while those of Tsin were called the Shing, and those of Ts'oo the T'aou-wuh.* All these, however, he says, were books of the same character; and though the annals of different States might have other and particular names given to them, it seems clear that they might all be designated Ch'un Ts'ew. Thus we have a statement in Mih Teih that he 'had seen the Ch'un-ts'ew histories of a hundred States';^ and elsewhere we find him speaking of the Ch'un Ts'ew of Chow, the Ch'un Ts'ew of Yen, the Ch'un Ts'ew of Sung, and the Ch'un Ts'ew of Ts'e.^ *
^ M # >8^ ]^ -^ ^' )?. ^ ^ 1^ # ^ ^- ^" '^'y translation of this pw- sage on p. 683, 1 have omitted inadvertently to render tho S M» ^, and the whole might be taken 110 if Uhe Ch*un Ts^cw of Lou* were not one of the documents in the keeping of the histo- riographor. 2 ^ IS* ^ ^ ;^^ #;. 7^t|&^ ± ^ il^^-- tl.c g ^.
prince to be taught was the son of king Chwang, who died n. c. 590. 4 Men IV. Pt. ii. XXf.
^. See tho ^ ■?• -f^ ^, appciuleU to the I5tli Hook i>f hh Wurks. G In his ffl
8]
SECT. II.] THE SOURCES OF THE WORK. [pboueocuena.
4. The Ch*uii Ts'ew of Loo supplied, it seems to me, the materi- als for the sage's Work; — if, indeed, he did any thing more than
The Ch»un Ts^ew of Loo supplied the) COPX ^^^ what WaS ready tO his hand- materials for the existing Ch^un T.»cw. / JJq jjg^^ ^he famous Han editor of
Kung-yang's commentary on it, in his introductory notes to the first year of duke Yin, quotes from a Min Yin to the effect that Confucius, having received the command of Heaven to make his ("h-un Ts'ew, sent Tsze-hea and others of his disciples, fourteen men in all, to seek for the historical records of Chow, and that they got the precious books of 120 States, from which he proceeded to make his chronicle.^ This, however, is one of the wild statements which we-find in many writers of the Han and Tsin dynasties. There is nothing in the Work to make it necessary to suppose that any other records were consulted but those of Loo. This is the view almost universally entertained by the scholars and critics of China itself, as in the statement given from Chaou K*e on p. 5. The omission, moreover, of many events which are narrated in the Chuen of Tso- she makes it certain to my mind that Confucius confined himself to the tablets of his native State. Whether any of his disciples were associated with him in the labour of compilation we cannot tell. Pan Koo, in the chapter on the Literary History of the early Han dynasty, says tUat Tso K'ew-ming was so.^ How this was will be considered when I come to speak of Tso's commentary. Sze-ma Ts'een's account would rather incline us to think that the whole was done by Confucius alone, for he says that when the Work was completed and shown to the disciples of Tsze-hea, they could not improve it in a single character.^
5. The Ch'un Ts'ew of Loo then was the source of the Ch*un Ts'ew of Confucius. The chronicles or annals which went by this
note to Lew mn*8 catalogue of the tablets of the Ch'un Ts'ew and Works on it, '^ ^ ^
I** S^ ^' ^w 3nf "f^* ^®° P*ang-tsoo, another scholar of the early Han dynasty, gives rather a different form to Tso's association with Confucius in the Work,— that they went together to Chow to examine the Books in the keeping of the historiographers at the royal court: —
^. Quoted by K*ung Ying-tah on Too Yu's Preface to the Tso Chuen. ^ ^1^ jS^
9]
PROLBQOKBHA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH'UN TS*EW. [ch. i.
T^wonh^^^^. ^'""} name were the work of the historiographers or recorders, who, we know, were attached to the royal court and to the courts of the various feudal princes. I have spoken of those officers in the prolegomena to vol. III. p. 11, and in those to vol. IV., pp. 24-26. Pan Koo in the same chapter from which I have made a quotation from him in the preceding paragraph, says that the historiographers of the Left recorded words, that is, Speeches, Charges, &c., and those of the Right recorded affairs; that the words formed the Shoo, and the affairs the Ch*un Ts'ew.^
But if we are to judge of what the Ch*un Ts'ew of the States were from what the one Ch'un Ts'ew preserved to us is, the state- ment that they contained the records of events cannot be admitted without considerable modification. There can have been no details in them, but only the briefest possible compends of the events, or references to thiem.
That there were the records of events, kept in the offices of historiography, must be freely admitted, and it will appear, when I come to speak of the commentary of Tso K'ew-niing, that to them we are mainly indebted for the narratives which impart so much interest to* his Work. But the entries in the various Ch*un Ts'ew were not made from them, — not made from them fairly and honestly as when one tries to give in a very few words the substance of a narrative which is before him. Those entries related to events in the State itself, at the royal court, and in other States with which it maintained friendly relations. Communications about remarkable and ominous occurrences in one State, and about important transactions, were sent from it to others, and the receiving State entered them in its Ch*un Ts*ew in the terms in which they were made out, without regard to whether they conveyed a correct account of the facts or not. Then the great events in a State itself, — those connected with the ruling House and the principal families or clans in it, its relations with other States, and natural phaBuomena supposed to affect <he general wellbeing, also found a place. Sometimes these things were recorded under the special direction of the ruler; at other times we must suppose that the historiographers committedthem to their tablets as a part of their official duty. How far truth, an exact conformity of the record with the circumstances, was observed in these entries about the internal affairs of a State, is a point on which it is not competent for me at this point of the inquiry to pronounce an opinion.
10]
SECT. 11.] FULLER ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE OF THE WORK, [prolboomena.
6. In the prolegomena to vol. IV. p. 25, referring to the brief account which we have in the official Book of Chow of the duties of the historiographers of the Exterior at the royal courts I have made it appear that they had charge of the Histories of all the States,! rendering the character che by 'Histories.' M. Biot, in his translation of the Official Book, has done the same; but Maou K*e- lins: contends that those che were the Ch'un Ts'ew of the different States, or the brief notices of which they were made up.^ I have failed, however, to find elsewhere any evidence to support his view;^ and when he goes on to argue that three copies of those notices were always made,— one to be kept in the State itself, one for the royal court, and one to be sent to the historiographers of the various feudal courts with which the State was in the habit of ex- changing such notifications, — the single passage to which he refers by no means bears out the conclusion which he draws from it ;* and indeed, as many copies must have been made as there were States to which the notice was to be sent. In other respects the account which he gives of those notices is so instructive that I subjoin a summary of it.
They were merely, he says, *slips of subjects,' and not 'sum- maries' or synopses,— containing barely the mention of the subject to Maou K'e.iing;8 account of the contenu) which each of them referred.^ It of the Chnin T»*ew of the States. / ^^ necessary there should be nothing
in them inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the fuller narratives,
^^'mnnmn^^i^m >^ m n m^ mm^m
jj^, 8 Compare the use of ^, in Mencius, III. Pt. i. II. 8, and Ft. ii. I. I., and in the
Tso Chuen on VL il 1 ; vL 8 : VII. xU. 2 : VIII. iv. 7 ; e< ai 4 From the § ^> @ ^i
p , Art 7, — at the end. 5 Ace. to Maou, the contents of the ancient Ch*un Ts^ew might
all be arranged under twenty-two heads :— 1st, the changing of the first year of a ruler (Bj|f TH) S 2d, the new ruler's solemn accession (j^ ^f) ; 8d, the birth of a son to llie ruler (^b -^ ; as in n. tL 5) ; 4th, the appointment of a ruler in another State ( jj^ S' ; as in I. iy. 7) ; 5tl), court and complimentary visiu (gfl ^, in the Tarlous forms of ^; >|^ ^; Qf ; ^ ^; ^ JJ^; ^ '^) ; 6th, covenants and meetings (^ 1^, in the various forms— ^ ; 9B. ; ^ ffl ; JfitS!':^ SIj^M'S? W^' ^5 ^^5 7th, incursions and invasions, (>g >ffe, in the various forms->g; >ffe; [^i A » S ' |S' fl5t; J^; ^'^ 1^ gj^; Z
jm :^) ; 8tli, the removal and extinction of States (j|S jtitj in the various forms— ^S ; jdt ;
; itT) J ^'h* marriages (^ ^, in the various forms-jg^ 1^^ ^ ^' >^ ^ ^
* 1& ' S^ !^* ^ i^ ' il^ IS ' pR) ) ^^'^' entertainments and condolences
11]
PROLMOMS*.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH-UN TS'EW. [ca. in
but they themselves gave no indication of the beginning or end of the events to which they referred, or of the various circumstances which marked their course. For instance, suppose the subject was going from Loo to the court of Tsin. — In VIII. xviii. 4, we are told that 'the duke went to Tain,' the occasion of his doing so being to congratulate the new marquis of Tsin on his accession ; whereas, in IX. iiL 2, we have a notice in the same characters about the child- marquis S^ang, his going to Tsin being to present himself to that court on his own accession to Loo. Suppose, again, the subject to be a meeting between the rulers of Loo and Ts'e. — In III. xiii. 4, we are told that it is said that 'duke Chwang had a meeting with the marquis of Ts'e, when they made a covenant in Ko,' the object being to make peace between the two States after the battle of Shing- k'ew; whereas, in xxiii. 10, we have the notice of a meeting and covenant between the same princes in Hoo, having reference to an alliance by marriage which they had agreed upon.
After further illustrating the nature of the notices, Maou observes correctly, that to look in them for slight turns of expression, such as the mention of an individual's rank, or of his clan-name, or the specification of the day when an event occurred without the month, and to find in the presence or absence of these particulars the
(•fil^, pg); I [til, death! and burinH (^ ^. Id tlie vuioui formt □[ j|^ ;^; ^; S; jBg,i.tl...«l.u.f<,m.0l^;f;.;|i}.i1i;fl;i||,«;;f'f^i^^,;^^,
® ® ' s « i siJB ' *s ■ ffi a a i S)i "*. '"■""■»' (H »i i""" ■"I""
fomiiof ^i^;^; ^;^)|li: A fiij); l*tM>nilding (^ ^. lo the Toriou* fornti
-±■3. m^:-nf^m -n^i^- mm' mm-. m&- ^m-. ^
SS ' ^ ^ i '^1^ : ^ ^) i 16^ military .rraDgementi (^ ^, in the fornw of '^ fPf^li^&^{i=.W'^'^ ||)il«th, mUituj tu.iion (53 gft' ''"'•
""'■'i (» M. '« "■• '™- "< ^ *i flji -g- a^ iE ?i ffl i « P 5R:)i '»*.
ominoD* oocDirence* (^ JJ^ in tha forms of Q ^ ; jS ; ^ ^( ; ^^ ^, ; ^ f^ ;
3P © M'MSi ^M'MM>' '""•' ""'»« »•■■ ""' " ^"w (ffi B' '■ "»
formeof^j^i tti ^ ' [fl i ^ "i*); 20th,entering«oity orState (^ g|, in thetonnt
<* Si Aia.i!i?U§Si^Bi*.5fc#i»S Si"". "«"- «"""■■"""
(^ ^ " 'I" ''""» »' SS ©1 igi lii SS)i M, puniehment. ( JpJ ^, i. Ih, lom. el m'M-^'m-fl'm-M<n<^MW- ■n.i.„.l,.i.«.h.Ci...eT«, I* insenloua; bat it ii all baied on tlie Ch'un Ts'ew of Confuciui. Some of the Bnbjecta maj be called in queation, m, t.g., the Sd. Jn liic l!! book* of tlie Spring and Antumn only one (uch birtli ii clironicled.
12]
SECT, u.] WHETHKR CONFUCIUS ALTERED HIS AUTHORITIES, [feolbooiisna.
expression of praise or blame, is no better than tlie gropings of a man in a dream. In this I fully agree with him, but as he has said that the 'slip-notices of the Ch*un Ts'ew' should not be inconsistent with the facts in a detailed narrative of the events to which they refer, he seems to push the point as to the colourlessness of the notices to an extreme, when he adds the following illustration of it on the authority of a brother of his own: — 'The deaths of princes and great officers recorded in the Ch'un Ts'ew took place in various ways; but they all appear under the same form — "died." Thus in V. xxiv. 5 it is said that "E-woo, marquis of Tsin, died," the fact being that he was slain; in X. viii. 2 it is said that "Neih, marquia of Ch'in, died," the fact being that he strangled himself; in 11. v. 1 it is said that "Paou, marquis of Ch'in, died," the fact being that he went mad and died; in XI. xiv. 6 it is said that "Ewang, viscount of Woo, died," the fact being that he did so of wounds received in battle; in XI. lii. 2 it is said that "Ch'uen, viscount of Woo, died," the fact being that he burned himself to death; in III. xxxii. 3 it is said that "the Eung-tsze Ya died," the fact being that he was com- pelled to take poison; in X. iv. 8 it is said that "Shuh-sun P'aou died," the fact being that he was starved to death; in X. xxv. 7 it is said that "Shuh-sun Shay died," the fact being that he did so in answer to his own prayers; and in X. xxix. 3, it is said that "Shuh E died," the fact being that he did so without any illness. The one word *'died," is used in such a variety of cases, and it is only one who knows profoundly the style of the text who can explain the comprehensive meaning of the term.'^ But there is no meaning in the term beyond that of dying, and the conclusion of the mind is that the death in* dicated by it was a natural one. It is not history in any proper sense of the term which is given in such an undiscriminating style.
7. The reader has now a sufficiently accurate idea of what all the annals that went under the name of Ch'un Ts'ew were, of what especially the Ch'un Ts'ew still existing and with which we have to do is. It only remains for me in this section to inquire whether we
IMd Ctonfucius in compiling his Ch*im Tf*«w> ^^^6 rcaSOU tO bclieve that CoU'
addtoortakefromhisauthorito? I fucius made any changes in the
style of the Ch'un Ts'ew of Loo,
On this point, as on so many others connected with the Work, we have not sufficient evidence to pronounce a very decided opinion. We are without a single word about it from Confucius himself, or from any of his immediate disciples; and from later scholars and
13]
FROLKGOiiENA.] NAIURE AND VALUE OP THE CH*UN TS'EW. [ch. i.
critics we have the most conflicting utterances regarding it. I have quoted a few words on p. 9, Trora Sze-ma Ts'een's account of the Ch'un Ts'ew, but I now give the whole of it: — ' The master said, **No! No! The superior man is distressed lest his name should not be honourably mentioned after death. My principles do not make way in the world ; — how shall I make myself known to future ages?" On this, from the records of the historians he made the Ch'un Ts'ew, commencing with duke Yin, coming down to the 14th year of duke Gae, and thus embracing the times of twelve marquises. He kept close in it to [the annals of] Loo, showed his affection for Chow, and purposely made the three dynasties move before the reader.^ His style was condensed, but his scope was extensive. Thus the rulers of Woo and Ts'oo assumed to themselves the title of king; but in the Ch*un Ts'ew they are censured by being only styled viscounts. Thus also the son of Heaven was really summoned [by the marquis of Tsin] to attend the meeting at Tseen-t'oo (V. xxviii. 8), but the Ch'un Ts'ew conceals the fact, and says (par. 16) that " the king by Heaven's grace held a court of inspection in Ho-yang." Such instances serve to illustrate the idea of the master in the cen- sures and elisions which he employed to rectify the ways of those times, his aim being that, when future kings should study the work, its meaning should be appreciated, and all rebellious ministers and villainous sons under the sky become afraid.^ When Confucius was in office, his language in listening to litigations was what others would have employed, and not peculiar to him; but in making the Ch*un Ts*ew, he wrote what he wrote, and he retrenched what he retrenched, so that the disciples of Tsze-hea could not improve it in a single character. When his disciples received from him the Ch'un Ts'ew, he said, " It is by the Ch'un Ts'ew that after ages will know me, and also by it that they will condemn me." '^
l1^#»^MifefiCj|ftjS^H^- I BhaU be glad if any Sinologue can make oat the meaning of this passage more clearly than I hare done. . Chang Show^tseeh (S^^P'^}) the glossarist of Sze-ma Ts'een under the T^ang dynasty (His preface is dated in the 8th month of ^. 786), M78 on the iMt cUn«^|g. ^-fe-X + lSSIS^^^-til-
a Here ■gmin Sse-oui's style U inroWed, and ter from dear: Ijj^ ^^ |^ J^ )j^ ^ -W^ fj^
jM -7* 1^ E. 8 Lew He (Prolog, to toL IH, p. 205) has a strange note on this utter.
«nceofConf«ci«.:-^^.:?t^#:t5i#P:t'^3E^;S^^
^^ j^ ^f * The knowers would be those who practised the principles of Yaou and Shun ; the
condenmers would be kings and dukes in office who were censured and condemned [by the sage's righteous decisions].' This is ingenious, but far-fetched.
14]
BBOT. XL] WHETHER CONFUCIUS ALTERED HIS AUTHORITIES, [pbolboombka.
A thousand expressions of opinion, modelled upon that of Sze-ma Ts*een, might easily be adduced, all, it seems to me, as I have said already, prompted by an endeavour to reconcile the existing Work with the accounts of the Ch'un Ts'ew given in Mencius. As we come down the course of time, we find the scholars of China less positive in the view that Confucius made any change in the text of the Ch*un Ts'ew of Loo. Choo He says, 'The entries in the Ch'un Ts'ew, that, for instance, "Such a man did such a thing" are according to the old text of the historiographers of Loo, come down to us from the stylus of the sage, transcribing or retrenching. Now-a-days, people, when they see the Ch'un Ts'ew, are sure to say. "Such and such a character has its stigma for such and such a man," so that Confucius thus took it on him, according to his pri- vate views, to dispense without authority his praise or blame. But Confucius simply wrote the thing correctly as it was, and the good or evil of it was manifest of itself. If people feel that they must express themselves as I have said, we must get into our hands the old text of the historiographers of Loo, so that, comparing it with what we now have, the difference and agreement between them would be apparent. But this is now impossible.'*
Chaou Yih adduces two paragraphs from the 'Annals of the Bamboo Books,' which, he thinks, may be the original form of two in the Ch'un Ts'ew. The one is — 'Duke Yin of Loo and duke Chwang of Choo made a covenant at Koo-meeh,'^ corresponding to L i. 2, 'In the third month, the duke and E-foo of Choo made a covenant in Meeh.' The other is — 'Duke Heen of Tsin united with the army of Yu, and, attacking Kwoh, extinguished Hea- 3'anjr,'^ corresponding to V. ii. 3, 'An army of Yu and an army of Tsin extinguished Hea-yang.' 'These two cases,' observes Chaou, 'show that the style of the historiographers of the States was, we may say, similar to that of the Ch'un Ts'ew, and that Confucius on deliberation only altered a few characters to lodge in others of his own his praise or censure'.^ But to make these two instances exactly to the point, it would be necessary that they should occur in the aimals of the State of Loo, somehow preserved to us. Besides,
4 See the^Kang-he Ch'un Ts'ew, ^ ||, p. 18 :-^ ^ J^ #» ^B ^ A § -^ *, -^--T^. 5 See the proleg. to ¥oL lU., p. 160. 6 76., p. 163. ^ ^ itfc ^ ^
15]
PROLBOOMEKA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH*UN TS'EW. [ch. i.
the expressions *duke Chwang' and ^duke Heen' are retrospective, and n'ot after the manner of the Ch'un Ts*ew.
With regard to the entry in III. vii. 2, that 'at midnight there was a fall of stars like rain,' referring, we must believe, to a grand appearance of meteors, Kung-yang tells us that the old text of the his- toriographers was — *It rained stars to within a foot of the earth, when they re-ascended'? Certainly the text was not altered here by Confu- cius to express either praise or censure. And if Kung-yang was able thus to quote the old text, it is strange he should only have done it in this solitary instance. If it had been so different from the present, with his propensities he would not have been slow to adduce it frequently. I must doubt his correctness in this case.
After the first entry under the 14th year of duke Gae, with which according to all Chinese critics the labours of Confucius terminated, Tso-she gives no fewer than 27 paragraphs, bringing the history down to the death of the sage in Gae's 16th year. Those paragraphs were added, it is said, from the Ch'un Ts'ew of Loo by Confucius' disciples ; and I can see no difference between the style in them, and in the more than a thousand which passed under the revision of the master.
Is it a sign of my having imbibed something of the prejudice of native scholars, of which I spoke in the end of last section, that I do not like to express my opinion that Confucius did not alter a charac- ter in his authorities? Certainly he made no alterations to convey his sentiments of praise or blame; — the variations of style where there could be no change of sentiment or feeling underlying them forbid our supposing this.
^I^W^^MMMMMA<^«MMAA/S^A^MMM«M«MM.MA
SECTION III.
RECOVERY OF THE CH*UN TS*EW DURING THE HAN DYNASTY. WAS THIS INDEED THE CH*UN T8*EW OF CONFUCIUS ?
1. Lew Hin's catalogue of the Works in the imperial library of
the early Han dynasty, prepared, as I have shown in the proleg. to
vol. I., p. 4, about the commencement of our Christian era, begins.
Evidence ofLewHitfs Catalogue) o^ the Ch^uu Ts'Sw, with two Collections
of the Han imperial libiwy ; ^f ^^^ ^^ ^f t^^ Classic :— *The old text
of the Ch*un Ts'ew in twelve p^cen ; and 'The text of the Ch'un
16]
M5CT. III.] THE TEXTS IN THE HAN CATALOGUR [pjiowwoMJiarA.
Ts'ew in eleven keuen or Books.'^ This is followed by a list of the Chuen, or Coinnientaries, of Tso, Kung-yang, Kuh-leang, Tsow, and Keah;2 so that at this early time the text of the Classic waa known, and there were writings of five different masters in illustra- tion of it, the greater portion of which, the Cliuen namely of Tso, Kung.yan^r, and Kuh-leang, remain to the present day. A dozen other Works follow, mostly by Kung-yang and Kuh-leang or their followers, showing how the Classic and the commentators on it had already engaged the attention of scholars.
2. Were the texts mentioned in the Han catalogue derived from the commentaries of Tso, Kung-yang, and Kuh-leang, or from some other independent source? In a note to the entry about them, Yen The texts in the Han Catalogue. Sze-koo of the T^HRg dynasty says that they were taken from Kung-yang and Kuh-leang. Many scholars confine his remark to the second collection, and it gives some coun- tenance to this view that the commentaries of tliose two masters were then in eleven Books; but it is to be observed on the other hand that with the differences which exist in their texts they could hardly have been formed into one collection.
With regard to the first entry — 'the old text in twelve p^ee7i' — ^it is the general opinion that this was the text as taken from the Work of Tso. And there can be no doubt that during the Han dynasty the text and the commentary were kept separate in that Work, for Too Yu tells us that in his edition of it, early in the Tsin dynasty, he * took the years of the text and arranged them along with the cor- responding years of the commentary.'^ Moreover, in the Han dynasty, Tso's school and that of Kung-yang were distinguished as the old or ancient and the new or modern.* To myself, however, the more natural interpretation of * the old text' in the entry appears to be — the text in the ancient character; and if there were evidence to show that there was an edition of the text in Lew Hin's time, independent of that derived from the three commentaries, the result would be satisfactory. Yuen^ Yuen was the first, so far as I know, to
|fe, K -4^ -|^, at the beginning. 3 }^ TT;— »e« the proleg. to vol. I., p. 133.
17]
FROLBoomnrA ] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH*UN TS*EW. [en. L
do this, in the present century. In the preface to his 'Examination of the text of Tso's Commentar)'^ and K'ungYing-tah's Annotations on it,'* he calls attention to the fact that among the discoveries of old tablets in the wall of Confucius' house^ there were those of the Ch'un Ts'ew. Pan Koo indeed omits to mention them in his appendix to Lew Bin's catalogue of the Shoo and Works on it, where he speaks of the Shoo, the Le Ke, the Lun Yu, and the Heaou King as having been thus found; but Heu Shin, in the preface to his dictionary, the Shwoh Wan, published a.d. 100, adds to the tablets of these Works those of the Ch'un Ts'ew.^ I am willing therefore to believe that it was this copy of the text of the Ch'un Ts*ew in the ancient character which headed the catalogue of Lew Hin; and if it were so, all question as to the genuineness of our present Classic may be considered as at an end.
3. Tliere are many of the scholars of China, who would hesitate to concur with me in this view, and prefer to abide by the opinion of which very full expression has been given by Ma Twan-lin. He View on the subject of Ma Twan-iin. says, 'Although there appears in the catalogue of the Han dynasty ''The old Text of the Ch'un Tsew,'' yet the original text, as corrected by the master, was never discovered; and the old texts compiled in the Han dynasty and subsequently have all been taken from the three commentaries, and called by the name of *'The correct text." But there are many differences in the texts which appear in those commentaries, and it is impossible for the student to decide between them. For instance: — in I. i. 2 Tso gives the meeting between the marquis of Loo and E-foo of Choo as having taken place in Meeh (^), while Kung and Kuh give the name as ^, so that we cannot tell which of these charac- ters the master wrote. So Mei (j^jj), in IIL xxviii. 4, appears in Kung and Kuh as tS' ^"^ Keueh-yiu (1^ j^), in X. xi. 7, appears in Kung and Kuh as J|^-^* Instances of this kind are innumerable, but they are generally in the names of places and unimportant. In L iii. 3, however, we have in Tso-she the entry j^ ^ 2^, which would be the notice of the death of Shing Tsze, the mother of duke Yin, whereas in Kung and Kuh we read ^ ^ 2^, referring to the death of a high minister of Chow; so that we cannot tell whose death it was that the master clironicled as having taken place on
^ ^ i # !^ ^ ^^ i!f nE- ^ See pn,leg. toL I., pp. 12, 18 6 ^ pff
IS]
■BCT. ui.] MA TWAN LIN ON THE HAN TEXTS. [pbolboomena.
the day Sin-maou of the 4th month of the third year of duke Yin.i 'And not only so. In the 21st year of duke Seang, both Kur.g- yaiig and Kuh-leang have an entry to the effect that Confucius was then born. But in the Ch'un Ts'ew only the births of the heir-sons of the rulers of States were entered, as in II. vi. 5. In other cases, the births even of hereditary nobles, who exercised an all-powerful sway in the government of their States, like the members of the Ke family [in Loo], did not find a place in tlie tablets; and though the master be the teacher of emperors and kings for myriads of ages, yet at his birth he was only the son of the commandant of the city of Tsow. The historiographers of Loo would not make a record of that event, and to say that he himself afterward entered it in the classic which he prepared, is in the highest degree absurd.
* Moreover Tso, after the capture of the lin in the I4th year of duke Gae, has further protracted the text to the 4th montli of the 16th year, when the death of Chung-ne is recorded; — which even Tso Ching-nan considered to be not far from an act of forgery.
*Thus there are not only additions in the three commentaries to the proper text of the Ch'un Ts'ew of tilings which are strange and partly incredible, but the authors of them added [to the text] and suppressed [portions of it] according to their pleasure. In what they write under the 21st year of Seang, Kung and Kuh added to the text, to do honour to the master from whom they had received it, and Tso made his addition in the 16th year of Gae, to show his grief for the death of the] master; — neither addition was in the original text of the ChHin Ts'ew. The three writers made their commentaries according to what was current in men's mouths, and what they heard with their ears, in their time, ai>d each of them thrust in whatever addition he desired to make. Subsequent scholars again have adopted what they found in the three commentaries, one favouring this and another that, and trying to make it clear; but that they have attained to the mind of the sage in the use of hia styluSj now writing down and now retrenching, a thousand years before them, is what I am not able to believe.'^
1 See my note on the passage in question, wliere I approve of a different interpretation of -thd text of Kung and Kuh from that which Ma Twan-liii mentions. My Chinese text in that passage is that of Kung and Kuh, and I take tliis opportunity to sny that tlie text tliroughout is gathered from the K'ang-he edition of the Classic. Tlie editors generally follow Tso-slie ; but occasionally^ Rs in this case, they adopt the text of Kung or Kuh. They have not told us by what principles they were guided in the formation or preference of that which they have given.
19J
] NATURE AND VAl.l'E OK THE CHL'.N TSEW. [on. i.
4. I have given the whole of Ma's remarks, because of the weight of his authority and the freedom with which he has expressed his views. The poiiita, however, on which he Insists do Ma'i concloriona te«m orentrHined. not make BO Unfavourable an impression on my mind against the integrity of our present text as they did upon his. That there was not in the Han dynasty a text of the Classic besides the texts found in the three commentaries is not 80 certain as he makes out. Very possibly, as I have shown in the second paragraph, a distinct text was found, as related by Heu Shin, in the year B.a 153. But if we base the text simply on what ia given in the commentaries, we must feel that we approximate very nearly to what it was when they made their appearance, to what it had been before the tyrant of Ts'In fancied that he had made an end of it There is no evidence that anyone of them suppressed portions of the text as Ma affirms; and the additions of which he makes so much are only two, one by Kung-yang and Kuh-leang
H #^. -t J^ «.«. 4^ « «;8 « » RH T< * * ^^ » » *
^ * A •&■ ^ R ¥■ m« S M ^. ffi .S iP ± -til. «! M * »f»Bs#.M0^*W;2:5E«.ft«ttA*T-¥
6iS. *S a 4& 4. 7> Sf a ;*: * <: .f- :^:, S lb jte * » •&• « jfi
3t.*l#Ji«s#*.:T:W*«*i5ra«.ifnHiF-««
20]
SECT, til.] MA'S OBJECTIO^'S OVEUSTRAINED. [prot^eoombxa.
(with a variation, however, to which he does not advert), and one by Tso, for we may consider all the paragraphs that follow the account of the capture of the Kn as one addition. They were both very natural, and I should suppose were intended originally as notes rather than additions to the text. The various readings again in the three are really not of great importance. Occurring mostly in the names of inen and places,^ they need not trouble us more than diiferent ways of spelling unusual words in different edi* tions of an English book would do. The most important variation of another character between them is "that on which Ma insists so strongly, — ]Q* ^ and ^ ^ in I. iii. 3. This is not what we may compare to an error of orthography, arising from writing the same sound in different ways; — it is evidently an error of transcription. 'J so, I am of opinion, copied down ^ instead of ^, and then tried, ingeniously but unsatisfactorily, to account in his commentary for the unusual combination of ^ ^. Kung and Kuh copied ^ correctly, but their historical knowledge was not sufficint to enable them to explain who ^ ^ was. Ma has altogether overlooked the consideration of the value attaching to the various readings as showing the independence of the three recensions. Adding to them the two of Tsow and Keah which soon, perished, we have five different texts of the Ch*un Ts'ew in existence in the second century before our era. Tso, Kung-yang, and Kuh-leang, had each his school of ad- herents, who sought to exalt the views of their master above those of his rivals. It is still competent to us to pronounce upon their respective views, and weigh the claims which they have to our consideration; but the question at present is simply about their texts. Notwithstanding the differences between these, there is no doubt in my mind that they flowed from a common original.
3 The following passage from Woo Ch'ing (^ ^; A.D. 1249-1333), may be considered a" decisive on this point. I adduce it in preference to others, because he touches' on some othei^ matters which will interest some of my readers.^^^ ^ jj^ -j^ ^ j^, ^r ^, ^^ ^Jft,
21]
FROLE60MBNA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CHUN TS*EW. [ch. i.
— an original which must have been compiled by Confucius from the Ch'un Ts'ew of Loo. On the subsequent preservation of that text it is not necessary to enter, excepting in so far as the early history of the three commentaries is concerned. When the authori- ty of them was once established, there was a succession of scholars who from dynasty to dynasty devoted themselves to the illustration of them, the Works of hundreds of whom are existing at the present day. It may not be possible for us to determine the exact reading, of names especially, in every paragraph, and there may be lacunae in other paragraphs, and some paragraphs perhaps were lost before the three texts were transcribed ; but the text as formed from them must in my opinion be considered, notwithstanding its various read- ings, as a fair reproduction of what Confucius wrote, a sufficient copy of the Work by which he felt that posterity would judge him. I proceed in the next section to describe the three early comment- aries, after which we shall be prepared to estimate the value of the Work itself.
SECTION IV.
THE THREE EARLY COMMENTARIES ON THE CH*UN TS*EW.
1. Of the three early commentaries the first which made its
appearance in the Han dynasty, and incomparably the most
The commentary of Tso. important, was that of Tso, or of Tso-k*ew, for
the opinions of scholars differ both as to the surname and the name
of the author.^ The account of it given by Pan Koo is — that Tso
1 It is a common opinion, which Mr. Wylie TGencral Notes on Ctiinese Literature, p. 6) endorses without hesitation, that the * Narratires of the States ' was by the same author as the Commentary about which we are inquiring ; and we hare the testimony of Sze-ma Ts'een's auto- biographical letter to a friend (1^ ^ :r% + Il» ^j ,B| 3§i» '(^ ^ H + Zl)," to his surname being Tso-k'ew, and name Ming C^ J^ ^ ^, Wj^ ^ ^ ^; and again, ^
J^ ^^ ^ ). Our Tso would then have the surname of Tso-Vew. This is still held by many. Choo E-tsun particularly insists on it as a point *• exceedingly clear,' and explains the dropping of the K'Sw ( J^ or ^R) from a superstitious feeling not to be always repeating the name of the
Master. (?[^ ^B)* ^^^ ^^ appears to have considered the simple Tso to be the surname and
K'Sw-ming the name ; and there are many who concur with him. Others maintain that the sur- name was simply Tso^ and that the name has been lost. So it is virtually now, for the Work is simply called the Tso Chuen. On these disputes about tlie surname and name, Hwang Tsih
(jf j^; Yuen dyoMty) «y. with truth:-:^ ^ qq, ]^ H it :^ ^ ;g ^, ^
22]
•fiCT. IV.] COMMENTARY OF TSO. [raoLBGOMEWA;
K'ew-ming was a discipleof the sage, whoconsulted along with him the historical records of Loo, before making his great Work; that when it was made, it was not advisable to publish it because of the praise and censure, the concealments and suppressions, which abounded in it, and that therefore he delivered it by word of mouth to the disciples, who thereupon withdrew and gave different. accounts of the events referred to in it; that K'ew-ming, in order that the truth might not be lost, made his commentary, or narratives of those events, to make it clear that the master had not in his text used empty words; and finally, that it was necessary for him to keep his work concealed, to avoid the persecutions of the powerful rulers and officers whose conduct was freely and fully described in it.^ Pan Koo's account is correct thus far, that we have in Tso's Work a detailed account of most of the events of which the text of Confucius gives only hints. The Ch'un Ts'ew may be loosely compared to the headings or summaries of contents which are prefixed to the chapters in many editions of our Bibles, and Tso's commentaries to the chapters them- selves. But we shall find that they contain more than this.
2. Who Tso was it is not easy to say. In the Analects, V. xxiv., Confucius says, ' Fine words, an insinuating appearance, and WhoTsowas. excessivc respect; — Tso-k'ew Ming was ashamed of such things, and I also am ashamed of them. To conceal resen tment against a person, and appear friendly with him; — Tso-k'ew Ming was nshamed of such conduct, and I also am ashamed of it.'^ Chaou K'e says, on the authority of K'ung Gan-kwoh, that the person whonj Confucius spoke of thus, was the grand-]iistoriogra|)her of Loo, but adds nothing as to his being contemporary with the sage, or of an earlier time. The critics generally hold that he was some Worthy of an earlier age, ou the ^xi'ound that Confucius only drew comparisons between him- scH'and men of a former period.- I am not fully convinced by their reasonings. The Chinese text of the Analects is not so definite as the English translation of it. What Confucius says about Tso-k'ew Ming might be rendered in the present tense in the same way as what he says about himself. Nothing, however, would be gained by discussing a text on which it is not possible to arrive at a
1 E. g. Cluiou K'wangC;!! g ; of the T*ang dynasty) snys :-|^ ml^^^Jilk^y
23]
PBOLKOOMEKA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CU*UN TS*EW. fen, h
positive decision. At the same time I may say that the view that Tso was a disciple of the master has very formidable difficulties to encounter. The Classic stops in the 14th year of duke Gae, B.C. 480, but Tso's counnentary extends to the 4th year of duke Taou, Gae's successor, B.C. 463. In the last paragraph of it, moreover, there is an allusion to the ruin and death of Seun Yaou or Che Pih, a great officer of Tsin, which took place in 452, 27 or 28 years after the close of the Ch'un Ts'ew. Not only so. The Head of the Chaou family is mentioned in the same paragraph by his posthu- mous or honorary title, and of course he could not have received it till after his death, which took place in B.C. 424, 56 years after the capture of the /m, and 54 years after the death of the sage. Is it possible to believe that one so much younger than Confucius was among his disciples and possessed his confidence to the extent which the commonlv received accounts of the makinc^ of the Ch'un Ts'ew
tf CD
suppose?
3. Leaving these speculations about the name and person of
Tso, we find that his commentary made its appearance soon after
First appearance and subsequent^ ^^^^ ^ise of the Han dynasty. Heu Shin
liistory of his commentary. J ^^ |jig acCOUUt of the disCOVCry of the
Ch'un Ts*ew in tbe wall of Confucius house, quoted on p. 18, sub- joins the statement that Chang Ts'ang, marquis of Pih-p*ing pre- sented the commentary of Tso written in the old characters of the Chow dynasty.^ Now this Chang Ts'ang had been high in office under the Ts'in dynasty, in charge, it would appear, of the imperial library. Having joined the party of the duke of P'ei, the founder •of the Han dynasty, he became at last a favourite with him, and was placed in various positions of the greatest trust.^ His appoint- ment to be marquis of Pih-p'ing® took place in B.C. 200, about fifty years before the discovery of the text in the wall of Confucius' house. Heu Shin says that * Chang presented' the Work, meaning, I suppose^ that he did so to the first emperor of Han, who was too .much occupied, however, with the establishment of his dynasty to give tttvvth attention to literary matters. But after the time of Chang Ts*ang we never lose sight of Tso's commentary. From him it passed to Kea E, of whom we have many notices as a famous
"4^ ^.f t^e first memoir. 8 Pih-p'ing embraced the present department of Yung-ping,
Chih-le, and some tadjacent territory.
24]
8J6CT. IV.] THE COMMENTARY OF TSO [pnoLKGOJiESA.
scholar and statesman in the reign of the emperor Wan (b.c. 178 — 156).* He published a Work of his own upon it;^ and then it passed on to his grandson Kea Kea,^ and Kwan Kung/ a great scholar at the court of King Heen of Ho-keen,® through whom an attempt was made to obtain for it the imperial recognition, which was defeated by the friends of the commentary of Kung-yang. This, though later in making its appearance, had already found a place in tlie imperial college.^ Kwan Kung transmitted his treasure to his youngest son, named Chang-k'ing,^^ and from him it went on to Clianjs: Ch'anoj^^ and Chans: Yu,^^ both famous men of their time. To one of them, no doubt, belonged tlie 'Niceties of the. Ch'uii Ts'ew, by Chang-she,' mentioned in Lew Hin's catalogue.^^ Yu was intimate with Seaou Wang-che,^* perhaps the most dis- tinguished man of the time, whom he interested in the Work of Tso, so that he called the attention to it of the emperor Seuen (b.c. 72-48), and it might now have been formally recog- nized but for Yu's death. The names of Yin K&ng-ch'e^^ and his son Yin Heen,i^ of Teih Fang-tsin,!^ Hoo Chang,is and Kea Hoo^^ lead us from Yu to Lew Hin.^ Hin's connexion with Tso's Work may be considered as forming an era in its history. ' Having found,' weare told in his biography, 4n the imperial library, the Ch'un Ts*ew and Tso's Chuen in the ancient characters, he became very fond of them. At that time Yin Heen, a secretary of the prime minister, being well acquainted with Tso-she, examined along with Hin the text and commentary. Hin took his opinion in some particulars, and sought to learn the correct interpretation and great aim of the Works by application to the prime minister Teih Fang- tsin. Before this, because of the many ancient characters and ancient sayings in Tso's Chuen, students had contented themselves with simply explaining their meaning; but when Hin took it in hand, he quoted the words of the commentary to explain the text, and made
6 ^ ^. 7 ^ ^. 8 See the proleg. to toI. IV. p. 11. 9 K'ung Ying-tah,
in his preface to Too Yu's edition of the T0O Chuen says:— J^ ^ *^ (bo. 189—86) |^, jfiT
:^± ^o^m- i»5l#- ^2gg^. i8Si^#^tlfc.
-J-« j^. 14 S ^^ ^, There is a long and interesting memoir of him in the )^ ^,
.J^ -4-^ y^. We find him, on his first introduction to the emperor Seuen, appealing to a passage in the Ch*un Ts«ew. ^^ ^ H ^ *^ ^ j^' ^^ ^ y'^ ^- ^^ ^
1^ 19 ^ ^. 20 ^] ^.
23]
PttOLBGOMBNA.] NATUKE AND VALUE OF THE CH*UN TSEW. [ch. l
them throw light on each oth(»r, and from this time the exhibition of them in paragraphs and clauses was cultivated. Hin preferred Tso to Kung-yang and Kuh-leang, considering that he agreed in his likings and dislikings witli the sage, and that lie had himself seen the master, — a very different case from that of Kung and Kuh who were subsequent to the seventy disciples '^^ The history then relates the disputes between Hin and his father Heang, who was an adherent of the commentary of Kuh-leang, and how he made an attempt to get the emperor Gae (b.c. 5 — a.d.) to give Tso a place in tlie imperial college along with Kung and Kuh, which was defeated by the jealousy of their supporters. From this time, however, the advocates of Tso-she became more numerous and determined to have justice done to their master. They were successful for a short time in the reign of the emperor P'ing (a.d. 1 — 5), but Tso's Work was again degraded as of less authority than the other two commentaries; and though Kea Kwei*^*^ presented an argument on forty counts to prove its superi- ority, which was well received by the emperor Chang (a.d. 76 — 88), it was not till a.d. 99, under the emperor Ho,23 that the footing of Tso in the imperial college was finally established. The famous Ch'ing K'ang-shing (a.d. 127 — 199) having replied to three Works of Ho Hew, 2* the maintainer of the authority of Kung-yang, against Tso and Kuh-leang, and shown the superiority of Tso, the other two comment- aries began from this time to sink into neglect. It is melancholy to read the list of writers on Tso during the second and third dynasties of Han, of whom we have only fragmentary sentences remaining; but in A.D. 280, Too Yu or Too Yuen-k'ae, a scholar and general at the commencement of the Tsin dynasty, ^^ completed a great Work under the title of ' Collected Explanations of the Text and Conunentary of Tso-she on the Ch'un Ts*ew, in thirty chapters.'^s This Work still remains, and will ever be a monument of the scholarship and pains- taking of the writer.
21 See the J?|| ^ I^ -|- ^, ^ 7C jf, ^ ^ >rj- ^ ^*^® carefully read over tiie Work of ^J j^ jf^ of the present dynasty, included in the ^ "^ j^ ^, and called a£ ^\ ^p ^\ ^^ p^t i" which he labours to upset all the testimony about Lew Hin, but it is quite inconclusive and unsatisfactory. 22 w ^^. 23 Luh Tih-ming and others say
this took place under Ho, in the 1 1th year of the period yT fl.. But that period lasted only ona year. -JQ fl. must be a mistake for^ jr. 24 ^ "6t;— see further on. 25 ^|fe
^:^^^tf^^?'H + ^J-V tt Ji. -tiled 7C illf He U .!«, clleJ ilf 1^, from his military upo rations in tlie South, as in the quotation from Ma Twan-lln on p. 19. He was born a.d. 222, and died in 28 1.
2(q
812CT. IV.] . THE COMMENTARY OF TSO. [proleooxbtia.
4. Nothing need be said on the history of* the commentary of Tso since the beginning of the Han dynasty. Some of the scholars of that age traced it back from Chang Ts'ang to nearly the
Attempt to trace T8o'8 Work > time of Confucius, and K'ung Ying-tah in
nearly to the Ume of Confucius.! his preface tO ToO Yu's Work qUOtCS the
following from a production of Lew Heang (b.c. 80 — 9) which is now lost: — 'Tso K'ew-ming delivered his Work to Tsang Shin. Shin transmitted it to Woo K'e; AVoo K'e to his son K'e; K'e to Toh Tseaou, a native of Ts*oo, who copied out selections from it in 8 books ; Toh Tseaou to Yu King, who made 9 books of selections from it; Yu K'ing to Seun K'ing; and Seun K4ng to Chang Ts'ang.'^ I wish we had different and more authoritj' for this state- ment, as Heang was not himself an adherent of Tso's Work. In liis son Hin's catalogue which I have already referred to, two Works are mentioned by Toh-she and Yu-she, but there is nothing in their titles to connect them with Tso ;- and Sze-ma Ts'een says nothing in his memoir of Seun K'ing about any connexion that he had with the transmission of the commentary.^ Tsang Shin was the grandson of Tsang Sin, one of Confucius' principal disciples, — the Tsang Se of Mencius, II. Pt. i. I. 3. Tso's committing his Work to him would agree with what I have said in par. 2, and cast a doubt on his being a contemporary of the sage himself.
5. I have said that generally we have in the Work of Tso the details of the events of which we have but a shadow or the barest
Tiie nature of Tso's Work, intimation in the text of the Ch'un Ts'ew; but we have more than this. Of multitudes of events that during the 242 years of the Ch^un Ts'ew period took place in Loo and other States, to which the text makes no allusion, we have from Tso a full account. Where he got his information he does not tell us. Too Yu is probably correct when he says that Tso was himself one of the historiographers of Loo. ^ Whatever of the history of that State was on record he was familiar with. If the records of other States were also collected there, he hud studied them equally with those of his own. If he did not find them there, he must
27]
raoLBOomOTA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH'UN TS'EW. [o». I.
have gone in seartih of them, for he is as much at home in the events of Chow, Tsin, Ts'e, Sung, Ch'ing, Ts'oo, and other States, as he is in those of Loo. And not only does he draw from the records about the ruling Houses of the States, but also from the histories of the principal families or clans and the chief men in them.2 From whatever quarter, in whatever way, he got his information, he has transmitted it to us. The events and tlie cha- racters of the time pass as in reality and life before us. In no ancient history of any country have we such a vivid picture of any lengthened period of its annals as we have from Tso of the 270 years which he has embraced in his Work. Without his Chuen the text of the sage would be of little value. Let the former be preserved, and we should have n.o occasion to regret the loss of the latter.
To myself it appears plain that Tso's Work was compiled on a twofold plan. First, he had reference to the text of the Ch'un T.0'. Work compiled on a two-fold plan.) Ts'ew, and wished to give the details Ho»UhedflmioMpi«i.nbetcxt. i of the events wliich were indicated
in it. Occasionally also he sets himself to explain the words of that text, being sometimes successful and sometimes not. He lays down canons to regulate the meaning and application of certain characters, but it can hardly bo said that we find him under the influence of the 'praise-and-censure' theory. In this respect he differs remarkably from Kung-yang and Kuh-Ieang; and I have sometimes fancied that the characteristic is an evidence that he lived before Meiicius, and bad never read the accounts of the Classic which we find in him. His object evidently was to convey to his read- ers a knowledge of the facts given in the master's paragraphs as if independent and isolated in their connexion with one another. Hence he often mentions new facts which are necessary for that
2 The following pmiage from Tan T»oo(pJ^ ^) of the T'ang dynasty wM forth L-oirectlj this charactcrlBtic of Tio's work, and I adduce it withont T«fereni« to Tsoo'a peculiar opinions abont
.„ ..■,..,:-t f^ « i a. » » * «• SI # a s » a ». ».
1 3*: * j3 . « s 1» le. X .« * IS !i* A iife * a; -f- ;t. #
SECT. IV.] THE COMMENT AKY OF TSO. [prolbgombha.
purpose. As he generally introduces them chronologically, at the time of their occurrence, he seems at times merely to increase the mass of indigested matter; but by and by we find what he has thus I'elated to stand in the relation of cause to something subsequently chronicled. But his method with these additions to the text, which are yet connected with it, is very various. As Too Yu says, *Now he anticipates the text to show the origin of an aiFair; now he comes after the text [with his narrative] to bring out fully the meaning; now he lies alongside the text to discriminate the princi- ples in it; and now he appears to cross the text to bring together things that differ: — thus various according to what he considered the requirements of the case.'^ What is very surprising is that he does not appear to be conscious of frequent discrepancies between the details of his narratives and the things as stated by Confucius. Now and then, as on VI. xviii. 6, he says that the text conceals the nature of the fact; but generally he seems insensible of the untrust- worthiness of the representation in it.
Let it be understood, however, that Tso does not give the details of every event which the Classic briefly indicates. We must suppose that where he does not do so, his sources of information failed him, and he was obliged to leave the notice of the text as it was. There is the erroneous or defective entry in III. xxiv. 9, — ^The duke of Kwoh.' On it Tso says nothing. So on the five paragraphs of Chwang's 26th year he has nothing to say, while he introduces brief narratives of two other things, for the latter of which only we can account as being given with an outlook into the future. Generally speaking, the information given in the Chuen is scanty or abundant in proportion to its distance from or nearness to the era assigned to its compilation. The 18 years of*duke Hwan, B.C. 710 — 693, occupy in the following Work 37 pages; the 15 years of duke Ting, B.C. 508 — 494, 50 pages. The 32 years of Chwang, B.C. 692 — 661, occupy 59 pages; the 32 of Ch'aou, B.C. 540 — 509, 173 pages. This certainly gives us for the Work one attribute of verisimilitude.*
)^ lil ^ ^» 1^ ^ flO ^»~-'®® Too's preface. 4 I take tbe opportuuity to advert
here to a question which has produced no end of speculation and discussion among the scholars of China.— Why does the Ch'un Ts*ew begin with duke Yin? Might we not have expected the rage to go back to the first origin of the State of Loo? I believe that the only reasonable answer to these inquiries is this, — ^that the annals of the State previous to duke Yin*s rule had been altogether lost, or were in such a miserable state of dilapidation and disarrangement that nothing could be made of them. We might have expected a sentence or two from the sage to enlighten us on the subject; but his oracle is dumb. Neither does the Chuen say anything about it. How different the practice of writers of history in the West!
29]
FROLBCOMENA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CIPUN TS EW. fcii. x.
But while Tso intended his Work to be a commentary on the text
of the Cii'un Ts'ew, I believe that he had in view another and higher
«,, , . rrr . . ,. object, and wished to give his
The second view of Tso; — to give a goneran *f -f ^ o ^
view of the history of China during the cii*un> readers a general view of the his- * ^^ ^^" ' tory of the cou-ntry throughout all
its States during the Ch^un Ts'ew period. The account of the Chuen quoted above from Too Yu carries us a considerable way to this conclusion. Tso shows the origin and issue of many events, one phase of which merely is mentioned in the text. The unconnected entries of the classio are thus woven together, and a history is made out of them. But the new matter introduced by him is so ver}' much, and often having no relation to anything stated in the text, yet calculated to bring the whole field of the era before us, and to indicate the progress of events on towards a different state of the kingdom, that we must suppose this to have been a prominent object in the author's mind. This characteristic of the Work lias not escaped the notice of native scholars themselves. As early as the Tsin dynasty, Wang Tseeh preferred to it the commentary of Kung- yang on this account. 'Tso's style,' said he,' is so rich, and his aim so extensive, that he is to be regarded as an author by himself, and not having it for his principal object to illustrate the classic.'^ Nearly to the same effect is the account of Tso's Chuen given by Wang Clieh of the Sung dynasty. After praising Tso as a skilful reader of the old histories and collector of various narratives, so that he accumulated a very complete account of the events in the Ch'un Ts'ew, he yet adds: — ' But though his book was made as an appendix to the classic, yet, apart from and outside that, it forms a book by itself, the author of which was led away by his fondness for strange stories, and carried his collecting th*em beyond what was proper. He was remiss in setting forth the fine and minute ideas of the sage, but yet his Work has a beginning and end, being all the compilation of one hand.' Chinese scholars write of Tso under the influence of their admiration and veneration for the sage. T could wish that he had written altogether independently of the Classic, in which case we might have had a history of those times as complete as a man
the J^^^^7>^^' 169, p. 8. In Bk. 174, p. 3, there is qaoted from him his contrary view of Kung-
30]
SECT. IV.] THE COMMENTARY OF TSO. [prolegomena.
knowing only the heroes and events of his own country could make. It is not too much to call Tso the Froissart of China. The historical novel called ' The History of the various States ' shows the use which can be made of his narratives. They lie necessarily in my pages so many disjecta membra^ but some one may yet give, mainly from them, an account of the closing centuries of the feudal state of China that shall be found to have an universal interest.
6. Three more points in regard to Tso's Work have yet to be considered: — the manner of his composition; how far his narratives are entitled to our belief; and whether there is reason to believe that additions were made to them by writers of the Ts'in and Han dynasties. By the m.anner of Tso's composition I do not mean the general character of his style. There is but one opinion as to that. It is acknowledged on all hands that he was a master of his recuiiarity of T8cj*8 composition, art. Condensed, yet vivid, he is eminently pictorial. The foreign student does not for some time find it easy to make out his meaning, but by and by he gets familiar with the style, and it then has a great charm for him. In the words which tlie foremost of French sinologues once used to me of him, Tso was un graml ecrivain} But the peculiarity which I have in view is the way in which Tso constantly varies the appellations of the actors in his narratives. Very often they are named by their sacrificial or honorary epithets which were not given to them till after their death, so that it is plain he did not copy out the contemporaneous accounts or records which we suppose him to have had before him, and some critics have from this contended that the narratives were entirely constructed by himself, not drawn from historical sources.^ But such a conclusion is more than the premiss will justify. Tso might very well call his subjects of a former time by the titles which had been accorded to them after their death, and by which
1 1 aelect only two Cliiuese tcstiuioiiies of the excellence of Tso's style. The first is from fteun Sung (>^ ^) of the T«in dynasty:-^ ^ ^ jj^,^ W i!5^ H f^' Si ^ M^' \^ i^ ^^M'^^pW'^Mi^Z' Theotheri. from Choo E-I8un of the present dynwiy :-^ ^^^■til'X>^IS^>1^^^- *
£.g^ Lew Hwang (^ IJJ) of the T'ang dynaaty aaya:-;^ l^^^'^Wl^M
31]
PROLBOOMENA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH-UN TSEW. [c«. i;
men generally would in liis days speak of them. What is really perplexing is that in the same account the same individual is now called by his name, now by his honorary epitliet, and now by his designation, or by one or other of his designations if he had more than one, so that the narrative becomes very confused, and it requires consideral)le research 0!i the part of the reader to make out who is denominated in all this variety of ways. To give only one example: — in the account of the battle of Peih, in the 12th year of duke Seuen, of the leaders on the side of Tsin, we have, 1st, Seun Lin-foo, who by and by is styled Hwan-tsze;^ 2d, Sze Hwuy, who is variously denominated Woo-tsze of Suy, Suy Ke, and Sze Ke, while elsewhere he is called Woo-tsze of Fan;* 3d, Seen Hwoh, also called Che-tsze, and elsewhere Yuen Hwoh, or Hwoh of Yuen ;^ 4th, Seun Show, called also Che Chwang-tsze and .(^he Ke;^ 5th, Han Keueh, by and by Han Heen-tsze;^ 6th, Lwan Shoo, by and by Lwan Woo-tsze ;8 7th, Chaou Soh, by and by Chaou Chwang-tsze;^ and 8th, Keih K'ih, by and by Keih Heen-tsze.^^ Similar instances might be quoted in great number. Chaou Yih says that such a method of varying names and appellations was characteristic of the style of that time.^^ If, indeed, it was characteristic of the time, I must think that Tso possessed it in an exaggerated degree. The confusion produced by it in his Work seems to have led to its cure. Sz3-ma Ts'een and the writers of the Books of Han are careful, at the commencement of their bio- graphies, to give the surname, name, and designation or designa- tions of their subjects, so that the student has none of the perplexity in reading them, which he finds with Tso's Chuen.
The other two points regarding the Work, which I indicated are of more importance, and I will consider them together. Have we
Are Tso's narratives reliable? Were) ^eason to receive Tso's narratives as they supplemented or added to. > reliable, having been transcribed by
him from pre-existent records with merely such modifications of style as suited his taste ? Or did he invent some of them himself? Or were they added to by writers in the Ts'in dynasty and that of
^ftait '-•** ^''•"" °" ♦'"' ^'''"" '^''*^''' ^'' ^ t# ^ ♦^ ^ ^ ^ '"'
32]
SECT. IV.] THE COMMENTARY OF TSO. [pbolegomkna.
the Fornaer Han ? It is difficult to reply to these questions cate- gorically. What has the greatest weight with me in favour of Tso's general credibility is the difference between his commentary and those of Kung-yang and Kuh-leang. What of narrative belongs to the latter bears upon it the stamp of tradition, and evidently was not copied from written records but from accounts current in the mouths of men. It is, moreover, of com[)aratively small com- pass. Their Works must have' been written when the memory of particular events in the past had in a great measure died out. If Tso's sources of information had been available for them, they would, we may be sure, have made use of them. The internal evidence of the three Works leaves no doubt in the mitid as to the priority of Tso's. And as they all made their appearance early in the Han dynasty, we are carried back for the composition of Tso's into the period of Chow. As his last entry is about an affair in the 4th year of duke Taou, who died B.C. 430, and he mentions in it the Head of the Chaou family in Tsin by his honorary epithet of Seang- tsze, which could not have been given before 424, we can hardly be wrong in assigning Tso to the fifth century before Christ. This brings him close to the age of Confucius who died in B.C. 478. Tso may then have been a young man ; — he could hardly be a disciple enjoying that intimate association with the sage which Lew Hin, Pan Koo, and other Chinese scholars were fond of asserting.
But to maintain the general credibility of Tso's Chuen as having been taken from authoritative sources and records acknowledo^ed as genuine among the States of China when he wrote, leaves us at freedom to weigh his narratives and form our own opinion on grounds of reason as to the degree of confidence which we ought to repose in them. There are few critics of eminence among the Chinese who do not allow themselves a certain amount of liberty in this respect. Ch'ing E-ch'uen laid down two canons on the subject. *The Chuen of Tso,' he says, ' is not to be entirely believed; but only that portion of it which is in itself credible.'^^ To this no objection can be taken; but he opens a very difficult question, when he goes on, * We should from the Chuen examine the details of the events referred to in the text, and by means of the text discriminate between what
:t f^ '^ j!^ is Jiy If ^ ^ IS '-'^ "«' IE -^ #• «•'• '«»' p <*
33]
PROLBGOMBWA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH*UN T9*EW. [ch. i.
is true and false in the Chuen.'i^ Qn this I shall have to give an opinion in the next section, and only remark now that if we find the statements of the text and the Chuen in regard to matters of history irreconcileable, the most natural course would seem to be to decide in favour of the latter.
; The K'ang-he editors defer in general to the authority of Tso; but even they do not scruple to suppress his narratives occasionally, or to elide portions of them. They suppress, for instance, the account of the conference between the marquises of Loo and Ts*e at Keah-kuh, given under XI. x. 2, considering the part which Confucius is made to play at it to be derogatory to him.
Wang Gan-shih^* of the Sutig dynasty published a treatise under the title of * Explanations of the Ch'un Ts'ew,' in which he undertook to prove from eleven instances that the Chuen was not composed by Tso K'ew-ming of the Chow dynasty, but by some one of a later date, under the dynasty, probably, of Ts'in.^* Wang's treatise is unfortunately lost, and we know not what all the eleven instances Were. One of them was the use of the term lah^^ in the Chuen on V. V. 9, to denominate a sacrifice after the winter solstice, which, it is contended, was first appointed under the dynasty of Ts^in. It may have been another where in IX. xi. 10 and xii. 5 we find men- tion 9>ade of military commanders of Ts'in .with the title of shoo chang^^^ which, again it is contended, was of later date than the Chow dynasty. Ch'ing E-ch'uen at any rate adduces these two as cases in the Chuen of purely Ts'in phraseology.^^
Apart from any discussion of these instances, I venture to state my own opinion, that interpolations were made in the Chuen after Tso had put his finishing touch to it, and probably during the dy- nasty of the former Han ; and there are two classes of passages which seem to bear on them and in them the evidence j^f having been so dealt with.
[i ] There are the monilizings which conclude many narratives and are interjected in others, generally with the formula — The superior man will say,' and sometimea as if quoted from Confucius. They have often nothing or next to nothing to do with the subject of the narrative to which they are attached, and the manner in which they occasionally bring in quotations from the odes reminds
34] .
•ECT. IV.] THE COMMENTARY OF TSO. [prolegomena.
US of Han Ying's Illustrations of the She, of which I have given specimens in the proleg. to vol. IV. Choo He well asks what con- nexion the concluding portion of the Chuen after I. vi. 2 has to do with what precedes, and points out many reflections in other parts which cannot be considered as the utterances of a superior man but the speculations of a mere scholar.^^ Lin Leuh of the Sung dynasty and a multitude of other scholars attribute all these passages to Lew Hin.i^ They certainly seem to me to bear upon them the Han stamp.
[ii.] There is a host of passages which contain predictions of the future, or allusions to such predictions, grounded on divination, meteorological and astrological considerations, and something in the manner or deportment of the parties concerned; — predictions which turn out to be true. We may be sure that none of these were made at the time assigned to them in the Chuen. Some of them which had their fulfilment before the end of the Ch^un Ts'ew period may have been current in Tso's days, and incorporated by him with his narrative. Others, like the ending of the Chow dynasty after an existence of so many hundred years, the fulfilment of which was at a later date, were, no doubt, fabricated subsequently to that fulfilment, and interpolated during the time of the first Han.
But after deducting all these suspicious portions from Tso's Chuen, there remains the mass of it, which we may safely receive as having been compiled by him from records made contemporane^ ously with the events, and transmitted by him with the graces of his own style. It is, in my opinion, the most precious literary treasure which has come down to posterity from the Chow dynasty.
Critical lotrodnction to the K*ang-h« Ch'an Ts'ew, pp. 28, 29. ^^ ^It 18^ O' £ 19
fi^W ^ "^ B*&$9^^ 1^- ^^ ^*^® following ie a list of pasaagea of the
the end: IX. xxu 8; xxiv. 5, and at the end ; xxvii. 5; xxix. 2d and 4th after 1,8; xxx. 7, and after 7 ; xxxi. at the beg., 2, 5, and after 7 : X. 2, and 2d after 2, 4 ; vii. 4 ; ix. 8 ; x. at the beg.; xL 2, 3, and after 3 ; xii. 3 ; xv, 2, and after 6 ; xviii. at the beg.; xx. at the beg.; xxi. at the beg.,
1 ; XXV. J ; xxxi. 7; xxxil. 2, 4: XI. ix. 3; xv. 1 : XII. ix. after 4. In the ^ ^ ^£ ^ ^
35]
pnoLEGOMBNA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CHUN TS»EW. . [ch. i.
7. On the other two early commentaries, those of Kung-yang and Kuh-leang, it is not necessary that I should write at so much « Tiie commentaries of Kung.) length. There is really nothing in them to
yang and Kuli-leang. | ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^.j^^g attention. Down tO
tlie present day, indeed, there are scholars in China who publish their lucubrations in favour of the one or of the other ; but I think that my readers will all agree with me in the opinion which I have expressed about them, when they have examined the specimens of them which are appended to this chapter.
The commentaries themselves and various Works upon them are mentioned in Lew Hin's catalogue; — as stated above on page 17.
With regard to the Work of Kung-yang, Tae Hw&ng, of the second Kung-yang. Han dynasty, tells us that Kung-yang Kaou received the Ch'un Ts'ew and explanations of it from Confucius' disciple Puh Shang or Tsze-hea, and lianded it down to his son Kung-yang P*ing; that P'ing handed it down again to his son Te; Te to his son Kan ; Kan to his son Show; and that, in the reign of the emperor King (b.c. 155 — 140), Show, with his disciple Hoo-woo Tsze-too, committed it to bamboo and silk. According to this account, the Work was not committed to writing till about the middle of the second century before Christ. If it were really transmitted, from mouth to mouth, down to that time from the era of Confucius, we can hardly suppose that it did not suffer very considerably, now receiving additions and now losing portions, in its onward course.^ The fact, more- over, of its having been confined for more than 300 years to one
^ ^^ ~T\, this get of passage* is touched on. It is said:— /^ Tgt ^^ r^ ^t ^
]g:^(onm.xxiL3).^ eg ^^^ ;^ j^ ;^ ^ ^, ^^^^^
1^'B^^Z^MM ^'("^ '«• 2). ^ ^ # ji ^ ^- Choo Ho often ■peak* Tery doubtfully about Tao'a Chuen. ^-g-j^^^ ^^/< i^' ^ii^i. P^ "Pj ^ ^ Jt jW >|6 Z, •^' ''"* ^''" '"** in«inuRtion ii mere lurmiw.
^^■^^Al5^#-T*^^^11'l^' quoted in the preface to Ho Hew', edition of Kung-yang. 2 According to Ho Hew, tliis transmission of the Classic from mouth
to mouth was commanded by Confucius, from his foreknowledge of tlie attempt oFthe tyrant of Ts'in to burn all the monuments of ancient literature !~7lj Hp ^ ^^ ^ j|^ ^^ ^^> iMl
36]
8BCT. IF.] KUNG-YANG AND KUH-LEANG. [prolegomena.
family takes away from the confidence which we might otherwise be inclined to repose in it.
There can be no doubt, however, that it was made public in the reign of King, and was acknowledged and admitted by his successor Woo (B.C. 139 — 86) into the imperial college. Hoo-woo was a con- temporary and friend of the scholar Tung Chung-shoo;^ and in the biograpliy of the scholar Keang Kung,* an adherent of Kuh-leang's commentary, we are told that the emperor Woo made Keang and Tung dispute before him on the comparative merits of their two Masters, when Tung was held to be the victor. The emperor on this gave in his adhesion to Kung-yang, and his eldest son becajne a student of his Work.
It is not important to trace the history of Kung-yang's commentary farther on. The names of various writers on it and of their Works are preserved, but the Works are lost till we arrive at Ho Hew (a.d. 129 — 183), who published his 'Explanations of Kung-yang on the Ch'un Ts'ew.'s This still remains. Ho Hew did for Kung-yang what, as we have seen. Too Yu did at a later period for Tso K'ew-ming.
The commentary of Kuh-leang is, like that of Kung-yang, carried back to Tsze-hea ; but the line of transmission down to the Han Kuh-leang. dynasty is imperfectly given. The general opinion is that Kuh-leang's name was Ch'ih,^ but Yen Sze-koo says it was He.7 The next name mentioned as intrusted with the text which Ch*ih or He had received, and the commentary which he had made upon it, is Sun K'ing, the same who appears on p. 27, as the 6th in the list of those who handed on the Work of Tso. From Sun K'ing it is said to have passed to a Shin Kung of Loo.^ Keang Kung, men- tioned above, received it from Shin;^ and though it did not win the favour, as advocated by him, of the emperor Woo, yet it gained a place in the imperial college in the reign of Seuen (a.d. 72 — 48), and for some time was held generally in great estimation. It has been preserved to us in the Work of Fan Ning, a famous scholar and statesman of the Tsin dynasty in the second half of the 4th cen- tury; the title of which is, ' A Collection of the Explanations of the Chuen of Kuh-leang on the Ch'un Ts^ew.'®
For the biography of Fan Ning, see the ^ ^> -t + 3L' ^ij t^f ^ 0 "H 3^-
37]
PROLBOOMESA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH»UN TS^EW. [ch.* i.
Z. One cannot compare carefully even the specimens of tlie two commentaries which I have given without seeing that there is often a great similarity between them, and having the conclusion sug-
. . , ,, ^ gested to the mind that the one
Speculation as to a connexion between tlie) " i • i
commentaries of Kung and Kuh; and thatS- waS not made Wlthout reference tO these were only one person. \m ^i y.. ^.i_ j j
the Other. It is not to be wondered at that some scholars, like Lin Hwang-chung of the Sung dynasty, should have supposed the two to be the production of the same writer, i But the differences between them, and cfccasionally the style of composition, forbid us entertaining such a view. That they were one man has been maintained on another ground. The surnames of Kung-yang and Kuh-leang ceased with the publication of the commentaries. No Kung-yang nor Kuh-leang appears after that in Chinese history.^ This is certainly strange, especially when we consider that there were five Kung-yangs concerned, according to the received account, in the transmission of the commentary from Tsze- hea to the Han dynasty. I must leave this matter, however, in its own mist Ch^ing Ts'ing-che,^ Lo Peih,* and other Sung scholars held that the author of the two commentaries had been a Keang, and that Kung-yang and Kuh-leang were merely two ways of spelling it;^ but the method of spelling by finals and initials was, there is reason to believe, unknown in the Han dynasty.
1 The E'ang-he editors in their Critical Introduction, p. 7, quote on this point from Choc He: %i& *^.^^ ^ — ^ # 28ee the ^ Jit ^. chh. 147. 16«.
is^mfAnm-
SECTION V.
THK VALUE OF THE CH'XJN TS'fiW.
1, I come now to what must be considered as the most important subject in this chapter, — to endeavour to estimate the value of the Object of this section. Ch'un Ts*ew as a document of history; and this will involve a judgment, first, on the character of Confucius as its author, or as having made himself responsible for it by copying it from the tablets of his native State and giving it to the world with
38]
8BCT. T.] ARE THE NOTICES IN THE CH«CN TS*EW TBUE? [proleoomema.
his imprimatur^ and, next, a judgment on the influence which it has had on the successive governments of China and on the Chinese people at laro;e.
2. My readers have received, I hope, a distinct idea of the nature of the Work as made up of the briefest possible notices of Statement of the case, the events of the time which it covers, without any attempt to exhibit the connexion between them, or any expres- sion of opinion as to the moral character which attaches to many of them. I have spoken of the disappointment which this occasions us, when we address ourselves to its perusal with the expectations which its general reputation and the glowing accounts of it given by Mencius have awakened. We cannot reconcile it with our idea of Confucius that he should have produced so trivial a Work ; and we cannot comprehend how his countrymen, down to the present da}% should believe in it, and set it forth as a grand achievement.
If there were no other attribute but this triviality belonging to it, we might dismiss it from our notice, and think of it only as of a mirage, which had from the cloudland lured us to it by the attractive appearances which it presented, all vanishing as we approached it and subjected it to a close examination. But there are other attri- butes of the Work which are of a serious character, and will not permit us to let it go so readily. On p. 13 I have applied the term colourlessness to the notices composing it, meaning thereby simply the absence of all indication of feeling or opinion respecting the subjects of them on the part of the writer or compiler. But are the things so dispassionately told correct in point of fact? Are all the notices really informing, or are many of them misleading? Is the very brief summary a fair representation of the events, or is it in many cases a gross misrepresentation of them?
In what I have said in the preceding sections, I have repeatedly intimated my own opinion that many of the notices of the Ch*un Ts*ew ai'e not true; and the proof of this is found in the contradic- tions which abound between them and the events as given in detail in the Chuen of Tso, contradictions which are pointed out in my notes in hundreds of cases. It may occur to some that the Classic itself is to be believed rather tlian the narratives of Tso and the other commentators on it. If we are to rest in this dictum, there is of course an end of all study of the Ch'un Ts'ew period. From the Work of Confucius, confessedly, we learn nothing of interest, and now the relations of Tso which arB
39]
PBOLBOOMBNA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH»UN TS*EW. [ch. i.
80 rich in detail are not to be credited; — the two centuries and a half become a blank. But it is impossible to rest in this view. The multitude of details which Tso gives makes him the principal witness in the case; but Kung and Kuh, greatly differing as they do from him in tlie style of their commentaries, very often bear out his statements, and are equally irreconcileable with the notices of the sage and the inferences which we naturally draw from them. How is it that the three men, all looking up with veneration to Confucius, yet combine to contradict him as they do? Kung and Kuh have their praise-and-censure theory to explain the language which the master uses; but we have seen that it is inadmissible, and it supplies no answer to the question which I have just put. And the mass of Chinese scholars and writers, for nearly 2000 years, have not scrupled to accept the history of the Ch'un Ts'ew period given by Tso as in the main correct, maintaining at the same time their allegiance to Confucius as ' the teacher of all ages,' the one man at whose feet the whole world should sit, accepting every paragraph from his stylus as a divine oracle. The thing is to me inexplicable. There have been many times when I have mused over the subject in writing the pages of this volume, and felt that China was hardly less a strange country to me than Lilliput or Laputa would be. 3. The scholars of China are ready, even forward, to admit that
Chinese schoianiiidmit that) Coufucius in the Ch^uu Ts'ew oftcu coucealsi the Classic conceau things, i the truth about things. On V. i. 6 Kung-
y'ang says, 'The Ch'un Ts'ew conceals [the truth] on behalf of the high in rank, out of regard to kinship, and on behalf of men of worth.'2 On V. i. 1 Tso says that it was the rule for the historio- graphers to conceal any wickedness which affected the character of the State.^ But this * concealing' covers all the ground occupied by our three English words — ignoring, concealing, and misrepresenting, [i.] The Ch'un Ts'ew often ignores facts, and of this I will content myself with adducing two instances. The first shall be It ignores facts, comparatively, if not quite, an innocent omission. The fifth Book, containing the annals of duke He, commences simply with the notice that 'it was his first year, the spring, the king's first month.'
1 The character employed for to conceal is gs, which is explained in various dictionaries hj jR, «to avoid;' ^, *to keep out of view/ and jj^, *to shun/ 'to be cautious of.* 2
40]
SECT, v.] THE CH*UN TS*EW IGNORES FACTS. [prolbgomkna.
It is not said that * he came to the [vacant] seat,' that is, that he did so with the formal ceremonies proper to celebrate his accession to the marquisate. Tso asks why this notice was not given, and says it was because the duke He had gone out of the State. * The duke,' says he, ' had fled out of the State and now re-entered it; but this is not recorded,. being concealed (i.e.j being ignored). To conceal the wickedness of tlie State was according to rule.' On the murder of duke Chwang's son Pan, who should have succeeded to his father^ Shin, who became duke He, had fled to the State of Choo, and a^ boy of eight years old, known as duke Min, was made marquis, and when, within, less than two years, he shared the fate of Pan, Shin returned to Loo, and took his place. What connexion all this had with the omission of the usual pageantry or ceremonies, and whe- ther we have in it the true explanation of the absence of the usual notice, I am not prepared to say ; but we cannot see what harm there could have been in mentioning duke He's fli«i;ht from the State and subsequent return to it. A good and faithful chronicler would have been careful to do so, especially if the events did affect, as Tso says, the inauguration of the new rule.*
The second instance of ignoring shall be one of more importance. It is well known that the lords of the great States of Ts'oo and Woo usurped during the Ch'un Ts'ew period the title of king, thus renouncing their allegiance to the dynasty of Chow which acknow** ledged them only as viscounts. It is by this style of viscount' that they are designated in the Ch'un Ts'ew; but the remarkable fact is that it does not once notice the burial of anyone of all the lords of Ts'oo, or of Woo. The reason is that in such notices he must have appeared with his title of king. The rule was that every feudal lord, duke, marquis, earl, or baron, should after death be denominated as kung or duke, and to this was added the honorary or sacrificial epithet by which he was afterwards to be known. When a notice was entered in the Ch'un Ts'ew of Loo, say of the burial of the marquis Ch'ung-urh of Tsin, tlie entry was that on such and such a month and day they buried duke Wfin of Tsin. But the officers, deputed for the purpose from Loo, had assisted at the burial not of any duke of Ts*oo or of Woo, but of king so and
4 It will be well for the student to read the long note of K*ang Ying-tah on Too Yu*8 remarksj on the Chuen here. He acknowledges that it is impossible to say when the rule for conceHliug things was observed and when not. B^^^Jf^^ /J\ B^ |$ /J^ ^ |$ ;^»
AM
rRoLEooMBXA.] NATURE AXD VALUE OF THE CU'UN TS*EW. \cvl l
80. What were the historiographers to do? If they called the king Avheii living a vieconnt, it would seem to us reasonable that they might have been s^itisfitMl to call him a duke when dead. But this ^YOuld have be^n a direct falsification of the notification which they had received from the State of the deceased. They therefore ignored the burial altogether, and so managed to make their su- zerain of Chow the only king that appeared in their annals. Confucius sanctioned the practice; or if he suppressed all the paragraphs in which the burials of the lords of Ts'oo and Woo were entered, either as dukes or kings, then specially against him lies the charge of thus shrinking from looking the real state of things fairly in the face, as if he could make it any better by taking no notice of it.
[ii.] A lar^^e list of cases of ignoring might be made out by conipariniif the notes and narratives of fso with the entries of the Ch'uu Ts'iiw, but the cases of concealing the truth are much more It cimcenis tiia truth about thing*, numcrous; and in fact it is difficult to draw the line in regard to many of them between mere concealment and misrepresentation. I have quoted, on p. 13, from Maou K'e-ling miiiy st:irtling instances of the manner in which the simple notice * he died ' is used, covering almost every possible way of violent and unnatural death. It may be said that most of them relate to the deaths of princes of other States, and that the historiographers of Loo simply entered the notices as they were communicated to them from those States. Might we not have expected, however, that when their entries came under the revision of Confucius, he would have altered them so as to give his readers at least an inkling of the truth? But it is the same with the chronicling of deaths in Loo itself. Duke Yin was basely murdered, with the connivance of his brother who succeeded him, and all that is said about it in I. xi. 4 U — ' In winter, in the 11th month, on Jin-shin, the duke died.' His successor was murdered in turn, with circumstances of peculiar atrocity, and the entry in II. xviii. 2 is simply — *In summer, in the 4th month, on Ping-tsze, the duke died inr Ts'e.' In III. xxxii. ' tiiree deaths are recorded. We read: — 'In autumn, in the 7th month, on Kwei-sze, duke [Uwan s son] Ya died;' *ln the 8th month, on Kwei-hae, the duke died in the State-chamber;' *In winter, in the 10th month, the duke's son Pan died.' Only the second of these deaths was a natural one. Ya was compelled to take poison by a hali'-bi^thtT Ke-yew, under circumstances which are held by
42]
•ECT. v.] THE CH*UN TSEW CONCEALS THE TRUTH. [prolkgomkxa.
many critics to justify the deed. Pan who was now Tnarquis; though he could not be entered as such by the historiographers till the year had elapsed, was murdered by an uncle, who wished to feeize the marquisate for himself, without any mitigating circum- stances. How is it that these three deaths, so different in their nature and attendant circumstances, are described by the same word? Here it is said *Ya died,' and *Pan died;' and they did not die natural deaths. In I. v. 7 it is said — 'duke [Fleaou s] son K'ow died,' and in VHI. v. 13 we have — *Ke-8un H&ng-foo died;' and they both died natural deaths. What are we to think of a book which relates events in themselves so different without any diflference in its forms of expression? The K'ang-he editora are fond of the solution of such perplexities which says that Confucius meant to set his readers inquiring after the details of the events which he indicated; but why did he not obviate the necessity for such inquiries altogether by varying his language as it would have been very easy to do? But for the Chuen we should entirely misunderstand a great number of the entries in the text.
To take two instances of a less violent kind than these descriptions of deaths, — in III. i. 2, we read that ^ in the 3d month the [late duke Hwan's,] wife [WSn Keang] retired toTs'e,' and in X. xxv. 6 we read that 'in the 9th, month, on Ke-liae, the duke [Ch*aou] retired to Ts'e/ In both passages * retired' is equivalent to *fled.' Duke Hwan's widow was understood to have been an accomplice in the murder of her hus- band, and to have been guilty of incest with her half-brother, the mar- quis of Ts'e; — ^she found it unpleasant, probably dangerous, for her to remain in Loo, and so she fled to Ts*e, where she would be safe and could continue to follow her evil courses. All this the historiogra- phers and Confucius thought it necessary to gloss over by writing that she withdrew or retired to Ts'e. The case of duke Ch*aou was different. He had been kept, like several of his predecessors, in a state of miserable subjection b}'^ the principal nobles of the State, especially by the Head of the Ke-sun family. Instigated by his sons, high-spirited young men who could not brook the restraints and shame of their condition, he attempted to cope with his powerful minister, and got the worst of it in the struggle. The consequence was that he fled to Ts'e; and the text is all that the Cli'un Ts'ew tells us about these affairs, unless we accept its most important entry of the ominous fact that a few months before the duke's flight *grackles came to Loo and built nests in trees!' Everv one will allow that
pjioLEooMENA.] NATURE AND VALCE OF THE CHUN TS'EW. [gh. u
sons should speak tenderly of the errors of their parents, and ministers and subjects general ly throw a veil over the faults of their rulers; but it seems to be carrying the instinctive feeling of dutiful for- bearance too far when a historian or chronicler tries to hide the truth about his ruler's conduct and condition from himself and his readers in the manner of the Ch'un Ts'ew. It should be kept in mind, moreover, that the historiographers of Loo, if Ch^aou had been the ruler of another State, would, probably, not have scrupled to say that Ke-sun E-joo drove him out, and that he fled to Ts'e. Where their own State was concerned, they dared not look the truth in the face. Had W&n Keang been the marchioness of another State, they would have thought that it did not come within their province to say anything about her.
Two more instances of concealment will finish all that it is neces- sary to say on this part of my indictment against our Claasic; and they shall be entries concerning the king. In V. xxviii, 16, it is said that ' the king [by] Heaven's [grace] held a court of inspection at Ho-yang;' and we suppose that we have an instance of one of those exercises of the royal prerogative which distinguished the kingdom in normal times. But the fact was very different. In the 4th month of the year Tsin had defeated Ts'oo in a great battle, and the States of the north were safe for a time from the encroachments of their ambitious neighbour. Next month the marquis of Tsin called a great meeting of the northern princes at which he required the king to be present. The king responded to the summons of his feudatory, and a brother of his own presided over the meeting; — though both of these facts are ignored in the text. In the winter, the marquis called another meeting in Ho-yang, a place in the present district of Wan, in the department of Hwae-k'ing, Ho-nan, at which also he required the presence of the king, and which is chronicled in the 16th paragraph. Tso quotes a remark of Confucius on the case, — that ^ for a subject to call his ruler to any place is a thing not to be set forth [as an example];' but to this I would reply that, the fact being so, it should not be recorded in a way to give the reader quite a different idea of it.
The other instance is less flagrant. In V. xxiv. 4 it is said, *The king [by] Heaven's [grace] left [(^how], and resided in Ch'ing].' The facts were that a brother of the king had raised an insurrection Ugainst him, so that he was obliged to leave his capital and the imperial domain, and take refuge in Ch'ing, where he remained
44]
«ECT. v.] THE CH UN TS*EW MISREPRESriNTS FACTS. [prolsgomena;
until in the next year he was restored to the* royal city by an army of Tsin. But as the Ch'un Ts'ew says nothing of the troubles which occasioned the king's flight, so it says nothing about the " manner in which he was restored. The whole history of the case is summed up in the paragraph that I have quoted, which conceals the facts, and of itself would not convey to us anything like an accurate impression of the actual circumstances.
[iii.] I go on to the third and most serious charge which can be brought against the Ch'un Ts'ew. It not only ignores facts, and con- The cii*un Ts-ew roitrepretents. ceals them, but it also often misrepresents them, thus not merely hiding truth or distorting it, but telling us what was not the truth. The observation of Mencius, that, when the Ch*un Ts^gw was made, rebellious ministers and villainous sons be- came afraid, suggests the instances by which this feature of the^ Classic may be best illustrated.
Let us first take the case of Chaou Tun, according to the entry in VII. ii. 4, that * Chaou Tun of Tsin murdered his ruler, E-kaou.' The fact is that Tun did not murder E-kaou. The marquis of Tsin was a man of the vilest character, utterly unfit for his position, a scourge to the State, and a hater of all good men. Tun was his principal minister, a man of dignity and virtue, and had by his remonstrances, excited the special animosity of the marquis, who at one time had sent a bravo to his house to assassinate him, and at another had let loose a bloodhound upon him. Wearied out with the difficulties of his position, Tun had fled from the Court., and had nearly left the State, when a relative of his, called Chaou Ch^uen, attacked the marquis and put him to death; on which Tun returned to the capital, and resumed his place as chief minister. The only fault which I can see that he committed was that he con- tinued to employ his relative Ch'uen in the government; but the probability is that he had not the power to deal with him in any other way. Had he been able to execute him, and proceeded to do so, it would have been, I venture to think, a proceeding of doubtful justice. But I ask my readers whether it was right, considering all the circumstances of the case, to brand Tun himself as the murderer of the marquis.
According to Tso, the entry in the text was made in the first place by Tung Hoo, the grand-historiographer of Tsin, who showed it openly in the court, and silenced Tun when he remonstrated with him on its being a misrepresentation of himself Tso also gives a
45]
PROLBOOXENA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CH^UN TS*EW. [cii. i.
remark of Confucius, praising Tung Hoo, who made it his rule in what he wrote *not to conceal!' and praising also Chaou Tun who humbly submitted to a charge of such wickedness. *Alas for him!' said our sage. 4f he had crossed the border of the State, he would have escaped the charge.' The historiographers of Loo had entered the record in their Ch*un Ts'ew as they received it from Tsin; but I submit whether Confucius, in revising their work, ought not to have exercised his 'pruning pencil,' and modified the misrepresenta- tion. A sage, as we call him, he might have allowed something for the provocations which Tun had received, and for the wickedness of the marquis's government; he ought not to have allowed Tun to remain charged with what was the deed of another.
Let us take a second case. In X. xix. 2 we read — ' Che, heir-son of Heu, murdered his ruler Mae.' This, if it were true, would com- bine the guilt of both regicide and parricide. According to all the Chuen, Che was not the murderer in this case. He was watching his sick father, and gave him a wrong medicine in consequence of which he died. We have no reason to conclude that there was poison in the medicine which the son ignorantly gave. Some critics say that he ought to have tasted it himself before he gave it to his father. He might have done so, and yet not have discovered that it would be so injurious. There is no evidence, indeed, that he did not do so. The result preyed so on the young man's mind that he resigned the State to a younger brother, refused proper nourishment, and soon died. Even if it were he himself who insisted on the form of the entry about his father's death, Confucius, if he had feeling for human infirmity, would have modified it, and not allowed poor Che to go down to posterity charged with the crime of parricide, which, if we had only the Ch*un Ts*ew, there would be no 'means of denying.
Let us take a third case. It may seem to come properly under the preceding count of concealment of the truth, but I introduce it here, because of its contrast with the record in the next case which I will adduce. In X. i. 11, it is said, — *In winter, in the 11th month, on Ke-yew, Keun, viscount of Ts'oo, died.' The vis- count, or king as he styled himself, was suddenly taken ill, of which Wei, the son of a former king, was informed, when he was on his way, in discharge of a mission, to the State of Ch'ing. He returned iminediately, and entering the palace as if to inquire for the king's health, he strangled him, and proceeded to put
46]
■BCT. ▼.] THE CH*UN TS*EW MISREPRESENTS FACTS. [proleoombwa.
to death his two sons. Here certainly was a murder, which ought to have been recorded, as such. No doubt, the murderer caused a notification to be sent to other States in the words of the Ch*un Ts'ew, saying simply that Keun had died, as if the death had been a natural one, and the historiographers had chronicled it in the terms in which it reached them; but ought not Confucius, in such a case especially, to have corrected their entry? To allow so misleading a statement to remain in his text was not the way to make ^rebellious ministers afraid.'
The fourth case relates to the death of the above Wei, also called K'een, the murderer of his king. Twelve years afterwards he him- self came to an evil end. In X. xiii. 2 it is said — *In summer, in the 4th month, the Kung-tsze Pe of Ts'oo returned from Tsin to Ts^oo, and murdered his ruler K'een in Kan-k'e.' The real facts were these. Wei or K'een displayed in his brief reign an insatiable ambition, and was guilty of many acts of oppression and cruelty. Having despatched a force to invade Seu, he halted himself at Ran- kle to give whatever aid might be required. Certain discontented spirits took the opportunity of his absence from the capital to organize a rebellion, which was headed by three of his brothers, one of whom was the Kung-tsze Pe. This Pe had fled to Tsin when K'een murdered Keun, and was invited by the conspirators from that State back to Ts'ae in the first place, and forced to take command of the rebel forces. These were greatly successful. They advanced on the capital of Ts^oo, took possession of it, and put to death the sons of the absent king. The intelligence of these events threw him into the greatest distress and consternation. His army dispersed, and he took refuge with an officer who remained faithful to him, and in his house he strangled himself in the 5th month, unable to endure the disgrace and misery of his condition. What are we to make of such opposite and contradictory methods of describing events? Wei murdered Keun; and the deed is told as if Keun had died a natural death. The same Wei strangled him^ self, and the deed is told as if it had been a murder done by the Kunj^-tsze F^e. Pe was led by the device of a brother, K*e-tsih, to kill himself in the 5th month, perhaps before Wei had committed suicide. The Ch^un Ts'ew says of this event that * Ke-tsih put to death — not murdered — the Kung'tsze Pe;' and we may suppose that K'e-tsili, who became king, sent word rou!id the States that Pe had murdered his predecessor; but surely Confucius ought to have
PJIOLBOOMBMA.] NATURE AND VALUE OF THE CIi*UN TSEW. [cii. u
taken care that the whole series of transactions should not be misre- presented as it is in his paragraphs.
Let us take a fifth case. In XII. vi. 8 it is said thai * Ch'in K'eih of Ts'e murdered his ruler T'oo.' In the previous year, Ch*oo-k*ew, marquis of Ts'e, had died, leaving the State to his favourite son T*oo, who was only a child. His other sons, who were grown up, fled in the winter to various States. Ch4n K*eih, one of the principal ministers of t.lie State, finding that the government did not go on well, sent to Loo for Yang-s&ng, one of Ch^oo-k^gw's sons, who had taken refuge there, and so managed matters in Ts^e that he was declared marquis, and the child T'oo displaced. Yet K*eih had no malice against T*oo, and so spoke of hirn in a dispute which lie had with Yang-s&ng, not long after the accession of the latter, as to awaken his fears lest the minister should attempt to restore the de-graded child. The consequence was that he sent a trusty officer to remove T'oo from the city where he had been placed for safety to another. Whether it was by the command of the new marquis, or on an impulse originating with himself, that officer took the opportunity to murder the child on the way. This man, therefore, whose name was Choo Maou, was the actual murderer of T'oo. If he were too mean in position to obtain a place in the Ch'un Ts^gw, the murder should have been ascribed to Yang-s&ng or the marquis Taou, by whose servant and in whose interest, if not by whose command, it was committed. To ascribe it to Ch*in K*eih must be regarded as a gross misrepresentation. I cannot think that the existing marquis of Ts*e could have sent such a notification of the event to Loo, for for liim to make Ch*in K'eih responsible for the deed was to declare that his own incumbency of the State was unjust, as it was Ch*in K'eih who had brought it about. Are we then to ascribe the entry entirely to Confucius? And arc we to see in it a remarkable proof of his hatred of rebellion and usurpation, and his determination to hold the prime mover to it, however distant, and under whatever motives he had acted, responsible for all the consequences flowing from it?
The sixth and last case which I will adduce may be said not to be so contrary to the letter of the facts as the preceding five cases, and yet I am mistaken if in every western reader, who takes the trouble to make himself acquainted with those facts, it do not awaken a greater indignation against the record and its compiler than any of them. In VII, x. 8 we read that 'flea Ch'injr-shoo of
48]
CT. T.] JUDGMEin' OF CONFUCIUS. [pbolboombna.
Ih'in murdered his ruler P*ing-kwoh.' The circumstances in which le murder took place are sufficient, I am sure, to make us pro- ounce it a case of justifiable homicide. Hea Ch'ing-shoo's mother^ widow, was a vile woman, and was carrying on a licentious con- exion with the marquis of Ch'in and two of his ministers at the line time.^ The things which are related about the four are lexpressibly filth)% As the young man grew up, he felt deeply le disgrace of his family ; and one day when the marquis and his linisters were feasting in an apartment of his mother's mansion, or ither of his own, for he was now the Head of the clan, he over- eard them jokiiig about himself. * He is like you,' said the marquis ) one of his companions. ^And he is also like your lordship,' 3turned the other. The three went on to spequlate on what share sich of them had in the youth, till he could no longer contain him- ;lf, and made a violent attack upon them. The ministers made leir escape, and the marquis had nearly done so too, when, as he as getting through a hole in the stable, an arrow from the young lan's bow transfixed him. So he died, and the Ch'un Ts'ew records 16 event as if it had been an atrocious murder! The poor youth let with a horrible fate. In the following year, the viscount of 8*00, himself flaunting the usurped title of king, determined to do istice upon him. Aided by the forces of other States, he invaded h4n, made a prisoner of Hga Ch4ng-shoo, and had him torn in ieces by five chariots to which his head and his four limbs were ound. This execution is coldly related in xi. 5 by * The people f Ts*oo put to death Hea Ch^ing-shoo of Ch*in.' The text goes n to tell that the viscount entered the capital of Ch^n, and 3Stored the two ministers, partners in the marquis's adultery, who ad made their escape to Ts'oo; the whole being worded, according > Tso, Ho show how he observed the rules of propriety 1' 4. It remains for me, having thus set forth the suppressions, be concealments, and the misrepresentations which abound in the !h*un Ts'ew, to say a few words on the view which we must take
What are we to think from the) from it of CoufuciuS aS itS author Or COm-
b^unWewofConfuciui? I pikr. Again and again I have spoken of le triviality of the Work, and indicated my opinion of its being nworthy of the sage to have put together so slight a thing. But lese positively bad characteristics of it on which I have now nlarged demand the expression of a sterner judgment.
I See Tol. IV. Pt. I. xii. ode IX, 49]
F«atKOOMRWA0 NATUKE AND VALUE OF THE CH^UN TS*EW. , [ch. l
The appointment of historiographers, at whatever period it first took place, was intended, no doubt, to secure the accurate record of events, and Confucius tells us, Ana. XV. xxv., that 'even in his [early] days a historiographer would leave a blank in his text,' that is, would do 80 rather than enter incorrectly anything of which he was not sure. I have mentioned on p. 45 the exaggerated idea of his duty which was cherished and manifested by Tung Hoo the grand-historiographer of Tsin; and in Tso's Chuen on IX. xxv. 2, we have a still more shining example of the virtue which men in this office were capable of displaying. There three brothers, his- toriographers of Ts'e, all submit to death rather than alter the record, which they had made correctly, that * Ts'uy Ch*oo of Ts'e murdered his ruler Kwang,' and a fourth brother, still persisting in the same entry, is at last let alone. These instances serve to show the idea in which the institution originated, and that there were men in China who understood it, appreciated it, and were prepared to die for it. Such men according to Confucius' testimony were no more to be found in his time. According to the testimony of a thousand scholars and critics, it was because of this fact, — the few faithful his- toriographers in the paat and the entire want of them in the present, —-that the sage undertook the revision of the Ch'un Ts*ew of Loo. Might not the history of the institution in that ante-Christian time be adduced as a good illustration of what Lord Elgin once said, that *at all points of the circle described by man's intelligence, the Chi- nese mind seems occasionally to have caught glimpses of a heaven far beyond the range of its ordinary ken and vision?''
Well — we have examined the model summary of history from the sti/lm of the sage, and it testifies to three characteristics of his mind which it is painfjil to have thus distinctly to point out. First, lie had no reverence for truth in history, — I may say no reverence for truth, without any modification. He understood well enough what it was, — the description of events and actions according as they had taken place; but he himself constantly transgressed it in all the three ways which I have indicated. Second, he shrank from looking the truth fairly in the face. It was through this attribute of weakness that he so frequently endeavoured to hide the truth from himself and others, by ignoring it alto^^ether, or by giving an imperfect and misleading account ot it. Wherever his prejudices were concerned, he was liable to do this. Third, he had nioi'e
1 Sec I^etters and Journals of Jaiues, eight ii fiarl of Elgin, p. 392.
•ECT. v.] JUDGMENT OF CONFUCIUS. [prolegomeka.
Bympathy with power than with weakness, and would overlook wickedness and oppression in authority rather than resentment and revenge in men who were suflFering from thein. He could conceive of nothing so worthy of condemnation as to be insubordinate.^ Hence he was frequently partial in his judgments on what happened to rulers, and unjust in his estimate of the conduct of their subjects. In this respect he was inferior to Mencius his disciple.
I have written these sentences about Confucius with reluctance, and from the compulsion of a sense of duty. I have been accused of being unjust to him, and of dealing with him inhumanly.^ Others have said that I was partial to him, and represented his character and doctrines too favourably. The conflicting charges encourage me to hope that I have pursued the golden Mean, and dealt fairly with my subject. My conscience gives no response to the charge that I have been on the look-out for opportunities to depreciate Confucius. I know on the contrary that I have been forward to accord a generous appreciation to him and his teachings. But I have been unable to make a hero of him. My work was undertaken that I might under- stand for myself, and help others'to understand, the religious, moral^ social, and political condition of China, and that I might see and suggest the most likely methods of accomplishing its improvement. Nothing stands in the way of this improvement so much as the devotion of its scholars and government to Confucius. It is he who leads them that causes them to err and has destroyed the way of their paths.
5. The above sentence leads me to the last point on which I proposed to touch in this section, — the influence which the Ch*un
' Influence of the ch^un Ts^ew on) Ts^ew has had ou the sucqcssive govem- Chineae govemmenta and the people.; xnents of China and on the Chinese people
at large. And here I will be brief.
A great part of the historical literature of the country continues still to be modelled after our Classic and the Chuen of Tso. Immedi- ately after the Chow dynasty the name of Ch'un Ts'ew was given to a species of Work having little affinity with that of Confucius. We have the Ch*un Ts'ew of Leu Puh-wei, the chief minister of Tsin, Luh Keas Ch'un Ts'ew of Ts'oo and Han,i and many others, which were never held in great repute. In the after Han dynasty, how-
2 See the Analects, VII. zxxr. 8 See a review of my Ist volume, in the Edinburgh RevieWy April, 1869.
1 gqfCj^, g^^^^l^W^l^^^- See Chaou Yih-. flrat d»pter on the Ch*un T8*ew, where he gives the names of a score of ihese Works.
MOLM .UBS*.) NATDRE ASD VALUE OF THE CHUS TSEW. [cb. i
ever, there was composed the 'Chronicles of Han,** on the pUn of the Ch'un Ts'ew. Histories of this kind receiyed in the Sung dynasty the name of 'General Mirrors, '^ and 'General Mirrors, wi^ Summary and Details,'* the summary corresponding to the text of the Ch'un Ta'ew, and the details to the Chuen. Down to the present dynasty Works have been composed with names having more or less affinity to those; and in reading them the student has to be on the watch and determine for himself how far the det^la bear out the statement of the summary. Such Works as the 'Digest of the History of the Successive Dynasties'* are more after the plan of the text of the Ch'un Ts'^w, but they become increasingly com- plex and difficult of execution with the lapse of time and the iucreasing extent of the empire.
But the influence of the Ch'un Ts'ew on the literature of China is of little importance excepting as that influence has aided its moulding power on the government and character of the people; and in this respect it appears to me to have been very injurioos. The three defects of Confucius which have left their impress so clearly on his Work have been painfully conspicuous in the history of the country and the people down to the present day. The teachings of Menciiis, bringing into prominence the lessons of the Shoo and the She concerning the different awards of Providence, according as a government cherished or neglected the welfare of the people, have modified the extreme reverence for authority which was so remarkable in Confucius; but there remain altogether un- mitigated the want of reverence for truth, and the shrinking from looking fairly at the realities of their condition and relations. And these are the great evils under which China is suffering at the present day. During the past forty years her position with regard to the more advanced nations of the world has been entirely changed. She has entered into treaties with them upon equal terms; but I do not think her ministers and people have yet looked this truth fairly in the face, so as to realize the fact that China is only one of many independeTit nations in the world, and that the 'beneath the sky,' over which her emperor has rule, is not all beneath the sky, but only a certain portion of it which is defined on the earth's surface and
2 )^ j^, composed by ^ ^, at the command of the empfior Been (jH^<^). $ E,g^ Su-ma Knng'. $ '^ jg ^, and Choo He'i ^ ^ j||| g . j||| g meant a tKt,-~Ou> rope by which the whole u drawn togetlwr and llie eyea or medim of which it ii compoMd. 4
62]
•BCT. v.] JUDGMENT OF COXFCCIUS. [pbolboomeka.
can be pointed out upon the map. But if they will not admit this, and strictly keep good faith according to the treaties which they have accepted, the result will be for them calamities greater than any that have yet befallen the empire. Their lot has fallen in critical times, when the books of Confucius are a very insufficient and unsafe guide for them. If my study of the Ch^un Ts*ew help towards convincing them of this, and leading them to look away from him to another Teacher, a great aim of my life will have been gained.
«»>»^^^^^'^^W^M^/^'»^V^/^^^^^^*i
5a]
APPENDIX
SPECIMENS OF THE COMMENTARIES OP KUXG-TANG AND KUH-LiiANG.
The jirst year of duke Yht, par. 1. It was the [duke's] first year, the spring, the king's first montli.
■Ifc.
Si-MSLzmmnimnM
m±.ZMmimmtl^±. M**ii e <: w iif- # iufc. A
54]
<&-(srja^»iBfi;.j!!(;&*.
aai^.H.^iE. mm.r&Kzm.r-&KZ
j?3iiJa«fi.Mftj)t4£<:f »g«.nrtte=F*<:B.
APPKVDiz I.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNG-YANG AND KUH-LEANG. [pbolboombha.
The Chnen of Knng-yang says: —
* What is meant by JC ^ ? The first year of the ruler.
What is meant by ^ (spring) ? The first season of the year.
What is meant by -F (the king)? It means king Wan.
Why does [the text] first give "king," and then "first month ?" [To show that] it was the king's first month.
Why does it [so] mention the king's first month ?
To magnify the union of the kingdom [onder the dynasty of Chow],
Why is it not said that the duke came to the [vacant] seat ? To gfive fiill ex. pression to the duke's mind.
In what way does it give fiiU expres- sion to the duke's mind? The duke intended to bring the State to order, and then restore it to Hwan.
What is meant by restoring it to Hwan?
Hwan was yonnger, but nobler [than the duke by birth]; Yin was grown up, but lower [than Hwan by bii'th]. The dif- ference between them in these respects, however, was small, and the people of the State did not know [their father's intention about the succession]. Yin being grown up and a man of worth, the great officers insisted on his being made marquis. If he had refused to be made so, he did not know for certain that Hwan would be raised to the dignity; and supposing that be were raised to it, he was afraid that the great officers might not give their assistance to so young a ruler. Therefore the whole transaction of Yin's elevatit)n was with a view [in his mind] to the elevation of Hwan.
But since Yin was grown up and a man of worth, why was it not proper that he should be made marquis?
Among the sons of the wife proper, the succession devolved on the eldest, and n'>t on the worthiest and ablest. Among a ruler's sons by other ladies of his harem, the succession devolved on the noblest, and not on the eldesC
In what respect was Hwan nobler [in rank] than Yin?
His mother was of higher position
[than Yin's mother].
Though the uiother was nobler, why
should the son be [also] nobler? A sou
The Chuen of Knh-leang says: — 'Al- though there was nothing to be recorded [under the first month], it was necessary to specify it ; — ^its being the commence- ment [of the rule] required this attention tg be paid to it.
Why is it not said that the duke came
to the [vacant] seat ? To give fiill ex- pression to the duke's mind.
In what way does this gfive full expres- sion to the duke's mind? It tells that Yin did not himself care to be duke.
What is meant by saying that he did not himself care to be duke ? That he intended to resign the marquisate to Hwan.
Was it correct in him [to wish] to resign it to Hwan ?
It was not correct.
The Ch'un Ts'ew gives fiill expression to men's excellent qualities, but does not do so to their evil; — why should it give such expression to [the intention of] Yin which was not correct ?
With a view to show detestation of Hwan.
How does that detestation of Hwan appear ?
Yin intended to resign in his favour, and yet Hwan murdered him; — showing Hwan's wickedness. Hwan murdered hirn, and yet Yin would have resigned in his favour; — showing Yin's goodness.
If Yin was thus good, why do you say that he was not correct ?
In the Ch*un Ts*ew, what is righteons is held to be noble, and not what is [merely] kind. It would lead forwai'd in the [straight] path, and not in the crook- ed. A filial son tries to display the ex- cellent qualities of his father, and not the evil ones. The father was not correct, but perverse, in seeking to give the State to Hwan. Notwithstanding, he over- came this perversity of mind, and the State was given [at last] to Yin ; but Yin had fathomed the purpose of their fikther, and thereon would have given the State to Hwan; — carrying out their father's wickedness. That there should be elder brother and younger brother is in the order ot Heaven. A man receives his sonship from bis father; and a feudal prince receives his rank from the king. To disannul the order of Heaven, and forget his ruler and father in order to do a small kindness, is what is called walk- ing in a small path. Looking at Yin, we
5o]
.] COMUENTARIES OF EDNG-YAKG AKD KUH-LEANO. [co. i.
wu held to ahare in the nobility of his I may Bay iltat he could make light of a mother; and a motlier shared in the State of a tbonaand chariots, bat oonU [Babseqnent] nobility of her Bon,' not tread the way thiit is right,'
Tfie eleventh year of duke Hwan, par. 4. The people of Sung seized Chae Chung of Ch'ing.
S,«»«.»4^5E.e?l.« Wja4#*E.H5rJilfi-JJtr.
*»f»,ti««a.gK«« jag^.tAMgff.*-?^
The Cbaen of Knng-yang Hays: —
'Who was Chae Chnng?
The ohtef niinist«r of Ch'ing.
Why JB he not mentioned by his name?
Because of his worth.
What wurtbinees was there in Cliuc
r
S*(»0,*At.5l?4;-1fc. SBA-W-lfe,.i2<:-tfc.
The Chaen of Kuh-l^ng says: —
' ^ [people] here means the dnke of 5img.
Why is he designated ^ (the people^ )r one of Uie people)?
To condemn him,'
56J
Dix L] COMMENTARIES OF KUNQ-TANQ AND KUH-LEANG. [frolbooxsita^
> ia to be oonsidered as knowing how b aooording to circamstances. what waj did he know to act aooord- 0 circnmBtanoes?
identlj the, capital of Ching was in A former earl of Ch'ing was on 31y terms with the duke of Kwei; laving an intrigne mth his wife, he the capital of Kwei, transferred that I'ing to it^ and left Lew to become Idemess. After the death of duke tng, Ghae Chnng was going to inspect itate of Lew; and as his road lay igh Sang, the people of that State d him, and said, "Drive ont Hwnh 'ang's eldest son, who was now earl iHng) for ns, and raise Tuh (Hwnh's ler) to the earldom." Ghae Chnng did not do as they re-
d, his mler most die, and the State h. If he did as they required, his
wonld exchange deadi for life, and
Itate be preserved instead of perish-
Then by and by, [by his gradual
kgement], Tnh might be sent forth^
efore, and Hwnh might return as
e. If these thinga oonld not be ed, he wonld have to suffer [under mputation of evil conduct], but yet
would be the State of ChSng. a the ancients acted according to zigency of circumstances, they acted le way in which Chae Chung now
hat is meant by acting according to zigency of circumstances? is acting contrary to the ordinary e of what is right, yet so that good result. Such a course is not to be iOd apart from the imminent danger Bkth or ruin. There is a way to re- e the pursuing of it. A man may ', it when the censure and loss wOl n himself, but not to the injury of ler. A superior man will not slay ler to save himself, nor ruin another aserve himself.'
57]
H»5^3E
nMMomwM^I COMMBlITARIEa OF KUNG-TAKG AND KUH-LEANO. [ch. l
7^e Jifieenth year, par. 1.
In spring, in the second month, the king [by] Heaven's [grace] sent KSa Foo to Loo to ask for carringes.
il-ib.
The Chaeo of Eaag-ysng laTi:^ —
' Wlij was tliii entry miiidft F
By way of ooosare.
Ceumire of what?
The king! did not aak for Bnything*. To mIc for carria^ was contrary to propriety.
ssimnB.-kMnm^B
The Chnen of Knh-leang says: — 'Anciently the feudal princes at the [proper] times presented to the son of Heaven their offbrings of tb« tfaini^ which they had in their States- He might thns decline, bat he did not de- mand or aslc for, [anything]- To aik for carriages was contrary to propriety ; to •^ for money was stul more so.
The fourth year of duke Chwang, par. 4. The marquis of Ke made a grand leaving of his State.
Miit«»B:¥.:'i.ia:^.
58]
Aii(!<!i.tK«#«.0
The Chnen of Knh-leang says: — ' " Made a grand leaving " is as mncti as to say that [the marqniej did not leave a man behind ixim. It tells us that the people did not cease to follow him till all were goue in the apace oi four yuars. The iimrquis of Ke was a worthy prince, and the marquis of Ta'e extinguished bis State. The text does not say so, but that he maile a grand leaving of it, there- by not allowing [the ii^nrioos action of] a small man towards a eaperior man to appear-
AFPSXDix L] COMM£NTARIfiS OF KUNG-YANQ AND KUH-L£ANO. [FftOLMOMBx a.
urn. mMWinzm..^m>}mit
The Chuen of Knng-yang says: —
'Wbibt is meant by '^made a grand leaving ?"
That [the State] was eztingoished.
Who extinguished it ?
Ts'e.
Why does [the text] not say that Ts'e extingnished it ?
It conceals the £act oat of regard to dnke Seang. The ChSin Ts'ew conceals things out of regard to men of worth.
What worthiness was there in duke Seang?
He was taking vengeance.
Vengfeance for what?
For the boiling of his remote ancestor duke Ghie at [the court of] Chow, through his being slandered by a marquis of Ke. The action of duke Seang at this time is considered as a carrying by him to the utmost of his service of his ancestors.
How so?
When he was about to avenge the [old] wrong, he consulted the tortoise, shell, and was told that he would lose half his army. [He observed], " Though I should die myself the answer should not be considered unlucky."
59]
PKoiRtiOMRNA.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNG-^ANQ AND KUU-LEANG.
[CH. I.
How many generations remored from him wafl the remote ancestor P
Nine.
May iin injury be avenged after nine generations ?
Yes; even after a hmidred.
May [the Head of] a clan take such vengeance?
No.
Why then may [the raler of] a State doit?
The roler and the State are one. The disgrace of a former mler is the same as the disgrace of the mler of to-day. The disgrace of the mler of to-day is the same as the disgrace of a former mler.
How are the mler and the State con- sidered as one?
The mler regards the State as his body, and one mler comes after another; — hence the mler and the State form one body.
Bat the present [marquis of] Ke had been guilty of no ofifence; — was not this [extinction of him] a case of rage?
No. If there had been in the ancient time an intelb'gent son of Heaven, the [then] marquis of Ke would have been taken off, and there would have been no [more any] marquis of Ke. His not having been taken ofi^ and there being still a marquis of Ke, was the same as if there were no intelligent son of Heaven. Anciently the princes had their occasions of meetmg together, and their inter, changes of court and complimentary vis- its, when they made reference in their language to their predecessors as furnish- ing the ground of their intercourse ; but nothing of the kind ever took place be- tween Ts'e and Ke; — it was incumbent on them not to exist together under the same sky. Therefore [when Ts^e] set about removing the marquis of Ke, it could not but remove [the State of] Ke.
If there had been [now] an intelligent son of Heaven, could duke Seang have done what he did ?
No.
Why then did he do it?
When there is in the highest position [as it were] no son of Heaven, and below him no president of the quarter of the kingdom, one can for himself repay his long-standing wrongs and obligations of a contrary kind.'
60]
1.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNO-YANO AND KtTH-LEANO. [pboliooitiin*.
The second year of duke He, par. 3. anny of Yn and an army of Tsin extinguished Hea-yang.
%^zm<.MZ9m t^^w,Mzn.^
la.lEB.-ftMS
mvMnzM.iim
61]
^r-mmmzm.mmz
S.Bii#l*«ft.^B,lH:
WH<:l-tfc.4Bg#«iiii ^ffig<:-tli.^AB,f ^
«:SSA-tfc.a«rfi)if.X ^».iiii.t.ffi-H^«.ltfe
0.^Bflt:W«5i.S»f
rmoLieaosixiiA.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNG-YAXG AND KUH-LEANG. [ch. l
The Chaen of Kung-yang says:—' Ya was a small State; why is it that it is here made to take precedence of a great one? To make Ya take the lead in the wickedness.
Why is Yu made to take the lead in the wickedness?
Ya received the bribes with which those who [were going to] extinguish the State [of K woh] borrowed a way through it, and thus brought on its own ruin.
How did it receive [those] bribes? Duke Keen [of Tsin] gave audienoe to bis great officers, and asked them why it was that he had lain all night without sleeping. One of them advanced and said, ''Was it because you did not feel at ease [in your mind]? or was it because your [proper] bedfellow was not by yonr side ?*' The duke gave no answer, and then Seun Seih came forward and said, ^Was it because Yu and Kwoh were ap- pearing to yon ?" The duke motioned to him to come [more] forward, and then went with him into an inner apartment to take counsel. ** I wish,'* said he, '* to attack Kwoh, but Yu will go to its relief, and if I attack Yu, Kwoh will succour it; — what is to be done ? I wish to consid- er the case with you." Seun Seih re- plied, " If you will use my counsel, you shall take Kwoh to-day, and Yu to- morrow; why^ should your lordship be troubled?"
*'How is this to be accomplished?'* asked the duke. *' Please let [me go to Yu],'* said the other, '* with your team of K'^uh horses and your white peih of Ch'uy-keih, and you are sure to get [what you want]. It will only be taking your valuable [petA] from your inner treasury, and depositing it in an outer one, and taking your horses from an in- ner stable, and tying them up in an outer one;-^our lordship will lose nothing by it." The duke said, "Yes; but Kung Che-k'e is thera What are we do with him?" Seun Seih replied, "Kung Che- k'e is indeed knowing; but the duke of Yu is covetous, and fond of valuable
62]
The Chuen of Kuh-leang says: — * The use of the term " extinguished," when it is not a State that is spoken of^ arises from the importance of Hea-yang.
Yu had no army; — why is its army mentioned here ?
Because it took the lead of Tsin [in the affair], and it was necessary therelore to speak of its army.
How did it take the lead of Tsin? It presided over the extinguishing of Hea-yang. Hea-yang was a strong city of Yu and Kwoh. If it could be extinguished, then both Yu and Kwoh might be dealt with.
In what way did Yu preside over the extinguishing of Hea-yang?
Duke Heen of Tsin wanted to invade Kwoh, and Seun Seih said to him, "Why should not your lordship take your team of K*euh horses, and your peih of Ch*uy- keih, and with them burrow a way through Yu?" *' Those are the most pre- cious things in the State ot Tsin,'* said the duke. "Suppose Yu should receive my offerings, and not lend us the passage, in what position should we beh" " But," replied Seun Seih, "this is the way in which a small State serves a g^^'eat one. If Yu do not lend us the right of way, it will not venture to receive our offerings. If it receive our offerings and lend us tiie way, then we shall [merely] be taking [the peih] from our own treasury, and placing it [for a time] in one outside, and taking [the horses] from our own stable, and placing them [for a time] in one out- side." The duke said, "There is Kung Che-k'e there; — ^he will be sure to pre- vent the acceptance of our offering's." "Kung Che-k*e," replied the minister, "is an intelligent man, but he is weak; and moreover, he has grown up from youth near his ruler. His very intelli- gence will make him speak too briefly; his weakness will keep him from remon« strating vehemently; and hia having fl^wn up near his ruler will make that ruler despise him. Moreover, the attract tive objects will be before the ruler of Yu's senses, and the danger will be hid behind another State. The case, indeed, would cause anxiety to one whose intelligence was above mediocrity, but I imagine that the intelligence of the ruler of Yu is below mediocrity."
t>ix I.] COMM£i;[TAEIES OF KUNG-YAKG AND KUH-LEANQ. [pboleookbka.
; — he is sure iaot to follow his min- advice. ,I'beg yon, oonsideriug thing, to let me go." I deliberation ended with duke Heen's ing the proposed conrse; and when ike of Yu saw the valuable [offer- , he granted what [Tsin] asked. • Che-k'e did indeed remonstrate, ^, "There are the words of the Be- 'When the lips are gone, the teeth »ld.' Yu and Kwoh are the saviours h other. If they do not give mutual Tsin will to-day take Kwoh, which ill to-morrow follow to ruin. Do ) ruler, grant what is asked." The did not follow his advice, and ended oding a passage [through his State lin] to take Kwoh. In the fourth iklter, Tsin returned, and took Yu. duke of Yu [came], carrying the md leading the horses, when Seun laid [to the marquis of Tsin], '* What u now think of my plan?" " It has 3ded," said duke Heen. ''The peik 1 mine; but the teeth of the horses rown longer." This he said in joke, iat was Hea-yang? city of Kwoh.
iiy is the name not preceded by the of the State? is dealt with as if had been itself a
■
liy so?
cause [the fate] of the ruler of the was bound up with its fate.'
On this duke Heen sought [in the way proposed] for a passage [through Yu] to invade Kwoh. Kung Che-k^e remon- strated, saying, "The words of the en- voy of TsiD are humble, but his offerings are great; — the matter is sure not ix) be advantageous to Yu." The duke of Yu, however, would not listen to him, but re- ceived the offerings, and granted the pas- sage through the State. Kung Che-k'e remonstrated [again], suggesting that the case was like that in iJbe saying about the lips being gone and the teeth becom- ing cold, after which he fied with his wife and children to Ts'aou.
Duke Heen then destroyed Kwoh, and in the fifth year [of our duke He] he dealt in the same way with You Seun Seih then had the horses led forward, while he carried the peih in his hand, and said* " The peih is just as it was, but the horses* teeth are grown longer !"
.ijE^.^*
^T^^>M^.i^
The sixteenth year^ par. 1.
In spring, in the king*s first month, on Mow-shin, the first of the moon, there fell stones in Sung, five of them. In the 3 month, six fish-hawks flew backwards, past the capital of Sung.
63]
MoLiooMnA.] COMMENTARIES OF KtrXQ-TASG AND KUU-LEANG.
[ca.1.
m. Mznm»%.
The Chnen of Knng-jrang says: — ' * How is it that tiie text first sajB, "there lell," and Uien "stoneiV"
There fell etonea is a record of what was heard. There was heard a noise of some- thing falling. On looking at what had fallen, it was seen to be stones. On ex- amination it was found there were five of
What is the meaning of " in the same month F"
That Oio thing occurred jost within this month-
Why is the day not giren?
It was the last day of the moon.
Why does the text not say so?
The Chhin Ts'ew does not enter the last day of the moon. Whan anything happened on the first day of the moon, it was so written; bat althoDgh anything happened on the last day of the moon, the day was not given.
Why does the teit say "sii," and then " fish.bawkBi'"
" Six fish-hawks backwards flew" is a ri'coril of what was seen. When they looked at the objects, there were six. When they examined them, they were fish'hawka. When they examined them leisurely, they were flying backwards.
Wby is this acconnt given nf [tbeae] five stones and six fish-hawks? It is tlie record of a strange thing.
fiot strange things in other fStntes are not ivninled; — why is this given licro'r
Becnuse fSnng beluugixl t^i the de- BcendaiitM] of the kings [of Shimu],'
um»z»iMnz.mf- zM^iMm^m&.^Bm
MiX.:s^f&zmr^m.fii
The Chnen of Knh-leang says: — 'Why does the t«xt first say " there foil," and then "stones?" There was the &lliog, and then the stones.
" In Sang " means within the fi>nr qoarters of that State. The number fol- lowing after indicates that the stones were scattered aboni [The language] has respect to the hearing of the ears.
" In the same month " says definitely that it was not on the same day, but [some time] in the month.
In "six fish-hawks flying backwards, past the capital of Snng," the nnmber is put first, indicating that [the birds] were collected together. [The langnage] hsa respect to the seeing of the eyes.
The master said, "Stones ar« things without any intelligence, and fish-hawks creatures that have a little intelligence. The atones, having no intelligence, are mentioned along with the day [when they fell], and the fish-hawks, havings little intelligence, are mentioned alonir with the month [when they appeared]. The superior man [even] in regaid to such things and creatnreB records nothing rashly. His expressions about atones and fish-hawks being thus exact, ho* mnnh more will they be so abont men. If the language had not been as it is about the fire atones and six fish-hawka, tliij I'oyal way would not have been ftillj'
nile i'<illt^:t is cHlletl " ibe
Mpital." '
64]
Ki.] COMMENTARIES OF RUNG YANG AND KUHLEANG. [pholbcomkxa.
^.MW^^^mT
The eleventh year of dvJce Wdn^ par. 6.
winter, in the tenth month, on Keah-woo, Shuh-sun Tih-shia ed the Teih in Heen.
mn,:kz^.
li^.:kZ^,
}in,AZ^,
haen of Knng.yang says : — * What kbj "the Teih?" ^ntic Teih. There were three I, one of whom went to Ts'e, an-
Loo, and the third to Tsin. The } went to Ts'e was killed by the m Ch'ing-foo. The one who came
was [now] killed by Shuh-snn . I do not know anything about who went to Tsin. is the word '' defeated '* used? signify the affair, is the day specified? ftgnify the affair, is the place given? signify the affi&ir. is the thing recorded? record of what was strange.
^M^M^i-AZmi^.
The Chaen of Kuh-leang says : — >
' How is it that we find here " defeated,'* and nothing about ** leading a force ? "
The language indicates that the defeat was only of one man.
How is "defeated" used with referenoe to one man ?
Because he [was equal to] a multitude.
It is recorded that there were three gigantic Teih, who, one after another, threw the Middle States iuto confusion, and whom tiles and stones could not hurt. Shuh-sun Tih-shin was a skilfiil archer, and sent an arrow into the eye [of this one]. The grant's body stretohed over 9 acres. His head was cut o% and put into a carriage, when the eye-brows ap- peared over ihe cross-bar. In these circumstances, why is it not said that he was captured? Anciently they did not inflict a second wound, nor capture a gray-haired enemy. Captured is not used here, to conceal the thmg out of regard to Loo.
The giant that went to Ts'e was killed by the king's son Ch'ing-foo. Nothing is known about the one who went to Tsin.'
65
i
rMULKoMMA.] COUMENTARIES OF KUNG-TAKO AND KUH-LEANO.
M
The fourteenth year, seventh paragraph.
The people of Tsin undertook to establish Tseeh-tsze as viscount of Choo, but did not [or, were not able to] do so.
itt:W8|iiHfc.s«A.-H.
as*.
Tho Chuea of Knng^-yan^ B»yB : — 'What iB meant by J^ (to restore)? It Dieaiie to [niake'to] enter.
Why is it Raid they were not able to FMtora him?
To magnify that fact.
Why ia it inagniUed?
Keih Keueh of Tein led a force of 80O chariots of leatlier, to in.atate Taeeh-teze
6I>J
BA.-HlfcJK^-tb.
m.9.A=f-mtm/»m\
Tho Clinen of Knh-Ieftng sftyv . — ' [Tl» leader hero] wtu Keih Keneh ; — why ia he called \ (man)?
To lo&ke light ol him.
Why does [the text] make light ol
He had BOO chariots wiih tbeir loog naves, extending over a thousand le of gTOond. He passed by Song, ChHog, T'&ng, and Seeh, and entered at lengdi a Stat« of a tiionsand chariots, wishing to change the mler whom the ]ico|>)e had set ap. Bnt when he came bencatb the wall of its capital, he then knew [the error of his enterprise] . How late wi» he in coming to that knowledge!
" He was not able to in.state." It is not said that he had inraded Uhoo; — bow is nientioa made of his inability?
That "was not able" showe that [toe- ceas] was forbidden by righteon^esa. Tseeh-tsze's mother was a daughter of Tsin, and KVoh-tsen's was a daoghter of Ta'e. K'woh-teeu was the proper [suc- cessor to their father], and Tseeh-tsze was not.'
▲nuDix X.] COMMENTABISS OF KUNO-TANQ AND KUH-LfiANG. [FBOLBaaMk!(A.
in Ghoo-low ; — a force sorely more than sofficient for the parpoee. But when he [proposed] to in-state him, the people of Cboo-low said, " Teeeh-tsxe is the son of a daughter of Tsin» and KSrohptsen of a daughter of Ts*e. Try them on jonr fingers; — ^there will be four for Ts^eeh- taw, and six for K Voh-tsen. If yon will compel na by the power of yonr great 8tate| we do not yet know whether -Ts'e or Tsin will take the lead. In rank the men are both noble, bnt KVoh-tsea is the elder." KcSh Eeneh said, '' It is not that my strength is insufficient to in-s{ate bim, but in point of right I cannot do ao." Wxtli this he led his army away, and therefore the snperior man magnifies his not in-stating [Taeeh-tsEe].
The actor here was Eeih Keneh Of
Tsin; — ^why is he called A (a man)?
To condemn him.
Why is he condemned?
Not to allow a great officer to take it on him to displace or to set np a ruler.
How does it not allow this?
The actual [statement] allows it, but the style does not allow it.
Why does the style not allow it?
According to the right idea of a great officer, he cannot take it on him to dis- place or appoint a ruler.'
^>g^A^. H:t„*B.^
The eighth year of duke Seuen, paragraph three.
On Sin-sze there was a sacrifice in the grand temple, when Chung Suy died at Ch^uy.
67]
i
fBOLCooMEXA.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNQ-YANQ AND KUH-LBANG.
[CH. L
The Chnen of Knng-jang says: — * Who Chnng-suj?
The Knng-tsze Snj.
Why is he not here slyled Knog-tase?
By way of consura
Why is oensnre expressed?
Becanse of his nionler of [W&n's] son Ch*ih.
But why was not the censure (or, de- gradation) expressed at the time when he committed that murder?
Because he had [fchen] been guilty of no offence against [duke] Wftn, and there had [since] been no year [in which to signify his offence] against [W&n*s] son.'
m:k^Z
The Chuen of Kuh.leang says: — 'This looks as if he had first reported the execution of his mission and then died.
He was a Kung-tsze; — why does he appear here simply as Chang?
To treat him as if his relationship [to the ducal &mi1y] had been distant.
Why deal with him so?
To vitiate the notice of his dying. If he had not been so dealt with, that notice would not have been vitiated.
Wliy then mention his dying at all?
To convey censure of [duke] Seuen.
Why to censure [duke] Senen?
On hearing of tiie death of a great officer, he should have removed the musi- cians and finished the buainess [in whidi he was engaged].'
The fifteenth year^ par, eighth. For the first time a tax was levied from the produce of the acres.
•tfc. *t ^ :i ft - rfij m. ft
The Chueu of Kang-yang* says: — ' What is the meaning of JffJ't
For the first time.
What is meant by levying a tax from the acres?
68]
^ ft* — » i^ Bn :f^ 1^, ^ 18 M. :« 0 # ffl. # ffl ^. >t
#. |iH^ ^. i^ ffl Wt ^ #.
The Chuen of Kuh-leang says:— '^^
means for the first time. Anciently, a tenth of the produce was levied by the mutual cultivation of the public fields* and the others wero not taxed. To com- mence levying part of the produce firom [all] the acres was not right. Anciently,
▲ppBNDix I.] COMMENTARIES OF RUNG- YANG AND KUH-LEANG. [pbolboombna.
Walking over the acres, and levying part of the prodace.
Why is an entry made of this first levying part of the produce of the acres [generally] ?
To condemn it.
What was there to condemn in it? The infcrodnction of the system of walk- ing over the acres, and levying part of the prodace.
What was there to condemn in the introduction of this system? Anciently a tithe was taken [for the State] hy the mutual labour of the people on the pub- lie fields.
Why did they anciently appoint this system? \
The tax of a tenth [thus procured] is the justest and most correct for all unider the sky. If more than this tenth be taken, we have great Keehs and little Keeh& If less, we have great Mih and little Mih. A tithe is the justest and most correct for all under the sky. When a tithe is the system, the sounds of praise [everywhere] arise.*
300 paces formed a le, and a square of that size was called the nine-squares fields, consisting of 900 acres, of which the public fields formed one portion. If the yield from the private fields was not good, the officer of agriculture was blamed. If the yield from the public fields was not good, the people were blamed. [The record of J this first levy- ing part of the produce from all the acres blames the duke for putting away the system of the public fields, and walking over all the fields to take a tithe of them, because he thereby required from the people all their strength. Anciently, [the people] had their dwellings in the public fields; there were their wells and cooking places; there they grew their onions and soallions.'
'''«^^'wv<^^>w>^^»»/\^rv^w^w\/»>vwMw»»^
0 ^.
K^.
The third year of duke ChHng^ par. four.
On Eeah-tsze the new temple took fire, when we wailed for it three days.
The Chuen of Kung-yang says: — ' What was the new temple?
The temple of duke Seuen.
'Why is duke Seuen*s temple called the new temple?
68]
The Chuen of Kuh-16ang says: — ^*The new temple was the temple of the duke's
&ther.
To wail for three days was expressive of [great] g^rief^ but that grief was ao> cording to the rules of propriety.
pbolboomshaO COMMENf ARIES OF KUNG-YAN'G AKD KUH-LEANO.
[Ci
[The diikej ooold not bear to say [directly that it was hia Other's temple].
Why is it said tliat they wailed for it three daysF
It was a rule that, when a temple was burned, there should be a wailing; for three days.
Why was this entry of the burning of the new temple made?
To record tiw calamity.'
In consequence of the near relationship, [the dnke] did not dare to call it hy hia father's honorary tttlei-^—therohy iihow- ing hia respect.
The lang^oage being respectful, and the grief great, thera is no condemnation of duke Ch'ing to be Bought here.'
The seventh year of duke Scang, par. ten.
K'wfin-hwan, earl of Ch'ing, went to the meeting; but before he had seen the [other] princes, on Ping-seuh he died at Ts'aou.
B^a
■»««!, lift. '0rpi8.»i&.
9sm.mr^^^.n&u z.
The Chuen of Kung-yang says: — 'What was Te'kon? A oity of Ching. When a princ« died anywhere wlUiia
70]
z±.Mmu^^%
The Chneh of Koh-lteng saya: — 'As he had not seen the [other] princea, how is it said that he went to the meetingP
To express fhlly his purpose.
According to the rules, princes were not named when they were alive; — why is he BO named hereP
Because of his death.
If he is named because of his death, why is the name placed before the stAtement that he went to the meetingP
I.] COHHENTAKIES OF EDKO-TANG ASD EUU-LBANO. [pBOusouai.
ivra territories, th« place was oot ioned; — why u it mentdoned here?
conceal the &ct.
conceal what &ctP
ho murdered himP s great ofGoera, by dowi not tiie tazt aay soP .Q thin^ is concealed on account of diddle States? by so?
ben the earl of ChSng was about to I the meeting of the Statea in Wei, reftt officers remonBtrated with him, ig, "The Middle States are not h adhering to; yon had better join Ta'oo.' When the earl objected to oonnsel, they said, " If yon thiTilf the Middle Statea are righteona, [notwithstanding] invaded na when 'ere monming [for the last earl]; if lay that they are strong, yet ibey lot 80 strong as Ta'oo." With thia mnrdered him.
by is he named — " the earl of Cb'ing, in-yuenp"
o express sorrow] that having been ided, and being on his return [to his al], he died before he reached his ag place.
. he did not see the [other] princes, ia it said that be went to the meet-
' express folly bis purpose.'
To show (hat be died through going to the meeting.
How does it show that he died through going to the meetingp
The earl of Ch'ing was going to meet [the princes of] the Middle States, and hia ministers wished him to follow Ta'oo. Not succeeding, they murdered him, and he died.
Why ia it not mentioned that he was murdered?
Not to allow it to appear that barbar^ ona people (i. e., the ministers who wiahed to follow tbe barbarous Ta'oo) bad dealt ao with a prince of tbe Middle States.
The place was outside [tbe capital]; on the day he bad not crossed tbe borders [of the State]; tbe day of bis death and tbe time of bis burial [are given, as if all] had been correct'
The twenty-fifth year, tenth par.
a the 12th month, Goh, viscount of Woo, invaded Tb'oo, and L in an attack on one of the gates of Ch*aou.
71]
nrotBooMBK*.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNG-TANQ AND KUH-LEAKO.
ThcChoenofKnng-yangaara:— 'What
IheCboenorKDDg-yanffBa
That he entered a gate in Ch'aon and died.
In what way had he entered a gati Ch'aoa and died?
He bad entered a gate of Ch'aoa and died.
Wh^ does the viscoant of Woo appear with faia name YebP
[To show that] ha was wonnded and died before he could retnm to the station [of bis own troops].'
*.;*:M;S/J>&.W'&iJf-lli
The Cbnen of Znh.leaag safs: — 'In conseqaence of being eng'Sged in an in- Taaion of Ts'oo, be attncked one of tha gates of Cb'soa and died.
The words "of (or, at) Ch'aoa" ehoif tbat that place was outside Ts'oo. Hj attacking the gates of Ch'aon, Le [wonu] be able to] invade Ts'oo.
A prince was not named when alive. Here the name, properly given to him when dead, is taken and placed before his invasion of Ts'oo, to show that it was Ja consequence of that invasion that he died.
How does it show that it was through hia invasion of Ts'oo that he died?
Anciently, when [the army of 3 a great State was passing by a small city, tha nde was that that small city ahonid num its walls and aak what was its offence. Yeh, the risconnt of Woo, in [proceeding to] invade Ta'oo, came to Ch'aon, and entered one of its gatea, when the gale- keeper shot him, ao that he returned to the station [of bis troops], wounded by an arrow, and died. Although an under- taking be of a dvil nature, there should be at the same time military preparatioTi. [The entry] condemns Ch'aon for not manning its walls and asking what wu its offence, [and also] condemna the vis- count of Woo for his careless exposure of himself.'
72]
.] COBCMENTAKIES OF KUNG-TANG AND KUH-LEANG. [rKOLKiiuMLXA.
The fourth year of duke Ch^aou^ parr. 3 and 4.
itumn, in the seventh month, the viscount of Ts*oo, the les of Ts'ae and Ch'in, the baron of Heu, the viscounts of oo, and Shin, and the Hwae tribes, invaded Woo. They I'ing Fung of Ts'e, and put him to death.
nen of Knng-yang says: — * This
▼asion of Woo; — how is it thafc
^ph tells us of the seizure of
ag of Ts*e?
I taken off in behalf of Ts'e.
as it that he was taken off in
Ts'e?
Pong had run awaj to Woo,
had invested him with Fang.
b case why is it not said that
led Fang?
allow to the feudal princes tiie
ranting investiture.
vas the crime of K4ng Fang?
1 exercised a pressure on the
s'e, and thrown that State into
zmm.
The Chuen of Kuh-leang says: — 'Here they mast have entered [the place, where King Fling was] and slain [him]; — why does the text not mention that entering?
K4ng Fang had been ^invested with
Ghong-le of Woo.
Why does it not say that they invaded Chung-le?
Not to allow to Woo the right of granting investiture.
Why is "Ts'e" put before "K4ng FuDg" like a clan-name?
[To show that] he was punished in behalf of Ts'e. King Ling sent a man to go round the army with him, and pro- claim, " Is there anyone like K'ing Fung of Ts'e who mui'demi his ruler?" K4ng Fung said to the man, '' Stop a moment ; I also have a word to sav," With this ho cried out, "Is there anyone, who, like the Kung-tsze Wei of Ts^oo, murdered the sou of his elder brother, and made
73]
rjioLKGOiCAXA] COMMENTARIES OF KUKG-TAKG AND KUH*LEANG.
[Ctt. L
himself ruler in his place?" The soldiers all laughed and chnckled.
King Fung had mnrdered his ruler, hut that crime is not mentioned here in oonuexion with him, because he was not subject to king ling, and the text would not allow to Ts*oo [the right] to punish him« It is a part of the righteousness of the Ch^un Ts^ew to employ the noble to regulate the mean, and the wortbj to regulate the bad, but not to emploj the disorderly to regulate disorder. Do we not have the same sentiment in what Confucius said, " Let a man who himself cherishes what is wicked punish another, and that other will die without submit- ting to him?'
)>♦ »
^
f1^t^<a-,
The nineteenth year^ parr. 2 and 5.
In summer, in the fifth month, on Mow-shin, Che, heir-son of Heu, murdered his ruler Mae. In winter, there was the burial of duke Taou of Heu.
r^. ^ <: P m. ;g # it M.
▲ppssmix I.] COMMENTARIES OF KUNG-YANG AND KUH-LEANG- [proleoomejca.
The Chuen of Knng-yang says: — * How do we have the bnrial recorded here, while the ruffian [-murderer] was not yet punished? The thing did not amount to a murder.
How did it not amount to a murder?
Che gave [his father] medicine, and the medicine killed hira.
In these circumstances why does the text say that Che murdered him?
To censure Che for not folly discharg- ing the duty of a son.
How does it censure his failure in that?
Yoh-ching Tsze-ch^n, when watching his sick [father], would give him an additional dish of rice, [Und watch] eagerly whether it made him better; or he would give him a dish less, and watch the result eagerly. He would put on him a garment more, or a garment less, than usual, in the same way. Che gave the medicine, and the medicine killed [his father], and therefore the superior man charged him with murdering him.
In the [former] entry that * Che, heir- son of Heu, murdered his ruler Mae," the euperior man allows the charge against Cbe; in the [second] entry about the burial of duke Taou, he pardons Che. He pardons Che, that is, he withdraws the charge against him.*
nmz.^Mr^m.^Mz
The Chuen of Kuh-leang says:—* The mention of the day along with the mur- der shows that the death was a natural one. As it was so, Che did not murder [his father]. Though he did not murder him, it is said that he did; — to reprove Che. Che said, " I am the same as a murderer, and will not stand in my father's place." On this he resigned the State to his brother Hwuy, wept and wailed, and lived on congee, without taking a grain of rice, till in less than a year he died. The superior man here reproves him according as he reproved himself.
The specification of the day of the death and of the season of the burial does not allow Che to lie imder the charge of murdering his father.
When a sou is born, if he escape not death from fire or water, it is the crime of his mother; if he have grown up to a boy with two tufbs of hair, and do not go to a teacher, it is the crime of his father; if he go to a teacher, and his studies are desultory, and his mind do not become intelligent, it is the crime of himself; if he become intelligent, and the fame of his name be not heard of, it is the crime of his friends ; if the fame of his name be heard of, and the officers do not bring him into notice, it is the crime of the officers; if the officers bring him to notice, and the king do not employ him, it is the fault of the king. The heir-son of Heu did not know [his duty] to taste the medicine [for the ruler], and that ruler was involved [in the conse« quences of his ignorance].
^ i^ % ¥.
75]
7C ^
M.)i,K..oWK.-.i.] COMWESTARIKS Of KUNG-VANG ASD KUH-LEANO. [ot i.
The first year of duke Ting, parr. I, 2.
In the [duke's] first year, in spring, theking'a In summer, in
the sixth month, on Mow-sliin, the duke came to the vacant seat
n^.n^^'&. ^ ,^
B.««6Pfe.
ft*.
The Chaen of Kang.ywig Bays: — 'How is it that Ting has no first month [in his first year]?
[The mention of] the first month ia to adjust the [rnler's] coming to the [vacant] seat; and Ting's having no first month is because his coming to the [vacant] seat was later.
How was it lftf«r?
[The ooflSn of] dnke Cli'aon was [still] onteide [the State], ftnd whether it wonid be allowed to enter or not was not yet known.
How was it not yet knownp
It depended on the Head of the Ke family.
In [the records about] Ting and Gae there are many obscnre expressions. If they — the rulers — bad read the text and inquired about its explanation, they would not have known whether they were charged with crime or not.
As it was ou Kwei-hae that duke [I'h'aoa's] coffin came from Kan-how, how was it that it was Mow-shin before [Ting] ascended the [vacant] seat?
When the coffin had been placed right between the two pillars, then be ascended the [vacant] seat. My master Shin-tsze iwid, ' When the funeral rites of the
76]
ft. win -&.*«*<& m.m
^fiiftM^B.«S«epft 11l.iEi-f^B.««9Jft<6.
?iZ:kma.0n&.mzA
itmns.'k^.mz^.
t^mz'^ x^nmM. ^^.m^^z^m^^
AffS.tA^sp.fflAH.H §Em,ffiAW1&.«AB.
MT^pUfc.iKiA^.SA
m.s.M^.mzm,iii
4PPBXS1XI0 COMMENTARIES OT KUNO.VANG AKD KUH-LEANG. [pbolboombna.
[former] mler had been settled in the State, then [the new mler] took the [vacant] seat
The dajr of taking that seat should not be given; — ^how is it given here?
It is a record of what took place in Loo itself,'
The Chuen of Kuh-leang says: — * The text does not mention the first month, because Ting had no first month [in his first year] .
Why had Ting no first month?
Because duke Chaou's death was not a proper death, and Ting's commencement of his rule was not a proper commence- ment. As Chaou's was not a proper death, Ting could not have a proper beginning. It is not said [here] that he came to the [vacant] seat, because [Chaou's] coffin was outside the State.
The coffin was now placed in state, and so he took the [vacant] seat Ting's having no first year shows that there was something which prevented him from having it. But the reason of its not being said that he came to the vacant seat when the year [in which duke Ch'aou died] was expired, was that [the coffin] of the former duke was [still outside]. The notice of coming to th^ [vacant] seat was the regular way of declaring that the State was passed from one ruler to another. If the former did not die a proper death, the latter oould not have a proper beginning; and vioe versa. The notice that duke [Ting] oame to the [vacant] seat on Mow-shin, is an instance of the care observed [in luoh a matter]; — it was necessary that Ting's accession should be thus de&iitely marked.
How is the day of the duke's aooession given?
[To show that] it was on th^ day Mow-shin.
It was on Kwei-hae that duke [Ch'aou's] coffin came from Kan-how; — how was it not tlQ Mow-shin that [Ting] took the [vacant] seat?
The proper ceremonies in the State must be gone through for the [£9rmer] ruler, before that could be done. Shin- tsze said, " When the coffin was placed right between the two pillars, his succes- sor took the [vacant] seat."
The great affiurs within a State were mentioned with the day. The taking the [vacant] seat was a great affiiir for the ruler; — why is it [generally] given without the day?
It was made to commence with the year, and* not regulated by the day.
Why then is the day given here?
To give emphasis to it.
In what way does it give emphasis to it?
To have taken the [vacant] seat when
ft]
raoLBOOMUiA.] COMMEXTASfES OF KUN'0-VAXO AND KUH-LF.AKG.
[en
the year was expired, would have l)een hazardous; and besides there wae a potut ot right«ousneaB in the cane. Jtefore llie coffin [of Ids predecessor] was set in state, a prince would not dare to show hloisclf as ruler to the Dunisters, even thouj^h lie had the charge of the son of Heaven. There might be a deat-h equally in Cliovv and in Loo. From Chow a messa^ of condolence would be sent, but not from Loo. In Chow they would say, " He xran onr sabject; we may send to condole [on bis death]." In Loo they wocld mt, "HewaHOurmler. Was like m.r futhaV. Wo canuot send a. great oibcer [to nlfer our condoleBCBH]." In this way from Chow they sent to condole, hot not from Loo, for the time was not long removed from Ch'ing and K'ang. Tiie king was the most honourable; yet [the new mler of Loo] would not dar« to leave hia father's coffin, and go to Chow on a visit of condolence ; how much less would he slion himself as mler to the ministers, befora the coffin was placed in State!
The sieik year of duke Gae, parr. 7, 8.
Yang-84ng of Ts'e entered [the capital of] that State. Cii'in K'ah of Ts'e murdered his ruler T'oo.
«tt'<llkiLZ.mS.mir.ZM
78]
▲FPBscDix lO COMllENTABIES OF KUNG-YAK6 AND KUH-LEANG. [rsoLSOoMBKA.
Bm.nmwzmt^zm.
The Ghuen of Knng-yang says: — ' Moiderers and Betters up [of new ruleraj are not mentioned as high ministers (i.e., with clan-name and name following the name of the State); — how is such a notice given here?
Because of [Ch4n K'eih^s] deceit.
How did he show his deceit?
Dnke King said to him, "I wish to make Shay {i.q. Tso*8 T*oo) my successor; what do you say to it?" He replied, •* Whomsoever you would be pleased to see as ruler, and wish to appoint as your successor, I will support him ; and whom-