« הקודםהמשך »
It 0.1=* 3£ £
** & IS ft £ T§\ *0
If ife* o
8 disregard the statutes of the former kings. If you choose your men not for the goodness of their personal qualities, but for the sake of their bribes, the offices will thus be all made of no effect. Your great want of reverence for your sovereign will be apparent, and to you I will impute the blame."
9 The king said, "Oh! be reverent! Ever help your sovereign to follow the regular laws of duty which he should exemplify."
should be explained in accordance with this text.
P. 9. The conclusion. $lii ^.^^ Bi, 'the regular or constant laws of conduct,' which the sovereign should observe.
Concluding Note. The character of king Muh does not stand high with Chinese historians. Towards the end of his long reign, for 55 years are assigned to him, he took it into his head that he should travel, without any definite purpose of usefulness, all over the empire, wherever he could go. He did not prove the man that the critics say might have been expected from the language of his Charges to Kenya and Pih-keung. Lin Che-k'e thinks his fallings off have been exaggerated. To my mind these two addresses betray a tendency to exaggeration, and betoken a feebleness of mind. THE BOOKS OF CHOW.
BOOK XXVII. THE PRINCE OF LEU UPON PUNISHMENTS.
I. In reference to the charge to the prince of Leu:—When the king had enjoyed the throne till he was the age of a hundred years, he gave great consideration to the appointment of punishments, in order to restrain the people of all quarters.
Introductory Note. The two last Books, there was reason to believe, were to be referred to the commencement of king Muh's reign; this, we learn from the Book itself, was the work of its close, when the king was not less than a century old. During the half century that he occupied the throne, the House of Chow went on to decline. Acc. to Sze-rna Ts'een, the king would engage in hostilities with the wild tribes round about, contrary to the counsels of his advisers, losing consequently the former reverence with which they had regarded the sovereigns of Chow, and the good-will also of many of the princes. As to the character of his enactments about punishments, which were the work of his hundredth year, opinions are greatly divided, some critics condemning it so much that they cannot understand why Confucius gave the Book a place in the Shoo. I will reserve the expression of a judgment in the case till we have considered its different parts in detail.
Tire Names Op The Book.— g }f|J, 'The prince of Leu upon Punishments,' or 'The Punishments of the prince of Leu.' The Prefatory note says that 'Leu received the orders of king Muh to set forth the lessons of Ilea on the redemption of punishments, and there was made Lf.u On Punishments' (see page. IR., n. 64). We can hardly say that any of this appears in the Book, for Leu, or the prince of Lou, is mentioned only once. The king is the speaker throughout. Nothing is said of Hea. We may accept the tradition, however, that Leu was Muh's minister of Crime, and that the regula
tions which the king announces had in the first place been digested by him.
jzj is to be taken as = g 'The prince of Leu,' being itself the name of a principality, the place of which cannot be clearly ascertained. The Book is quoted in the Le Ke several times, and in other works, by the name of m Bl,
'The Punishments of the prince of Foo.' Indeed this was the prevailing name of it during the Han dynasty. The truth seems to be, that the descendants of the prince of Leu were appointed to the principality of Foo, and their territorial title was transferred to him and to this Book.
The Houses of Ts'e (^), Shin (^), Heu
(g^-). and Foo ( iii ), all traced their descent to Yaou's president of the Four Eminences, surnamed Keang (^fa He or his son was to
the great Yu 'a minister who served the purpose of his heart and backbone' jzj
). In this way the surname of JzJ arose
among his descendants, and was retained by the princes of Ts'e, the most distinguished family of them. Possibly the prince of Leu, with whom we have here to do, may have had the same title from his importance to king Muh. However this may be, g Jj-jJ w as the older and the proper title of this Book. Mih Teih quotes it by that Dome. It was found in both the texts.
Contents. I confine myself for the present to the account of these given in the 'Complete Digest.'—'Par. I is the historiographer's account of the circumstances in which these lessons on punishments were made. Parr. 2—12 relate the lessons of antiquity for the information of the judges and princes, being a historical resume' which it was important for them to be acquainted with. Par. 13 is addressed specially to the princes, admonishing them of the diligence and carefulness to be employed in the use of punishments. Parr. 14—20 tell them how they should proceed in that use so as to make punishments a blessing. Par. 21 insists again on the reverence with which punishments should be employed. The last par. is addressed to future generations, and directs them to the ancient models, that punishments may never be but a blessing to the empire. Throughout the Book, "virtue" and "exact adaptation" are the terms which carry the weight of the meaning. Virtue must underlie the use of punishments, and exact
adaptation will be the manifestation of it' (.jfjj
It will be seen that I have divided the king's address into six chapters, each of which commences with the words—'The king said,' This differs only in one trifling point from the arrangement of the 'Complete Digest.'
Ch. I. P. 1. Introduction :—The Time And
OBJECT FOR WHICH THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT PUNISHMENTS WAS MADE. Q -j^jj,—
this clause has no syntactical connection with the rest of the par. Ts'ae says that the characters are used in the same way as 'j^ -pjij
in 'The Charge to Yue,' Pt. ii., p. 1; but the student will perceive that the cases are not at
all analogous. '^jfji -fjjj is an integral
part of the par. where it stands, and supplies the nominative to the first verb in the par. which follows. We may suppose that the prince of Leu had received charge to digest the subject of punishments in acc. with his own views and those of king Muh; that he had done so; and that the king published the result as is subsequently narrated. In this way we may give
jfff- Q -Jjp the meaning which appears in the
It is not certain how the rest of the par.
ought to be pointed. Should and
be joined together and stand intermediately between what precedes and what follows, qualifying more especially what follows? or should
we put a stop at joining it to JpL
Q 4js, and make an adv., qualifying
? Gan-kw5 took the former method, in which he is followed by Ts'ae, who says that at is the designation of one who is old, with the weakness and mental disorders of age
<4l flff H £ ]R><3efl"<*>»"«
Gau-kwo, by 'sudden,' 'neglectful,' and
subjoins Mencins' account of it,—jfjfe ||^
M JP II 3fc 'Pursuing the chase without satiety is what I call being wild;'— see Men. I., Pt. II., iv. 7. On this construction, the two characters are strongly condemnatory of the king's character, and would go to show that the enactments about punishment which the Book relates were stigmatised by the historiographer as made by him in his dotage, and the licentiousness of his reign. Leu Tsooheen and Ch'in Leih, whose opinions are appended in Yung-ching's Shoo, construing at
and jM- together like Ts'ae, yet endeavour to make them have a difft. bearing on the statement ^j JR] which follows;—but unsuccessfully.
Soo Shih adopted the second method of pointing which I have indicated. He put a stop at at, and joined to the verb as an adv., signifying 'greatly;'—referring, in support both of the construction and of that meaning of his, to the words of Yu in the 'Yih
and Tseih.,' p. 8, f§ % ± "A, <I
kept planning with all my might my labour on the land.' I have followed this view in the translation. Ts'ae admits that it is ingenious
and admissible mi), ^y^K- however, that
'the character at alone is one of condemnation'
<H ^ 82 Z 2, Wf>- But in thU
latter criticism he is incorrect. We have the character used by Shun of himself in 'The Counsels of Yu,' p. 9, where it simply expresses the fact of his great age, and I do not think that we are to seek for any other meaning for it in the text.
The general rhythm of the par. also satisfies me that Shih's construction is to be preferred,
unless indeed we should introduce a =^ before
Jji], as Keang Shing does, buton insufficient authority. Thus taken, the historiogaprher in this par. indicates neither censure nor approbation of king Muh's labours on the subject of punishments; and this is a recommendation of the view.
It still remains to direct attention to the peculiarity of the language—2|£ pj^ Q d^S
at, which, on the analogy of Bk. XV., p. 4,
11 aL, and most naturally too, would be understood as saying that king Muh occupied the throne for a hundred years. Such a view has its supporters. Wang Ch'ung, for instance,
maintains it, in hisf^j^ —
adding that Muh lived altogether to the age of about 140. This cannot be admitted. Szema Ts'een says he was 50 when he succeeded to the throne, and that he reigned 55 years. Hj!j has a meaning here intermediate between that in Bk. XX., p, p. 22, and that in XX., p. 11, = ^.
2 II. The king said, "According to the teachings of ancient times, Ch'e-)'e\v was the first to produce disorder, which spread among the common people, till all became robbers and murderers, owllike in their conduct, traitors and villains, snatching and filching, dissemblers and oppressors.
Ch. II. Pp.2—ll. The First Part or The King's Address ;—Introductory. The First Rise Of Disorder In The Empire ; The Case Of The People Of Meaoc; How Sliun Dealt With Them ; And How He Went On To Labour By His Ministers For The People, Ending With The Subject Of Punishments. 2. C'a'eyew, the first author of disorder in the empire.
^| —this clause is equivalent to
the Q jfHf with which the Canons
of Yaou and Shun commence. ^jtj- may be taken with Woo Choir, as 'an introductory particle." Then "jjjjf """tj =[||='From of old there are the lessons.' Gaubil translates— 'Selon les anciens documents' But that is more than the text says. He adds in a note,—' These ancient documents are without doubt some books of history which subsisted in the time of king Muh.' Possibly so; but then we know nothing about them, their author, or their authority. There has been no allusion hitherto in the Shoo, if we except the words of Shun in the 'Yih and Tseih,' p. 4, to anything anterior to the time of Yaou; and here all at once king Muh carries us, as will be seen, three centuries farther back, even to before the year l of the
calendared history of the empire. tit
jj^,—' first produced disorder.' indicates that the 'disorder' was 'rebellion,' resistance to the Powers that were of the time. 2j£ M, =' the quiet orderly people.' JJj£ A see the ' Can. of Shun,' p. 20.
Hj| ^|>—'t,ic Hjfj (probably the owl) watches its opportunity,' says Ch'ing, 'to dart on its prey. So vividly are the ways of those robbers and murderers represented.' tit = g^,
'dissemblers.' has several meanings
in the diet., one or two of which would suit the connection here, while others are of an antagonistic meaning. Ts'ae and Woo Ch'ing accept
that of ^jUj^v^J^. 'murderers,' which I have
modified to distinguish it from
Ch'e-yew, to whom the bad eminence of being the first rebel is here assigned, can hardly be
considered a historical personage. The two characters of the name may be translated—' The Stupid and Extraordinary.' According to Szema Ts'eeu, when the power of the descendants of Shin-nung, the second of the five Tes, with whom he commences his history, was declining, great confusion prevailed, and the princes all turned their arms against one another. Then the star of Hwang-te began to rise, and the well inclined gathered around him as their leader. Of all the princes Ch'e-yew was the most violent nnd oppressive. He attempted to seize the imperial power, when Hwang-te took the field against him, and put him to death after three engagements, and himself superseded the House of Shin-nung. Many fables about dragons, mists, and the invention of the compass, have been mixed up by subsequent writers with the struggle between Hwang-te and Ch'e-yew.
One tradition, indeed, makes Ch'e-yew later than Hwang-te. Gan-kwO says he was 'the ruler of Kew-le' (fa ^ 2: jg); and in
the @ Ti, weread that 'Kcw*
le became disorderly and vicious during the
decay of Shaou-haou' rjjj£ 2:
M -til' % ^ IL #?> Now Shaou
haou was the son of Hwang-te. It is true that Gan-kwO says, on the next par., that 'Ch'e-yew was destroyed by Hwang-te;' but the impression which we get from the ^ is that the speaker conceived of the first interruption of good order and vritue as having taken place in the time of Shaou-haou.
The authority of Confucius again is pleaded for making Ch'e-yew a common man, and the greediest of all men (g£ -fc J& A £ ). See Wang Ming-shing, in he.
See also the 16th chapter of Premare's preliminary discourse, prefixed to Gaubil's Shoo-king, where he has given all the information that Lo Peih "gj^) has collected about Ch'eyew in his $g
I pass on from this par. to the next with two remarks.—First, It is not clear for what purpose king Muh commences his discourse of punishments with this mention of Cli'e-yew.
"Among the people of Meaou, they did not use the power of good, but the restraint of punishments. They made the five punishments engines of oppression, calling them the laws. They slaughtered the innocent, and were the first also to go to excess in cutting off the nose, cutting off the ears, castration, and branding. All who became liable to those punishments were dealt with without distinction, no difference being made in favour of
Perhaps he meant to indicate, as the 'Daily Explanation' says, that it was this rebel who first gave occasion for the use of punishment
«an. (fr -£ A M TBI Z &
Second, It is plain that at the commencement of human history Chinese tradition placed a period of innocence, a season when order and virtue ruled in men's affairs.
Pp. 3, 4. The wickedness of the people of Meaou; and the excessive use of punishments among them. The king appears to pass over a period of three or four hundred years; and from the time of Ch'e-yew, anterior, acc. to the prevailing accounts, to the invention of the cycle by Ilwang-te, he comes down to the time of Shun. So, it will be seen, we must understand these and the following paragraphs. "^jjjf ^1,—I do
not see how we can take these characters otherwise than in the translation. K'ang-shing says that they mean 'the ruler of Kew-le.' 'The prince so denominated,' he says, 'giving trouble in the day3 of Shaou-haou, was dealt with by
Chiien-heuh Jp[)>—afterwards the successor to the throne,—who put Kew-le to death, and removed a portion of his family to the outskirts of theempire on the west. There they reappeared as the chiefs of San-meaou,and in the reign of his
successor Kaou-sin (|Efj jfe J^) or the emperor Kuh Cf^i* Sp)> u.c 2>*31, displayed their hereditary wickedness, when it devolved finally on Yaou to take them in hand. (jji 3^
'3?-k R ft> fin ffi # H> ±
Z> Tllis v^sTMofthe
chiefs of the Meaou is ingenious, but I can only regard it as a fancy of the learned scholar. Equally fanciful is his explanation of the character as applied to the ruler of the Meaou,
that it is indicative of contempt, and stigmatises him as no better than one of the common herd. Gan-kwo, who is followed by Woo Ch'ing, for
Ji* gives 'Er.'ffi Z ^}' 'the rulcr of San-nieaou.' As I said above, I do not see how this can be allowed. Of course it is the ruler or rulers who are spoken of, and this can be indicated,as I have done, by using the indefinite.
they as the subject of J^j.
1f|l] \iX ?N'—meamn8 °* Ihi" seems to be that given by Gan-kwo,—^ ^ ^
mi ^'J J£t Si iffij''they &A not U8e what
was good to transform the people, but restrained them by heavy punishments.'
^fj JS ^f|J.—we cannot be surprised that
some of the critics should argue from this that the invention of ' the five punishments' is here attributed to the chiefs of the Meaou. But the conclusion is not warranted by the language, nor by history. 'The five punishments'—cuting off the nose, and the ear, castration, branding, and death—are all recognised by Shun (Can. of Shun, p. 11). They used those same punishments in Meaou, but excessively and more
barbarously. The use of jj§_ and 'j^* sufficiently show this to be all that is taught in this par. See the remarks of Ch'in Leih in the
Ch'ing gives it, £fc jfi ^ £ g fa.
|?£ (' they killed and slaughtered')
—this was the way in which they abused the heaviest punishment, that of death.