the day Sin-maou of the 4th month of the third year of duke Yin.1 And not only so. In the 21st year of duke Seang, both Kungyang and Kuh-lëang 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 the 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 14th year of duke Gae, has further protracted the text to the 4th month 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 things 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 Ch'un Ts'ëw. 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, and 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 his stylus, now writing down and now retrenching, a thousand years before them, is what I am not able to believe."2 1 See my note on the passage in question, where I approve of a different interpretation of the text of Kung and Kuh from that which Ma Twan-lin mentions. My Chinese text in that passage is that of Kung and Kuh, and I take this opportunity to say that the text throughout is gathered from the Kang-he edition of the Classic. The editors generally follow Tso-she; but occasionally, as 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. 2春秋古經雖漢藝文志有之然夫子所修之春秋其 本文世所不見而自漢以來所編古經則俱自三傳中 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 points, however, on which he insists do Ma's conclusions seem overstrained. not make so 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 so 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.c. 153. But if we base the text simply on what is 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-lëang 取出經文名之曰正經耳然三傳所載經文多有異同 則學者何所折衷如公及儀盟於左氏以為 公穀以為昧則不知夫子所書者日茂乎日昧乎築郿 左氏以爲郿公穀以為微則不知夫子所書者日 日微乎會於厥憖公穀以爲屈銀則不知夫子所書者 日厥 日屈銀乎若是者不可勝數蓋不特亥豕 魯魚 1之偶誤其 二而已然此特名字之訛耳其事未 嘗背 背馳於大義尙無 大義尙無所關也至於君氏卒則以為聲子, 之夫人也尹氏卒則以爲師尹周之卿士也,然 子所書隱三年夏四月辛卯之死者竟為何人乎不 惟是公羊穀梁於襄 襄公二十一年皆書孔子生按春秋 美國君世子生 書之子同生 同生是也,其餘 也,其餘世卿擅國政 季氏之徒其 亦未嘗書之於册, 册夫子萬世帝王之 師,然其始 始生乃 之子 史未必書 魯史 所不書而 子自 其生之年 决無是 理也而左 左於 哀公十 麟之後又復引經以至十 六年四月書仲尼卒,杜征南亦以 為近誣然則春秋 文其附見於三傳者不特乖異 可盡信而 有之矣蓋襄二十 二十一年所書者公 而增書之也哀十六年所書者 痛其師 之也,俱非春秋之本文也三 者 以意 師授 而增書 耳所傳受 者各自為傳又以其意之所欲增益者撥入 益者機入之後世 儒復據其見於三子之書者互有所左右而 以為得聖人筆之意於千載之上吾未之能信也 (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 lin 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 men and places, they need not trouble us more than different ways of spelling unusual words in different editions of an English book would do. The most important variation of another character between them is that on which Ma insists so strongly,一君氏 and 尹氏 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. Tso, I am of opinion, copied down 君 instead of 尹, and then tried, ingeniously but unsatisfactorily, to account in his commentary for the unusual combination of 君氏 Kung and Kuh copied 尹 correctly, but their historical knowledge was not sufficint to enable then to explain who 尹氏 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'ëw in existence in the second century before our era. Tso, Kung-yang, and Kuh-lëang, had each his school of adherents, 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 Ching (吳澂;A.D. 1249-1333), may be considered as decisive on this point. I adduce it in preference to others, because he touches on some other matters which will interest some of my readers.春秋經十二篇左氏公羊 穀梁各有不同昔朱子刻易書詩春秋於臨漳郡春 秋一經止用左氏經文而日公穀二經所以異者類 多人名地名而非大意所繫故不能悉具竊謂三傳得 失先儒固言之矣載事則左氏詳於公穀釋經則公穀 精於左氏意者左氏必有案據之書而公穀 是傳 之說況人名地名之殊或因語音字畫之外 此類一份 從 左氏可也然有考之於義確然見左氏為 見左氏為失而公穀為 得者則又豈容以偏徇哉 --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 authority 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 lacunæ 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 readings, 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 commentaries, 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'ËW. 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'ëw, for the opinions of scholars differ both as to the surname and the name of the author.1 The account of it given by Pan Koo is-that Tso 1 It is a common opinion, which Mr. Wylie (General Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 6) endorses without hesitation, that the 'Narratives of the States' was by the same author as the Commentary about which we are inquiring; and we have the testimony of Sze-ma Ts'ëen's auto biographical letter to a friend (漢書六十二 司馬遷傳第三十二),as to his surname being Tso-këw, and name Ming (左丘失明厥有國語; and again, 左 ). Our Tso would then have the surname of Tso-k'ëw. 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'ëw (For B) from a superstitious feeling not to be always repeating the name of the Master B. Pan Koo appears to have considered the simple Tso to be the surname and K'ëw-ming the name; and there are many who concur with him. Others maintain that the surname 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 the surname and name, Hwang Tsih (黃澤; Yuen dynasty) says with truth:-左邱明,或謂姓左邱名明非 傳春秋者傳春秋者蓋姓左而失其名愚謂去古旣遠 此以爲是彼以為非又焉有定論 Kew-ming was a disciple of the sage, who consulted 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 Kew-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.2 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'ëw 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 Who Tso was. excessive respect;-Tso-k'ew Ming was ashamed of such things, and I also am ashamed of them. To conceal resentment against a person, and appear friendly with him;-Tso-këw Ming was ashamed 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 whom Confucius spoke of thus, was the grand-historiographer 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, on the ground that Confucius only drew comparisons between himself and men of a former period.2 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'ëw 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. Chaou Kwang; of the Tang dynasty) says:Ż 丘亦耻之夫子自比皆引往人,故曰竊比於我老彭文 夷等六人,云我則異於是非同時人也邱明者 蓋夫子以前賢人如史佚遲任之流見稱於當時爾 趙襄子 N |