« הקודםהמשך »
is true and false in the Chuen.'13 On 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 seein 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 thein. They suppress, for instance, the account of the conference between the inarquises 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-shih14 of the Sung dynasty published a treatise under the title of ` Explanations of the Ch'un Ts'ëw,' in which he undertook to prove
from eleven instances that the Chuen was not composed by Tso K'ëw-ming of the Chow dynasty, but by some one of a later date, under the dynasty, probably, of Ts-in.14 Wang's treatise is unfortunately lost, and we know not what all the eleven instances
One of them was the use of the terin lah15 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 made of military commanders of Ts'in with the title of shoo chang, 16 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. 17
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 dynasty of the former Han; and there are two classes of passages which seem to bear on them and in them the evidence of having been so dealt with.
[i ] There are the moralizings which conclude many narratives and are interjected in others, generally with the formula— The superior man will say,' and sometimes 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 quotatious from the odes reminds
13 王安石 14 Sce the 欽定四庫全書總目,卷二十六, upon the 春秋左傳正義 15 康不臘矣在此行 16 庶長 17 虞不暇矣并底長皆秦官泰語
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 connexion 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. 18 Lin Leuh of the Sung dynasty and a multitude of other scholars attribute all these passages to Lëw Hin.19 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'ëw 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 contemporaneously 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.
18 左傳君子日,最無意思,因舉艾夷蘊崇一段, 是關上文甚事,左傳是一饱審利害之幾,善避就底人,
以其書有死節等事,其間議論,有極不是, 如周鄭交質之類是何議論,其日宋宣公可謂知人矣 立穆公其子變之,命以義夫,只知有利害不知有義理, 此段不如公羊,說君子大居正,却是儒者議論 Critical Introduction to the K'ang-he Ch'un Ts'ëw, pp. 28, 29. 19 林日左傳
凡言君子日,是劉歆之辭 20 The following is a list of passages of the character spoken of :-on I. iii. 5; vii. after 4: II. ii. 4; ix. 4: III. i. at the beginning ; xi. 3 ; xx. at the beg.; xxi. 2 ; xxii. 3 ; xxxii. after 1: IV. i. at the end; ii. after 3: V. ii. after 3; xi. after 1; xii. 3d after 1; xiv. 4; xv. 13; xxii. at the end ; xxxi. 9: VI. i. 3 ; v. after 3; ix. 12; x. 3 ; xiv. 5; xv. 12: VII. iii. 4, 8; iv. last but one; xiv. 6; xv. last but one: VIII. xiv. 1; xv. 7; xvi. at the end : IX. xxi. 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. 3; x. at the beg.; xi. 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. 1; xxxi. 7; xxxii. 2, 4 : XI. ix. 3; xv. 1: XII. ix. after 4. In the HAL #
On the other two early commentaries, those of Kung-yang and Kuh-lëang, it is not necessary that I should write at so much · The commentaries of Kung-, length. There is really nothing in them to yang and Kuh-lëang.
Sentitle them to serious attention. Down to the 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 Lëw Hin's catalogue ;—as stated above on page 17.
With regard to the Work of Kung-yang, Tae Hwăng, of the second Kung-yang. Han dynasty, tells us that Kung-yang Kaou received the Ch'un Ts'ëw and explanations of it from Confucius' disciple Puh Shang or Tsze-hëa, and handed 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, moreover, of its having been confined for more than 300 years to one
It is said:一八世之後莫之 與京(on II.xin.) 其田氏篡齊之後之言乎,公侯子孫必
始 (IV. i at the end), 三卿分晉之後之言乎,其處 劉氏(VI. All at the begs), 漢儒欲立左氏者所附益乎,
皆非 左氏之舊也,新都之篡以沙鹿崩為祥, (V.xiv. 3), 釋氏之 慨,以恆星不見為證(II. vi. 2), 蓋有作俑者矣. Choo He often speaks very doubtfully about Tso's Chuen. E. g. Æ NË h nl
75 th #Ź He, but this last insinuation is mere surmise. 1戴宏日,子夏傳與公羊高高傳與其子平平傳與其 子地,地傳與其子敢,令傳與其子壽至漢景帝時,壽乃
#*F F *13* H ) ; quoted in the preface to Ho Hëw's edition of Kung-yang.
2 According to Ho Hëw, this transmission of the Classic from mouth to mouth was commanded by Confucius, from his foreknowledge of the attempt of the tyrant of Ts'in to burn all the monuments of ancient literature!-FL 7 * * * * 說口授相傳至漢公羊氏及弟子胡母生等乃記於竹帛
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 contemporary and friend of the scholar Tung Chung-shoo;; and in the biography of the scholar Köang Kung,t an adherent of Kuh-lëang's commentary, we are told that the emperor Woo made Këang 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 became 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 Hëw (A.D. 129–183), who published his 'Explanations of Kung-yang on the Ch'un Ts'ëw.'5 This still remains. Ho Hëw did for Kung-yang what, as we have seen, Too Yu did at a later period for Tso K'ëw-ming.
The commentary of Kuh-lëang is, like that of Kung-yang, carried back to Tsze-hëa; but the line of transmission down to the Han
Kuh-lëang. dynasty is imperfectly given. The general opinion is that Kuh-lëang's name was Ch‘ih,6 but Yen Sze-koo says it was He.7 The next naine 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.? Këang Kung, mentioned 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 century; the title of which is, “A Collection of the Explanations of the Chuen of Kuh-lëarg on the Ch'un Ts'ëw.'8 3董仲舒 4江公, Se the 漢書八十八儒林傳第五十八
丁氏休春秋公羊解話”。赤7喜顏師古 毅架子,名喜受經於子夏,為經作傳傳孫(al. 奇)
傳魯申公,申公傳瑕邱江公8春秋穀梁傳集解 For the biography of Fan Ning, see the tt IL FIN 9 +
Z. One cannot compare carefully even the specimens of the two commentaries which I have given without seeing that there is often a great similarity between them, and having the conclusion sug
Speculation as to a connexion between the) gested to the mind that the one commentaries of Kung and Kuh; and that was not made without reference to these were only one person.
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 occasionally 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-lëang ceased with the publication of the commentaries. No Kung-yang nor Kuh-lëang 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 Tszehëa to the Han dynasty. I must leave this matter, however, in its own mist. Ch‘ing Ts'ing-che, 3 Lo Peih,4 and other Sung scholars held that the author of the two commentaries had been a Këang, and that Kung-yang and Kuh-lëang were merely two ways of spelling it;5 but the method of spelling by finals and initials was, there is reason to believe, unknown in the Han dynasty.
1 The K'ang-he editors in their Critical Introduction, p. 7, quote on this point from Choo He: 一間公毅傳大概皆同,日,所以林黄中說只是一人只 看他文学疑若非一手者 2 See the # # , chh. 147, 156. 3 1 Ź 4 羅璧 5 萬見春謂皆姜字切韻脚疑 為姜姓假託
THE VALUE OF THE CH'UN TS'Ëw.
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'ëw 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