תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

乘之主將廢正而立不正、陽生其以國氏何也,现國、 必殺正者,吾不立子者,所於茶也。 以生子者也走矣。與之玉 The Chuen of Kuh-leang says: It 走之。

was Yang-sang who entered [Ts*e], and ist, i 1., ^ Keil is represented as taking the lead in

murdered bis ruler;-how is it that Ch'in 迎陽生于諸家,除景公之 the deed? 要,諸大夫皆在朝、陳夕日 EA. BR E E Not to allow Yang-săng to be ruler

over T'oo. 之母有魚栽之祭,願 Why does [the text] not allow Yang大夫之化我也。諸大夫皆| sing to be ruler over Troo? 日諾,於是皆之陳乞之家, Tse, and Too was not

Yang-sảng was the proper heir [of 坐,陳乞日吾所為甲請以 If Too were not the proper heir, why

is he called the ruler? 示焉。諸大夫皆日諾,於是

Although he was not the proper heir, 使 使力士舉巨翼,而至于中he had received the appointment from 富諸大夫見之皆色然而 his fathery.

“ Entered" denotes that the enterer is 開之則闖然公子陽生| not received. Since Too was not the 也。

proper heir, why use that style? 陳乞日此君也已。諸太 that style might be employal

As he had received the appointment,

. 夫不得已皆竣巡北面再稽 Why is the name of the State used as 首而君之前自是往舍irit were Yang.sings clan.namer

He took the State from T'oo.
The Chuen of Kung-yang says:
Murderers and setters up (of new rulers]
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 [Chin Keil's] deceit.
How did he show his deceit?

Duke King said to him, “I wish to make Shay (i.q. Tso's Too) 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. soever yon

do not wish so to appoint, I will not support. If your lordship wish to appiont Shay, I beg to be allowed to support himn." Yang-săng said to Ch'in K'eih. “I have heard that you will not be willing to raise me to the marquisate." The minister said, “In a State of a thousand chariots, if you wish to set aside the proper heir and appoint one who is not 80, you must kill the proper heir. My not supporting you is the way I take to preserve your life. Fly." And herenpon he gave Yang-săng a seal-token of jade, with which he fled.

When duke King died, and Shay had been made marquis, Ch'in K'eih had Yang-săng brought back, and kept him in his house. When the mourning for

duke King was over, and all the great officers were at court, Ch'in Keih said, "My mother is celebrating a sacrifice with fish and beans; I wish you all to come and renovate me at it.” All accepted the invitation, and when they were come to his house, and sitten down, he said “ I have some buffcoats which I have made; allow me to show them to you.” To this they assented, and he then made some stout fellows bring a large sack into the open court. The sight of this frightened the officers, and made them change colour; and when the sack was opened, who should come forth from it but the Kungtsze Yang-săng? “ This,” said Ch'in K'eih, "is our ruler.” The officers could not help themselves, but one after another twice did obeisance with their faces to the north, and accepted [Yang-săng] as their ruler; and from this he went and murdered Shay. .

十有三年三章公會晉侯及 吳子于黄池

The thirteenth year, paragraph 3. The duke had a meeting with the marquis of Tsin and the viscount of Woo at Hwang-ch'e. 公羊傳日,吳何以稱子。穀梁傳日,黄池之會、吳 吳主會也。

子進乎哉,遂子矣。 吳主會,則褐為先言晋侯吳夷狄之國也,祝髮文 不與夷狄之主中國也。 身,欲因身之禮,因晋之權、 其言及吳子何會兩伯之而請冠端而襲、其籍於成 辭也。

周,以尊天王,吳進矣。 不與夷狄之主中國,則易

吳東

方大國也累累

致小國以會諸侯,以合乎 為以會兩伯之辭言之重中國,吳能為之則不臣乎。

吳進矣,王尊稱也,子 局為重吳吳在是則天稱也辭尊稱、而居卑稱、 下諸侯莫敢不至也。 以會乎諸侯,以尊天王。

吳也。

The Chuen of Kung-yang says: -"Why EXTEFFL F is (the lord of ] Woo styled viscount?

Because Woo took the direction of the E. **##*. meeting.

而欲冠也。 If Woo took the direction of the meeting, why does the text] first mention the

The Chuen of Kuh-lëang says:-- Is not marquis of Tsin?

the viscount of Woo advanced at this Not to allow a barbarvus [State) to meeting in Hwang-ch'e? Here it is that take the direction of the Middle States.

he is styled] viscount. What is the force of the before the they cut their hair short and tattooed

Woo was a barbarian State, where viscount of Woo?

their bodies. [Its ruler now) wished, by It serves to point out the meeting as means of the ceremonies of Loo and the one of two presiding chiefs.

power of Tsin, to bring about the wearing As (the text] does not allow a barbar- of both cap and garment. He contrious (State) to take the direction of the buted [also) of the products of the State Middle States, why does it represent the to do honour to the king approved by meeting as one of two presiding chiefs? Heaven. Woo is here advanced.

Because of the weight of Woo. Woo was the greatest State of the

How had Woo so much weight? Woo east. Again and again it had brought being there, the other) princes of the the small States to meet the feudal kingdom would not dare not to come.

princes, and to unite with the Middle States. Since Woo could do this, was it not loyal? Woo is here advanced. King is the most honourable title, and viscount is comparatively mean. The ruler of Woo, however,] declined the honourable title, and was content with the mean one, to meet with the other princes and do honour to the king approved by Heaven. Foo-ch‘ae, king of Woo, used to say, “Bring me a good cap.” Confucius said, “Great was Foo-ch'ae!” Foo-ch'ae could not have told you about the caps [of different ranks], but he wished for a cap.

APPENDIX II.

A LETTER QUESTIONING THE CONFUCIAN AUTHORSHIP OF THE CH'UN TSʻEW BY YUEN MEI OF THE PRESENT DYNASTY,

I have found the following letter in a large collection of the letters of the writer, published first, with glosses, in 1859 by Hoo Kwangtow (A * ), a great admirer of them, under the title of its ÀU TRA The writer, Yuen Mei (tk), styled Tsze-ts'ae (Ft) and Këen-chae ( ), was a member of the Han-lin college, and died in 1797, at the age of 82. The letter was written in reply 10 Yeh Shoo-shian (ll), also a member of the Han-lin college,

答葉普山庶子

齊震以可

十之何四夏不官作也,承 之桓知餘子

肯之春第 南二終 偶之傳易,信 所

權秋、春 史公始,

1者赞

史意秋 氏皆

無莫

君安官終 半如

事覺微 亂天

十矣 天及代也春

春具底 臣而王

作孔

秋見子。 賊經符

日子 精 子皆于 修春 秋語有孔子 非書識, 又書河 飾秋 韓載史子絕

斷駕 何莞陽,可公

公入 宣子官,卒筆能罪 所是周笑穀 , 子之

我不
襄者,
者,所或 聘教

也儼在子趙
慮引者語魯、人 止麟,且然其

全有孔稱見則不 所以位,作
筆故 子羊易書與


舌象詩孔中 筆王謀子
肝與執

習鲁禮為夏秋筆居政稱
魯於春

於春自存何從不
之 稱,正春秋,勉亡人哀則但有而不
董之還是雅秋,楚則也之公削夫侵不足
狐外經未項是語五書筆十游子史作道

孔子之前四方之國有春秋久矣
莊王傳太子申叔時教之以春秋晉語稱羊舌

四年起直書至十六年
夏不能贊一詞突乃孔子絕筆於獲麟而後之春

'I have received your “Recondite Meanings of the Ch'un Ts'ëw,” in which your exquisite knowledge is everywhere apparent. While availing yourself of the Works of] Tan Tsoo and Chaou K'wang, you have far excelled them, and that of Hoo Ganting is not worthy to be spoken of [in comparison with yours). But in my poor view I always feel that the Ch'un Ts'ëw was certainly not made by Confucius.

'Confucius spoke of himself as a transmitter and not a maker (Ana. VII. i.)." To make the Ch'un Ts'ëw was the business of the historiographers. Coņsucius was not a historiographer, and she said that] “ he who is not in a particular office has nothing to do with plans for the adıninistration of its duties (Ana. VIII. xiv.);"'how should he have usurped the power of the historiographers, and in an unseemly way made [this Work] for them?

In the words, It is [the Ch'un Ts'ëw] which will make men know me, and make men condemn me (Mencius, III. Pt. ii. IX. 8),” he appears to take the position of an unsceptred king; but not only would the master not have been willing to do this, but the ruler and ministers and historiographers of Loo would not have borne it.

*It is said that “Confucius wrote what he wrote and retrenched what he retrenched, so that neither Yëw nor Hëa were able to improve a single character (See the quotation from Sze-ma Ts'ëen, on p. 14).” Now the stylus of Confucius ceased its labours when the lin was taken, but the Ch'au Tsëw is continued after that,

which happened in [the spring of] Gae's 14th year, and ouly ends with the record of Confucius' death in the 16th year;—whose stylus have we during those three years, and by whom was this portion of the work improved? It is clear that, as Loo had its historiographers, the preservation or the loss of the Ch'un Ts'ëw had no connexion with Confucius.

of all the books (about Confucius] there is none so trustworthy as the Analects. They tell us that the subjects which he taught were the Odes, the Shoo, and the maintenance of the rules of Propriety (Ana. VII. xvii.), and how, stimulating himself, he said, that, (if his life were prolonged], he would give fifty years to the study of the Yih; but there is not half a character in them about the Ch'uu Ts'ëw.

•When Han Seuen-tsze was on a complimentary visit to Loo (See above, p. 8), he saw the Yih with its diagrams and the Ch'un Ts'ëw of Loo. In the “Narratives of the States,” under the State of Ts'oo, we find Shin Shuh-she, the tutor of the eldest son of king Chwang, teaching him the Ch'un Ts'ëw (Ib.), and under the State of Tsin we have Yang-sheh Heih celebrated for his acquaintance with the Ch'un Ts'ëw (ib.). Thus before Confucius, the States of the four quarters of the kingdoin had long had their Ch'un Ts'ëw. Perhaps when Confucius returned from Wei to Loo, in his leisure from his correcting labours on the Ya and the Sung (Ana. IX. xiv.), he happened to read the Ch'un Ts'ëw, and made some slight improvements in it, so that we find Kung and Kuh quoting from what they call “the unrevised Ch'un Ts'ew.” On this we cannot speak positively; but certainly there was no such thing as the making of the Ch'un Ts'ëw. What is still more ridiculous, Loo Tung laid the three commentaries up high on his shelves, and would only look at the text to search out the beginning and end (of the things referred tol. But [if we adopt that plan], we have the entry that “the king (by] Heaven's (grace] held a court of inspection in Ho-yang (V. xxviii. 16),” which is to the effect that king Sëang of Chow held a court of inspection, without any cause, at a spot so far—a thousand le—[from his capital]. Then again, dukes Yin and Hwan were both murdered, and the text simply says that they died. In this way the upright stylus of the sage turns out not to be equal to that of Tung Hoo of Tsin, or to Ts'e's historiographer of the South. What is there [in the Ch'un Ts'ëw] to serve as a warning to make rebellious ministers and villainous sons afraid?'

Having arrived at my own conclusions about the Ch'un Ts'ëw before I met with Yuen Mei's letter, I was astonished and gratified to find such a general agreement between his views and mine. He puts on one side with remarkable boldness the testimony of Mencius, on which I have dwelt in the first section as presenting the greatest difficulty in the way of our accepting the Ch'un Ts'ëw as the work of the sage.

He would fain deny, as I have said I should be glad to do, that Confucius had anything to do with compiling the chronicle; but the evidence is too strong ou the opposite side, and his supposition, that Confucius, without any great purpose, made some slight improvements in the Ch'un Ts'ëw of Loo towards the end of his life, does not satisfy the exigencies of the case. He has the same opinion that I have of the serious defects of the Work,

« הקודםהמשך »