« הקודםהמשך »
Yung, in Chapters and Sentences,"5 which was made the text book of the Classic at the literary examinations, by the fourth Emperor of the Yuen dynasty (A.D. 1312-1320), and froin that time the name merely of the Treatise was retained in editions of the Le Ke. Neither text nor ancient commentary was given.
Under the present dynasty it is not so. In the superb edition of “The Five King” edited by a numerous committee of scholars towards the end of Kang He's reign, the Chung Yung is published in two parts, the ancient commentaries from “The Thirteen King being given side by side with those of Choo He.
ITS AUTIIOR; AND SOME ACCOUNT OF HIM.
1. The composition of the Chung Yung is attributed to Kóung Keih, the grandson of Confucius. Chinese inquirers and critics are agreed on this point, and apparently on sufficient grounds. Therr is indeed no internal evidence in the Work to lead us to such a conclusion. Among the many quotations of Confucius' words and references to him, we might have expected to find some indication that the
sage was the grandfather of the author, but nothing of the kind is given. The external evidence, however, or that from the testimony of authorities, is very strong. In Sze-ma Ts'een's Historical Records, published B.c. 103, it is expressly said that “ Tsze-sze made the Chung Yung." And we have a still stronger proof, a century earlier, from Tsze-sze's own descendant, Kóung Foo, whose words are, “ Tsze-sze compiled the Chung Yung in 49 p'öen."" We may, therefore, accept the received account without hesitation.
2. As Keih, spoken of chiefly by his designation of Tsze-sze, thus occupies a distinguished place in the classical literature of China, it
中庸ise the 史記,四十七孔子世家, This tune Foo (FL FH was that descendant of Confucius, who hid several books in the wall of his house. on the issuing of the imperial eclict for their burning. He was a writer himself, and his Works an referred to under the title of Lite F. I have not seen them, but the statement girea aboreas fountin the 四書撫餘說, art. 中庸一孔叢子云子思撰 中庸之書四十九篇
inay not be out of place to bring together here a few notices of hiin gathered from reliable sources.
He was the son of Le, whose death took place B.C. 482, four years before that of the sage, his father. I have not found it recorded in what year he was born. Sze
ma Ts'een says he died at the age of 62. But this is evidently wrong, for we learn from Mencius that lie was high in favour with the duke Muh of Lo0,3 whose accession to that principality dates in B.C. 408, seventy years after the death of Confucius. In the “Plates and Notices of the Worthies, sacrificed to in the Sage's Temples, "4 it is supposed that the 62 in the Historical Records should be 82.5 It is maintained by others that Tsze-sze's life was protracted beyond 100 years. This variety of opinions simply shows that the point cannot be positively determined. To me it seems that the conjecture in the Sacrificial Canon must be pretty near the truth.7
During the years of his boyhood, then, Tsze-sze must have been with his grandfather, and received his instructions. It is related, that one day, when he was alone with the sage, and heard him sighing, he went up to him, and, bowing twice, inquired the reason of his grief. “Is it,” said he, “because you
descendants, through not cultivating themselves, will be unworthy of you? Or is it that, in your admiration of the ways of Yaou and Shun, you are vexed that you fall short of them?” “Child,” replied Confucius, - how is it that you know my thoughts?” “I have often," said Tsze-sze, “heard from you the lesson, that when the father has gathered and prepared the firewood, if the son cannot carry the bundle, he is to be pronounced degenerate and unworthy. The remark comes frequently into my thoughts, and fills me with great apprehensions." The sage was delighted. He smiled and said, “Now, indeed, shall
魯穆公 4 聖廟祀典圖考.5或以六十二似八十二 Z. 82 and 62 may more easily be confounded, as written in Chinese than with the Roman figures. 6 Se the 四書集證,on the preface to the Chung Yung,一年百餘歲卒 i Le himself was born in Confucius' 21st year, and if Tsze-sze had been born in Le's 21st year, he miast have been 103 at the time of duke Muh's accession. But the tradition is, that Tsze-sze was a pupil of Tsing Sin who was born B.c. 504. We must place his birth therefore considerably later, and suppose him to have been quite young when his father died. I was talking once about the question with a Chinese friend, who observed :-“ Le was 50 when he died, and his wife married again into a family of Wei. We can hardly think, therefore, that she was any thing like that age. Le could not have married so soon as his father did. Perhaps he was about 40 when Keih was born."
I be without anxiety! My undertakings will not come to nouglit. They will be carried on and flourish."8
After the death of Confucius, Keih became a pupil, it is said, of the philosopher Tsăng. But he received his instructions with discrimination, and in one instance which is recorded in the Le Ke, the pupil suddenly took the place of the master. We there read :“Tsăng said to Tsze-sze, · Keih, when I was engaged in mourning for my parents, neither congee nor water entered my mouth for seven days.' Tsze-sze answered, 'In ordering their rules of propriety, it was the design of the ancient kings that those who would go beyond them should stoop and keep by them, and that those who could hardly reach them should stand on tiptoe to do so. Thus it is that the superior man, in mourning for his parents, when he has been three days without water or congee, takes a staff to enable himself
While he thus condemned the severe discipline of Tsăng, Tszesze appears in various incidents which are related of him, to have been himself more than sufficiently ascetic. As he was living in great poverty, a friend supplied him with grain, which he readily received. Another friend was emboldened by this to send him a bottle of wine, but he declined to receive it. “ You receive your corn from other people,” urged the donor, “and why should you decline my gift, which is of less value? You can assign no ground in reason for it, and if you wish to show your independence, you should do so completely.” “I am so poor," was the reply, “as to be in want, and being afraid lest I should die and the sacrifices not be offered to my ancestors, I accept the grain as an alms. But the wine and the dried flesh which you offer to me are the appliances of a feast. For a poor man to be feasting is certainly unreasonable. This is the ground of my refusing your gift. I have no thought of asserting my independence."10
To the same effect is the account of Tsze-sze, which we have from Lew Heang. That scholar relates :-“When Keih was living in Wei, he wore a tattered coat, without any lining, and in 30 days had only 9 meals. Tëen Tsze-fang having heard of his distress, sent a messenger to him with a coat of fox-fur, and being afraid that he might
8 See the 19 # in the place just quoted from. For the incident we are indebted to Kʻung Foo; see note 2, 9. Le Ke, II. Pt. I. ii. 7. 10, 11 See the 4 1 # as above,
not receive it, he added the message, -'When I borrow from a man, I forget it; when I give a thing, I part with it freely as if I threw it away.' Tsze-sze declined the gift thus offered, and when Tsze-fang said, “I have, and you have not; why will you not take it?' he replied, “You give away so rashly, as if you were casting your things into a ditch. Poor as I am, I cannot think of my body as a ditch, and do not presume to accept your gift."11
Tsze-sze's mother married again, after Le's death, into a family of Wei. But this circumstance, which is not at all creditable in Chinese estimation, did not alienate his affections from her. He was in Loo when he heard of her death, and proceeded to weep in the temple of his family. A disciple came to him and said, “Your mother married again into the family of the Shoo, and do you weep for her in the temple of the Kóung?” “I am wrong," said Tsze-sze, “ I am wrong;" and with these words he went to weep elsewhere. 12
In his own married relation he does not seem to have been happy, and for some cause, which has not been transmitted to us, he divorced his wife, following in this, it would appear, the example of Confucius. On her death, her son, Tsze-shang, 18 did not undertake any mourning for her. Tsze-sze's disciples were surprised and questioned him. “Did not your father,” they asked, “mourn for his mother who had been divorced?” “Yes," was the reply. “Then why do you not cause Pihl4 to mourn for his mother?” Tsze-sze answered, “My father failed in nothing to pursue the proper path. His observances increased or decreased as the case required. But I cannot attain to this. While she was my wife, she was Pih's mother; when she ceased to be my wife, she ceased to be Pih's mother.” The custom of the K‘ung family not to mourn for a mother who had left it herself, or been divorced, took its rise from Tsze-sze. 15
These few notices of Kóung Keih in his more private relations bring him before us as a man of strong feeling and strong will, independent, and with a tendency to asceticism in his habits.
As a public character, we find him at the ducal courts of Wei, Sung, Loo, and Pe, and at each of them held in high esteem by the
12 See the Le Ke, II. Pt. II. iii. 15. ÆŹ JE above, and not with Ch'ing Heuen, –“ Your mother was born a Miss Shoo.” 13 F 1-this was the designativu of Tsze-sze's son. 14 É ---this was Tsze-slang's name. 15 See the Le Ke, II. Pt. L i to
must be understood as I have done
rulers. To Wei he was carried probably by the fact of his mother having married into that State. We are told that the prince of Wei received him with great distinction and lodged him honourably. On one occasion he said to him, “An officer of the State of Loo, you have not despised this small and narrow Wei, but have bent your steps hither to comfort and preserve it;-vouchsafe to conter your benefits upon me.” Tsze-sze replied, “If I should wish to requite your princely favour with money and silks, your treasuries are already full of them, and I am poor. If I should wish to requite it with good words, I am afraid that what I should say would not suit
your ideas, so that I should speak in vain, and not be listened to. The only way in which I can requite it, is by recommending to your notice men of worth.” The duke said, “Men of worth is exactly what I desire.” “Nay,” said Keih, "you are not able to appreciate them.” “Nevertheless," was the reply, “I should like to hear whom you consider deserving that name.
Tsze-sze replied, “Do you wish to select your officers for the name they may have, or for their reality ?” “For their reality, certainly,” said the duke. His guest then said, “In the eastern borders of your State, there is one Le Yin, who is a man of real worth.” “What were his grandfather and father?” asked the duke. “They were husbandmen," was the reply, on which the duke broke into a loud laugh, saying, “I do not like husbandry. The son of a husbandman cannot be tit for me to employ. I do not put into office all the cadets of those families even in which office is hereditary.” Tsze-sze observed, “I mention Le Yin because of his abilities; what has the fact of his forefathers being husbandmen to do with the case? And moreover, the duke of Chow was a great sage, and K'ang-shuh was a great worthy. Yet if you examine their beginnings, you will find that from the business of husbandry they came forth to found their States. I did certainly have my doubts that in the selection of your officers you did not have regard to their real character and capacity." With this the conversation ended. The duke was silent. 16
Tsze-sze was naturally led to K‘ung, as the Sung family originally sprang from that principality. One account, quoted in “The Four
16 Sce the 姓譜·