תמונות בעמוד

I have no hesitation in adopting the freer Choo He's views of Choo He, with a condensed account views on the

Preface. of which I conclude this chapter:

“ Opinions of scholars are much divided as to the authorship of the Preface. Some ascribe it to Confucins; 1 some to Tsze-hëa; and some to the historiographers of the States. In the absence of clear testimony it is impossible to decide the point; but the notice about Wei Hwang, in the literary Biographies of the Han dynasties, would seem to make it clear that the Preface was his work. We must take into account, however, on the other hand, the statement of Ch‘ing Heuen, that the Preface existed as a separate document when Maou appeared with his text, and that he broke it up, prefixing to each ode the portion belonging to it. The natural conclusion is that the Preface had come down from a remote period, and that Hwang merely added to it and rounded it off. In accordance with this, scholars generally hold that the first sentences in the introductory notices formed the original Preface which Maou distributed, and that the following portions were subsequently added.

“This view may appear reasonable; but when we examine those first sentences themselves, we find some of them which do not agree with the obvious meaning of the odes to which they are prefixed, and give merely the rash and baseless expositions of the writers. Evidently, from the first, the Preface was made up of private speculations and conjectures as to the subject-matter of the odes, and constituted a document by itself, separately appended to the text. Then on its first appearance there were current the explanations of the odes which were given in connection with the texts of Ts'e, Loo, and Han, so that readers could know that it was the work of later

1. This is too broadly stated. No one has affirmed that the Preface as a whole was from the hand of Confucius. Ch‘ing E-ch'uen (A.D. 1033— 1107) held that the Great preface was made by him. The style, he says, is like that of the appendixes to the Yih, and the ideas are beyond what Tsze-hëa could have enunciated. Wang Tih-shin (later on in the Sung dynasty) ascribed to Confucius the first sentence of all the introductory notices, and called them the Great preface. . 2 Adduced above.

3 Also adduced above.

hands, and not give entire credit to it. But when Maou no longer published the Preface as a separate document, but each ode appeared with the introductory notice as a portion of the text, this seemed to give to it the authority of the text itself. Then after the other texts disappeared and Maou's had the field to itself, this means of testing the accuracy of its prefatory notices no longer existed. They appeared as if they were the production of the poets themselves, and the odes seemed to be made from them as so many themes. Scholars handed down a faith in them from one to another, and no one ventured to express a doubt of their authority. The text was twisted and chiseled to bring it into accordance with them, and nobody would undertake to say plainly that they were the work of the scholars of the Han dynasty.”

| That the other texts, as Maou's, all had their prefaces, often differing from the views of the odes given in that, is a very important fact.




... B.C. 1765—1122.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Five pieces ;—the Sacrificial odes of Shang. Of the Na (I.), the Leeh tsoo (II.), and the Ch'ang fah (IV.), the date of the composition is uncertain. I think that Ode IV. is the oldest, and may have been made any time after B.c. 1719.

The Heuen ncaou (III.) and the Yin woo (V.) were made after B.C. 1261. Ode V. should be referred, probably, to the reign of Te-yih, B.c. 1190—1154,

II. BELONGING TO THE TIME OF KING WAN Thirty-four or thirty-five pieces. These are commonly included in the three hundred and six pieces of the Chow dynasty ; but we can only date the commencement of that from the reign of Wån's son, king Woo. The composition, or the collection at least, of most of the Odes relating to Wăn and his affairs, is attributed to his son Tan, the duke of Chow, and must be referred to the reigns of kings Woo and Ch‘ing ... ...

These pieces embrace:

In Part I., all the 11 pieces of Book i. :—the Kwan 'eu, the Koh t'an, the Keuen urh, the Ken muh, the Chung-sze, the T'aou yaou, the Too tseu, the Fow e, the Han kwang, the Joo fun, and the Lin che che ; and 12, or perhaps 13 pieces, of Book ii.:—the Ts'eoh ch'aou, the Ts'ae fan, the Ts'aou ch'ung, the Ts'ae pin, the Hăng loo, the Kaou yang, the Yin ke luy, the Peaou yew mei, the Seaou sing, the Yay yen sze keun, the Keang yen sze, and the Tsow yu, with perhaps also the Kan t'ang (V.)

In Part II., 8 pieces of Book i. :-- the Lah ming, the Sze mow, the Hwang-hwang chay hwa, the Fah muh, the Teen paou, the Ts'ae we, the Ch'uh keu, and the

[ocr errors][merged small]

Te too.

In Part III., 3 pieces of Book i, -the Tih poh, the Han luh, and the Ling t'ae.

III, BELONGING TO THE CHOW DYNASTY. [i.] Of the time of king Woo ... ... ... „1121—1116.

In all 8 or 9 pieces, viz.

In Part I., Book ii., the Ho pe nung e, and perhaps the Kan t'ang.

In Part II., the Nan kae of Book i.; the Pih hra, the Hna shoo, and the Yu le, of Book ii., though the date of these pieces is not certain.

In Part III., the Meen, the Sze chae, and the Hwang e, all in Book i.

[ii.] Of the time of king Ch‘ing ... ... B.C. 1114-1076. In all 60 pieces, viz.

In Part I., all the seven pieces of Book xv., the T:ʻih yueh, the Ch'e-heaou, the Tung shan, the Pío foo, the Fah ko, the Kew yih, and the Lang poh. All these are assigned to the duke of Chow in the reign of Ch'ing.

In Part II., ten pieces :—the Chang te, of Book i.; the Yew kăng, the Nan yen kea-yu, the Sung k'en, the Nan shan yew t'ae, the Yew e, the Luih scaou, and the Chan loo, of Book ii. ; the T'ung kung, and the Ts'ing. tsʻing chay ngo, of Book iii. Of these ten pieces, however, Choo He thinks that the date of all but the first is uncertain.

In Part III., twelve pieces :—the Wůn wang, the Ta ming, the Hea woo, and the Wăn wang yew shing, of Book i. ; the Sång min, the Hăng wei, the Ke tsuy, the Hoo e, the Kea loh, the Kung Lew, the Ilcung choh, and the K'euen o, of Book ii.

In Part IV. thirty-one pieces, viz.—all the pieces of Book i. [i.]:--the Tsing meaou, the Wei Teen che ming, the ei tsing, the Lech wăn, the Teen tsoh, the Haou Teen yew ching ming (assigned by Choo He to the time of king K'ang), the Go tseang, the She mae (assigned by Choo to the time of king Woo), the Chih king (assigned by Choo to the time of king Ch'aou), and the Sze wăn; all the pieces of Book i. [ii.] :—the Shin kung, the E he assigned by Choo to the time of king K‘ang), the Chin loo, the Fung neen, the Yew koo, the Ts'een, the Yung (assigned by Choo to the time of king Woo), the Tsae heen, the Yew k-ih, and the Woo; and all the pieces of Book i. (iii.] :-the Min yu seаou tsze, the Tang loh, the King che, the Seaou pe, the Tsae shoo, the Leang sze, the Sze e, the Choh, the Hran, the Lae, and the Pan.

[iv.] Of the time of king E (6 ) .. .. „ 933—909. Five pieces, all in Part I. Book viii.:--the Ke ming, the Seuen, the Choo, the Tung fang che jih, and the Tung fang we ming. All these are supposed to belong to duke Gae of Ts'e or his times, but Choo He considers their date uncertain.

[v.] Of the time of king EOS 7)... ... „ 893—878. One piece, the Pih chow of Part I., Book iii., assigned

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

sih tsuh of Part 1. Boolis,"

to the time of duke K‘ing of Wei ; but Choo He would place it later in the time of king P'ing.

[vi.] Of the time of the above king E, or of king Le

Four pieces, all those of Part I., Book xiii., but Choo considers them to be of uncertain date :-the Kaou k'ew, the Soo kwan, the Sih yew ch'ang ts'oo, and the Fei fung.

[vii.] Of the time of king Le ... ... ... In all, eleven pieces, viz.

Two in Part I., Book xii.:—the Yuen kíen, and the Tung mun che fun. Choo considers both these as of uncertain date.

Four pieces in Part II. :—the Shih yueh che keaou (correctly assigned by Choo to the time of king Yew), and the Yu woo ching (Choo would also assign a later date to this), in Book iv.; the Seaou min, and the 'Seaou yuen, both considered by Choo to be of uncertain date, in Book v.

Five pieces in Part III. :—the Min laou, and the Pan, of Book ii.; the Tang, the Yih (correctly assigned by Choo to the time of king P'ing); and the Sang yew of Book iii.

(viii.] Of the period Kung-ho... One piece, the Sih tsuh of Part I., Book x., but Choo considers the date to be uncertain.

[ix.] Of the time of king Seuen ... ... Twenty-five pieces, viz.

In Part I., five pieces :the Pih chow of Book iv. ; the Keu lin of Book xi. (according to Choo uncertain); and the Hằng Mûn, the Tung mun che ch'e, and the Tung mun che yang, of Book xii., all according to Choo uncertain.

In Part II., fourteen pieces, viz.

In Book iii., the Luh yueh, the Ts'ae k'e, the Keu kung, the Keih jih, the Hung yen, the Tsing leaou (according to Choo uncertain), the Meen shnuy (acc. to Choo uncertain), and the Hoh ming (acc. to Choo uncertain); in Book iv., the Ke foo, the Pih keu, the Hwang neaou, the Go hằng k'e yay, the Sze kan, and the Woo yang, all according to Choo of uncertain date.

In Part III., six pieces, viz.

The Yun han, the Sung kaou, the Ching min, the Han yih, the Keang han, and the Chang noo, all in Book iii., and all admitted by Choo but the Han yih, of which he considers the date uncertain. [x.] Of the time of king Yew

... In all forty-two pieces, viz.

Of Part II. 40 pieces :-in Book iv., the Treeh nan shan, and the Ching yueh (Choo considers the date of this uncertain, but there is some internal evidence for

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« הקודםהמשך »