תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

乘之主,將廢正而立不正,陽生其以國氏何也,取國, 必殺正者,吾不立子者、所 於茶也。

以生子者也, 走矣。與之玉 之。

公死而舍立、陳使人 迎陽生于諸家,除景公之 喪.諸大夫皆在朝,陳乞日 常之母有魚菽之祭,願 諸 大夫之化我也。諸大夫皆 sing to be ruler over T'oo?

,

日諾於是皆之陳乞之家,
坐,陳日,吾所為甲,請以
示焉。諸大夫皆日諾於是
使力士舉巨囊,而
霤.諸大夫見之皆色然而
駭,開之則闖然公子陽生
也。
陳乞日,此君也已。諸大
夫不得已,皆逡巡北面再稽
首而君之爾。自是往弑舍

[blocks in formation]

Duke King said to him, "I wish to make Shay (i.y. 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 whomsoever 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 hiin." Yang-sang said to Chin 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 so, you must kill the proper heir. My not supporting you is the way I take to preserve your life. Fly.” And hereupon he gave Yang-sāng 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

The Chuen of Kuh-lëang says:-'It was Yang-sang who entered [Ts'e], and murdered his ruler;-how is it that Ch'in

Keih is represented as taking the lead in the deed?

Not to allow Yang-săng to be ruler

over Too.

Why does [the text] not allow Yang

Yang-sáng was the proper heir [of

Ts'e], and Too was not.

If Too were not the proper heir. why

he called the ruler?

Although he was not the proper heir, he had received the appointment [from his father.

"Entered" denotes that the enterer is

not received. Since Too was not the

proper heir, why use that style?

As he had received the appointment,

that style might be employed.

Why is the name of the State used as

if

it were Yang-sāng's clan-name?

He took the State from T'oo.

is

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-sáng? “This,” said Chin 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-sang] as their ruler; and from this he went and murdered Shay.’

十有三年,三章。公會晉侯及

吳子于黃池。

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,吳何以利子。 吳主會也。 吳主會, 則曷爲先言晋侯 不與夷狄之主中國也。 其言及吳子何,會兩伯之 辭也。

不與夷狄之主中國,則曷 為以會兩伯之辭言之。重 吳也。

曷為重吳吳在是,則天 下諸侯莫敢不至也。

吳 穀梁傳日,黃池之會, 子進乎哉,遂子矣。

吳, 夷狄之國也,祝髮文 身,欲因魯之禮,因晋之權。 而請冠端而襲,其籍於成 周, 以尊天王,吳進矣. 吳, 東方之大國也,累累 致小國以會諸侯,以合乎 中國,吳能為之,則不臣乎。 吳進矣,王、尊稱也,子, 卑 稱也,辭尊稱,而居卑稱 以會乎諸侯以尊天王。

The Chuen of Kung-yang says:-'Why

is [the lord of] Woo styled viscount?

Because Woo took the direction of the

meeting.

If Woo took the direction of the meet

ing, why does [the text] first mention the marquis of Tsin?

Not to allow a barbarous [State] to

take the direction of the Middle States.

before the

Woo was a barbarian State, where they cut their hair short and tattooed their bodies. [Its ruler now] wished, by means of the ceremonies of Loo and the

It serves to point out the meeting as one of two presiding chiefs.

ous [State] to take the direction of the Middle States, why does it represent the meeting as one of two presiding chiefs?

As [the text] does not allow a barbar-power of Tsin, to bring about the wearing of both cap garment. He contributed [also] of the products of the State to do honour to the king approved by Heaven. Woo is here advanced.

Because of the weight of Woo. How had Woo so much weight? Woo being there, the [other] princes of the kingdom would not dare not to come.

What is the force of

viscount of Woo?

***. NF 吳王夫差日好冠來。孔子 日,大矣哉夫差未能言冠 而欲冠也。

The Chuen of Kuh-lëang says:-'Is not the viscount of Woo advanced at this

meeting in Hwang-ch'e? Here it is that he is [styled] viscount.

Woo was the greatest State of the east. Again and again it had brought the small States to meet the feudal 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 dif ferent ranks], but he wished for a cap.

APPENDIX II.

A LETTER QUESTIONING THE CONFUCIAN AUTHORSHIP OF THE CH'UN TS'EW 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 great admirer of them, under the title of A The writer, Yuen Mei(), styled Tsze-ts'ae (F) and Keen-chae (), was a member of the Han-lin college, and died in 1797, at the age of 82. The letter was written in reply to Yeh Shoo-shan (L), also a member of the Han-liu college,

以究終始然則天王狩于河陽周襄王無故遠狩于千里

可知也而作則斷無之事尤可笑者盧仝高束三傳獨抱遺經

史公始

矣,被則

桓究知餘,子

十之何

傅易信
太絕者 者、贊
子無莫

秋方半如可至詞臣為事覺微

也偶

亂弑天斷而之

曜筆故

耶轉

經狩之加

子皆于事修
事修春之秋,
秋語有

韓載史子

公公春 宣子官.卒

矣秋子 之有

魯,人,秋

傳秋

臣而王無略國時 語魯六及 作。孔和 秋見子 孔官 子 精 非書識 我史斷駕

論自

能罪官非

夏不官作也承

肯,之春第

孔見則

羊易

像詩 肸與執

反習魯禮為

魯於春自存

魯權,秋器

論見十及 也春具庶

稱正春秋,勉亡

史意秋

君妄官終指

容我不孔助

獲也儼在子趙

然其 止,麟,且

三而 既位作

年後

中之 王謀子之

筆,居,政

所作孔子自稱述而不作

但有

答葉書山庶子

董之遺是雅秋楚則也之

狐外經未頌是語五書筆十游子史作道

'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 Chaon 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'ew was certainly not made by Confucius.

66

'Confucius spoke of himself as a transmitter and not a maker (Ana. VII. i.)." To make the Ch'un Ts'ew was the business of the historiographers. Confucius was not a historiographer, and [he said that] “he who is not in a particular office has nothing to do with plans for the administration 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 Tsëw] 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 Yew nor Hea were able to improve a single character (See the quotation fron Sze-ma Tsëen, on p. 14)." Now the stylus of Confucius ceased its labours when the lin was taken, but the Ch'un Tsew is continued after that,

which happened in [the spring of] Gae's 14th year, and only 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'ew 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'un Ts'ew.

'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'ew 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'ew (b.). 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 (Aua. 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 to. 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 Seang 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 Tsew 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 on 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. has the same opinion that I have of the serious defects of the Work,

He

« הקודםהמשך »