| | 儒增: |
儒書稱：「堯、舜之德，至優至大，天下太平，一人不刑。」又言：「文、武之隆，遺在成、康，刑錯不用四十餘年。」是欲稱堯、舜，襃文、武也。 |
| | The Confucian texts state: "The virtue of Yao and Shun was most excellent and great; the world enjoyed peace, and not a single person was punished." It is also said: "The prosperity of Wen and Wu was passed on to Cheng and Kang, during whose reigns punishments were left unused for more than forty years." This is an attempt to praise Yao and Shun and commend Wen and Wu.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫為言不益，則美不足稱；為文不渥，則事不足襃。堯、舜雖優，不能使一人不刑；文、武雖盛，不能使刑不用。言其犯刑者少，用刑希䟽，可也；言其一人不刑，刑錯不用，增之也。 |
| | If a statement does not add value, then the excellence is insufficient to be praised; if a writing lacks depth, then the matter is insufficient to be commended. Although Yao and Shun were virtuous, they could not prevent even one person from being punished; although Wen and Wu were flourishing, they could not ensure that punishments would go unused. To say that those who committed crimes were few and that punishment was rarely used is acceptable; to claim that not a single person was punished or that punishments were left unused is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫能使一人不刑，則能使一國不伐；能使刑錯不用，則能使兵寢不施。案堯伐丹水，舜征有苖，四子服罪，刑兵設用。成王之時，四國篡畔，淮夷、徐戎，並為患害。夫刑人用刀，伐人用兵，罪人用法，誅人用武。武、法不殊，兵、刀不異，巧論之人，不能別也。夫德劣故用兵，犯法故施刑。刑與兵，猶足與翼也。走用足，飛用翼，形體雖異，其行身同。刑之與兵，全眾禁邪，其實一也。稱兵之不用，言刑之不施，是猶人耳缺目完，以目完稱人體全，不可從也。人桀於刺虎，怯於擊人，而以刺虎稱，謂之勇，不可聽也。身無敗缺，勇無不進，乃為全耳。今稱「一人不刑」，不言一兵不用；襃「刑錯不用」，不言一人不畔，未得為優，未可謂盛也。 |
| | If one could prevent even a single person from being punished, then one could prevent the entire country from waging war; if one could ensure that punishments went unused, then one could ensure that military forces remained inactive and not deployed. According to records, Yao attacked Dan Shui, and Shun campaigned against You Miao; the Four Sons submitted after committing crimes, and punishments as well as military forces were employed. During the reign of King Cheng, four states committed rebellion; Huaiyi and Xu Rong also became sources of trouble and harm. Punishing people involves the use of knives, attacking others requires military force, dealing with criminals entails applying laws, and executing people demands the use of martial power. Martial power and law are not different; military force and knives are no distinct — clever debaters cannot distinguish between them. Virtue is lacking, hence the use of military force; laws are violated, therefore punishments are applied. Punishments and military forces are like feet and wings. Walking uses the feet, flying uses the wings; although their forms differ, their function in enabling movement is the same. Punishments and military force both serve to protect the people and restrain wrongdoing — essentially they are one. To claim that military force is not used and that punishments are not applied is like saying a person with an intact eye but missing an ear has a complete body — such reasoning cannot be accepted. A person who is fierce in stabbing tigers but timid when confronting people, yet is called brave for stabbing tigers — such a claim cannot be believed. Only if one's body has no flaws and one's bravery knows no retreat can one truly be considered complete. Now, when it is claimed that "not a single person was punished," there is no mention of not using even a single soldier; to praise the idea that "punishments were left unused," yet make no mention of not having a single person rebel — this does not qualify as excellence, nor can it be called prosperity.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書稱：「楚養由基善射，射一楊葉，百發能百中之。」是稱其巧於射也。 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "Chu Yang Youji was skilled in archery; shooting at a single elm leaf, he could hit the target with every one of a hundred shots." This is to praise his skill in archery.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言其時射一楊葉中之，可也；言其百發而百中，增之也。 |
| | To say that at the time he shot and hit a single elm leaf is acceptable; to claim that with every one of a hundred arrows he hit the target is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫一楊葉，射而中之，中之一再，行敗穿不可復射矣。如就葉懸於樹而射之，雖不欲射葉，楊葉繁茂，自中之矣。是必使上取楊葉，一一更置地而射之也。射之數十行，足以見巧，觀其射之者亦皆知射工，亦必不至於百，明矣。 |
| | A single elm leaf, once shot and hit, if struck one or two more times, would be torn and broken — it could no longer be used for shooting. If the leaf were still attached to the tree and one shot at it, even if one did not intend to hit that particular leaf, given how many elm leaves are present, hitting it by chance would naturally occur. This must mean that someone took the elm leaves one by one and placed them on the ground for shooting at each in turn. Shooting dozens of times would be sufficient to demonstrate skill; those who observe the shooting can also recognize a skilled archer, but it is clear that one could not possibly hit every single shot out of a hundred.
|
| | 儒增: |
言事者好增巧美，數十中之，則言其百中矣。百與千，數之大者也。實欲言「十」則言「百」，「百」則言「千」矣。是與《書》言「協和萬邦」，《詩》曰「子孫千億」，同一意也。 |
| | Those who speak about events tend to exaggerate skill and beauty; if one hits the target dozens of times, they will say that every single shot out of a hundred was successful. One hundred and one thousand are large numbers. If the actual number is "ten," they say "a hundred"; if it is "a hundred," they say "a thousand." This is the same as in the Book of Documents, which says "harmonizing all the vassal states," and the Book of Songs, which says "descendants numbering ten thousand myriad" — they share the same meaning.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書言：「衛有忠臣弘演，為衛哀公使，未還，狄人攻哀公而殺之，盡食其肉，獨捨其肝。弘演使還，致命於肝。痛哀公之死，身肉盡，肝無所附，引力自刳其腹，盡出其腹實，乃內哀公之肝而死。」言此者，欲稱其忠矣。 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "Wei had a loyal minister named Hongyan, who was on a mission for Duke Ai of Wei. Before he returned, the Di people attacked and killed Duke Ai, eating all his flesh except for his liver." When Hongyan returned from his mission, he delivered his message to the liver. Grieving over Duke Ai's death, since the body had been eaten and only the liver remained without anything to attach it to, Hongyan tore open his own abdomen with force, removed all its contents, and placed Duke Ai's liver inside before dying." Those who speak of this event intend to praise his loyalty.
|
| | 儒增: |
言其自刳、內哀公之肝而死，可也；言盡出其腹實乃內哀公之肝，增之也。 |
| | To say that he cut open himself, placed Duke Ai's liver inside him, and died is acceptable; to claim that he first removed all the contents of his abdomen before placing Duke Ai's liver in it is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
人以刃相刺，中五藏輒死。何則？五藏、氣之主也，猶頭，脈之湊也。頭一斷，手不能取他人之頭著之於頸，奈何獨能先出其腹實，乃內哀公之肝？腹實出，輒死，則手不能復把矣。如先內哀公之肝，乃出其腹實，則文當言「內哀公之肝、出其腹實」。今先言「盡出其腹實、內哀公之肝」，又言「盡」，增其實也。 |
| | When a person is stabbed with a blade, if the wound reaches one of the five internal organs, they die immediately. Why? The five internal organs are the masters of vital energy, just as the head is the convergence point of meridians. If a person's head is severed, their hands cannot take another person's head and place it on the neck — how then could Hongyan alone first remove all the contents of his own abdomen before inserting Duke Ai's liver? Once the abdominal organs are removed, a person would die immediately — their hands could no longer move. If he had first placed Duke Ai's liver in his abdomen and then removed its contents, the text should have said "he inserted Duke Ai's liver and then took out his abdominal organs." Now, the text first says "he removed all of his abdominal contents and then inserted Duke Ai's liver," and also uses the word "all" — this exaggerates the facts.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書言：「楚熊渠子出，見寢石，以為伏虎，將弓射之，矢沒其衛。」或曰：「養由基見寢石，以為兕也，射之，矢飲羽。」或言「李廣」。便是熊渠、養由基、李廣主名不審，無實也。或以為「虎」，或以為「兕」，兕、虎俱猛，一實也。或言「沒衛」，或言「飲羽」，羽則衛，言不同耳。要取以寢石似虎、兕，畏懼加精，射之入深也。 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "Chu Xiongqiu Zi went out and saw a stone lying on the ground, mistaking it for a crouching tiger. He drew his bow to shoot at it, and the arrow was completely embedded in the stone." Some say: "Yang Youji saw a lying stone, mistook it for an si (a kind of wild ox), shot at it, and the arrow's feathers were submerged in the stone." Others mention "Li Guang." This indicates that the names Xiongqu, Yang Youji, and Li Guang are not clearly established — there is no factual basis for them. Some say it was a "tiger," others an "si"; both tiger and si are fierce beasts — they are essentially the same. Some say the arrow "was embedded in the stone," others that it was "submerged to its feathers"; the feather is part of the fletching — they are just different ways of expressing the same thing. The key point is that, seeing a stone resembling a tiger or an si and feeling fear, they concentrated their strength and shot with such force that the arrow went deeply embedded.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言以寢石為虎，射之矢入，可也；言其沒衛，增之也。 |
| | To say that mistaking a lying stone for a tiger and shooting it caused an arrow to penetrate is acceptable; to claim the arrow was embedded in the stone up to its fletching is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫見似虎者，意以為是，張弓射之，盛精加意，則其見，真虎與是無異。射似虎之石，矢入沒衛，若射真虎之身，矢洞度乎？石之質難射，肉易射也。以射難沒衛言之，則其射易者洞，不疑矣。善射者能射遠中微，不失毫釐，安能使弓弩更多力乎？養由基從軍，射晉侯中其目。夫以疋夫射萬乘之主，其加精倍力，必與射寢石等。當中晉侯之目也，可復洞達於項乎？如洞達於項，晉侯宜死。 |
| | When one sees something that resembles a tiger, believes it to be real, draws the bow and shoots with focused strength and intent, then in effect, whether it is a true tiger or not makes no difference. If one shoots at a stone that resembles a tiger and the arrow penetrates to its fletching, would it not go through a real tiger's body completely? Stones are hard to pierce with arrows; flesh is easy to shoot through. If one claims the arrow barely penetrated a difficult target like stone, then it would certainly pass completely through an easier target — there is no doubt about that. A skilled archer can shoot far and hit small targets, not missing by even a hair's breadth — how could they possibly make the bow or crossbow exert more force? Yang Youji once served in the army and shot Duke Jin, hitting him in the eye. For an ordinary man to shoot at a ruler of ten thousand chariots, he would certainly concentrate his strength and effort just as intensely as when shooting the lying stone. If he shot an arrow that hit Duke Jin in the eye, could it have also pierced through to his neck? If the arrow had pierced all the way through to the neck, Duke Jin should have died.
|
| | 儒增: |
車張十石之弩，恐不能入一寸，失摧為三，況以一人之力，引微弱之弓，雖加精誠，安能沒衛？人之精乃氣也，氣乃力也。有水火之難，惶惑恐懼，舉徙器物，精誠至矣，素舉一石者，倍舉二石。然則，見伏石射之，精誠倍故，不過入一寸，如何謂之沒衛乎？如有好用劍者，見寢石，懼而斫之，可復謂能斷石乎？以勇夫空拳而暴虎者，卒然見寢石，以手椎之，能令石有跡乎？ |
| | Even a chariot-mounted crossbow capable of drawing ten dan (a unit of force) might not penetrate even an inch, and the arrow would likely break into three pieces — how then could one person, using only a weak bow, manage to embed an arrow up to its fletching in stone, no matter how focused or sincere they were? A person's spirit is vital energy; vital energy is strength. In times of water or fire disasters, when one is frightened and confused, lifting and moving objects becomes possible — their spirit and sincerity reach an extraordinary level; someone who normally lifts a single dan (unit of weight) can now lift two. If this is the case, then when one sees a crouching stone and shoots at it with doubled sincerity and effort, the arrow might penetrate no more than an inch — how can that be called "embedded up to its fletchings"? If there is a swordsman who sees a lying stone, becomes frightened, and strikes it out of fear — can that be said to mean he has the ability to cut through stone? If a brave man, with bare hands and no weapons, suddenly sees a lying stone and strikes it with his fists — could he leave any mark on the stone?
|
| | 儒增: |
巧人之精，與拙人等；古人之誠，與今人同。使當今射工，射禽獸於野，其欲得之，不餘精力乎，及其中獸，不過數寸。跌誤中石，不能內鋒，箭摧折矣。夫如是，儒書之言楚熊渠子、養由基、李廣射寢石，矢沒衛飲羽者，皆增之也。 |
| | The skill of an expert is equal to that of an ordinary person; the sincerity of ancient people is the same as that of modern people. If a skilled archer today were to shoot at birds and beasts in the wild, would they not exert all their energy and effort? Even when hitting an animal, the arrow could penetrate no more than several cun (a traditional unit of length). If they missed and struck a stone by mistake, the tip would not penetrate — the arrow would break. Given this, what the Confucian texts say about Chu Xiongqu Zi, Yang Youji, and Li Gang shooting at lying stones with arrows embedded up to their fletchings — all of these are exaggerations.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書稱：「魯般、墨子之巧，刻木為鳶，飛之三日而不集。」 |
| | The Confucian texts claim: "Lu Ban and Mozi were so skillful that they carved wooden kites, which flew for three days without landing."
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言其以木為鳶飛之，可也；言其三日不集，增之也。 |
| | To say that they made a kite from wood and flew it is acceptable; to claim it did not land for three days is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫刻木為鳶，以象鳶形，安能飛而不集乎？既能飛翔，安能至於三日？如審有機關，一飛遂翔，不可復下，則當言「遂飛」，不當言「三日」。 |
| | To carve wood into a kite resembling the shape of a real kite — how could it possibly fly without landing? Even if it were able to take flight, how could it remain aloft for three entire days? If there were indeed a mechanism that allowed the kite to take flight and soar continuously without descending, then it should have been said "it flew away permanently," not "for three days."
|
| | 儒增: |
猶世傳言曰：「魯般巧，亡其母也。」言巧工，為母作木車馬，木人御者，機關備具，載母其上，一驅不還，遂失其母。如木鳶機關備具，與木車馬等，則遂飛不集。機關為須臾間，不能遠過三日，則木車等亦宜三日止於道路，無為徑去以失其母。二者必失實者矣。 |
| | This is similar to the commonly circulated saying: "Lu Ban was so skillful, he lost his mother." It is said that a skillful craftsman made wooden carriages and horses, as well as a wooden figure to serve as the driver, with all mechanisms complete. He placed his mother on it; once driven forward, it did not return, so he lost sight of his mother. If the wooden kite had mechanisms as complete as those in the wooden carriage and horses, then it would fly away permanently without landing. Since the mechanisms can only function for a short time and cannot last more than three days, then the wooden carriage should also have stopped on the road after three days — it would not have gone straight away to cause him to lose his mother. One of these two accounts must be untrue.
|
| | 儒增: |
書說：「孔子不能容於世，周流游說七十餘國，未嘗得安。」 |
| | The texts say: "Confucius could not find acceptance in the world; he traveled and advocated his ideas among more than seventy states, never finding peace."
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言周流不遇，可也；言干七十國，增之也。 |
| | To say that he traveled widely without meeting success is acceptable; to claim he visited seventy states is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
案《論語》之篇，諸子之書，孔子自衛反魯，在陳絕糧，削迹於衛，忘味於齊，伐樹於宋，并費與頓牟，至不能十國。傳言七十國，非其實也。 |
| | According to the Analects and other writings of the various schools, Confucius returned from Wei to Lu; he was stranded without food in Chen; left no trace in Wei; forgot his taste for music in Qi; had trees cut down in Song; and passed through Fei and Dunmou — altogether, these do not amount to ten states. The claim that he visited seventy states is not factual.
|
| | 儒增: |
或時干十數國也，七十之說，文書傳之，因言干七十國矣。 |
| | At times, he may have visited a dozen or so states; the story of seventy states was passed down in written records and thus became the claim that he had visited seventy.
|
| | 儒增: |
《論語》曰：「孔子問公叔文子於公明賈曰：『信乎，夫子不言、不笑、不取乎？』公明賈對曰：『以告者過也。夫子時然後言，人不厭其言也；樂然後笑，人不厭其笑也；義然後取，人不厭其取也。』子曰：『豈其然乎？豈其然乎？』」 |
| | The Analects says: "Confucius asked Gongming Jia about Gongsu Wenzhi, saying, 'Is it true that the gentleman never speaks, never smiles, and takes nothing?' " Gongming Jia replied: "Those who told you this have exaggerated. The gentleman speaks only when appropriate, and people do not dislike his words; he smiles only after feeling joy, and people do not find his smile annoying; he takes something only when it is justified, and people do not resent what he takes." Confucius said: "Could that really be the case? Could that really be so?" "
|
| | 儒增: |
夫公叔文子實時言、時笑、義取，人傳說稱之，言其不言、不笑、不取也，俗言竟增之也。 |
| | Gongsu Wenzhi indeed spoke at the right time, smiled when appropriate, and took only what was justified. Yet people passed down stories describing him as one who never spoke, never smiled, and took nothing — this is a popular exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
書言：「秦繆公伐鄭，過晉不假途，晉襄公率羗戎要擊於崤塞之下，疋馬隻輪無反者。」 |
| | The records state: "King Mu of Qin attacked Zheng, passing through Jin without seeking permission. Duke Xiang of Jin led the Qiang and Rong tribes to ambush them at Xiaoguan Pass; not a single horse or wheel returned."
|
| | 儒增: |
時秦遣三大夫孟明視、西乞術、白乙丙，皆得復還。夫三大夫復還，車馬必有歸者，文言「疋馬隻輪無反者」，增其實也。 |
| | At that time, Qin had sent three high officials — Mengming Shi, Xiqi Shu, and Baiyi Bing — who all managed to return safely. Since the three high officials returned, there must have been carriages and horses that came back. The statement "not a single horse or wheel returned" exaggerates the facts.
|
| | 儒增: |
書稱：「齊之孟嘗，魏之信陵，趙之平原，楚之春申君，待士下客，招會四方，各三千人。」欲言下士之至，趨之者眾也。 |
| | The records state: "Mengchang of Qi, Xinling of Wei, Pingyuan of Zhao, and Chunshen Jun of Chu treated scholars with courtesy, welcomed guests from all directions, and each had three thousand followers." This is meant to emphasize how highly they valued scholars, and thus many people flocked to them.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言士多，可也；言其三千，增之也。 |
| | To say that there were many scholars was acceptable; to claim exactly three thousand, however, is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
四君雖好士，士至雖眾，不過各千餘人，書則言三千矣。夫言眾必言千數，言少則言無一，世俗之情，言事之失也。 |
| | Although these four lords were fond of scholars and many indeed came to them, the number could not have exceeded a thousand or so for each. Yet the records claim three thousand each. When people speak of large numbers, they always say "thousands"; when speaking of few, they claim "not a single one." This is the sentiment of common folk and an inaccuracy in describing events.
|
| | 儒增: |
《傳》記言：「高子羔之喪親，泣血，三年未嘗見齒，君子以為難。」難為故也。 |
| | The Chronicles record: "When Gaozigao mourned his parents, he wept blood and for three years did not show his teeth. The gentlemen considered this difficult." This is an exaggerated account.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫不以為非實，而以為難，君子之言誤矣。 |
| | Not recognizing this as false, but instead regarding it as difficult — the words of the gentlemen are mistaken.
|
| | 儒增: |
高子泣血，殆必有之。何則？荊和獻寶於楚，楚刖其足，痛寶不進，己情不達，泣涕，涕盡因續以血。今高子痛親，哀極涕竭，血隨而出，實也。而云「三年未嘗見齒」，是增之也。 |
| | It is likely that Gaozi did weep blood. Why? When Jing He presented a treasure to the State of Chu, he had his feet amputated. Grieved that the treasure was not accepted and unable to convey his feelings, he wept tears until they ran dry, then continued with blood. Now, Gaozi mourned for his parents intensely; when his sorrow reached its peak and tears dried up, blood followed — this is factual. To say "for three years he never showed his teeth" is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
言「未嘗見齒」，欲言其不言不笑也。孝子喪親，不笑可也，安得不言？言安得不見齒？孔子曰：「言不文。」或時不言，《傳》則言其不見齒；或時，《傳》則言其不見齒三年矣。 |
| | Claiming that "he never showed his teeth" implies the intention to say that he neither spoke nor smiled. A filial son mourning a parent may refrain from smiling, but how could he remain entirely silent? How then could one never show his teeth? Confucius said: "Speech should not be ornate." At times, one may remain silent; yet the Chronicles claim he never showed his teeth; or at certain moments — the Chronicles say that for three years, he never showed his teeth.
|
| | 儒增: |
高宗諒陰，三年不言。尊為天子不言，而其文言「不言」，猶疑於增，況高子位賤，而曰「未嘗見齒」，是必增益之也。 |
| | Gaozong observed a period of mourning in seclusion and did not speak for three years. Even though a Son of Heaven, Gaozong's silence is recorded as "not speaking," and there is still doubt about whether it was exaggerated. How much more so for Gaozi, who held a low position — to say he "never showed his teeth" must certainly be an embellishment.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書言：「禽息薦百里奚，繆公未聽，禽息出當門，仆頭碎首而死。繆公痛之，乃用百里奚。」此言賢者薦善，不愛其死，仆頭碎首而死，以達其友也。世士相激，文書傳稱之，莫謂不然。 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "Qin Xi recommended Bailing Xi to King Mu, but the king did not listen. Qin Xi then went out and threw himself down at the gate, smashing his head and dying." King Mu was moved by this and thus employed Bailing Xi." This statement suggests that a virtuous person, when recommending the worthy, does not cherish his own life; he dashes his head to pieces and dies in order to convey his friend's cause. Scholars of the world inspire one another, and written records praise such actions; no one would say otherwise.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫仆頭以薦善，古今有之。禽息仆頭，蓋其實也；言碎首而死，是增之也。 |
| | Indeed, there have been cases in ancient and modern times where people sacrificed their lives to recommend the worthy. Qin Xi dashing his head was likely true; to say that he smashed his head and died is an exaggeration.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫人之扣頭，痛者血流，雖忿恨惶恐，無碎首者。非首不可碎，人力不能自碎也。執刃刎頸，樹鋒刺胸，鋒刃之助，故手足得成勢也。言禽息舉椎自擊，首碎，不足怪也；仆頭碎首，力不能自將也。有扣頭而死者，未有使頭破首碎者也。 |
| | When a person 磕头, the injured may bleed; even if they are furious or terrified, no one's head is smashed. The head cannot be shattered by itself — human strength alone cannot cause such an injury. Holding a blade to cut one's throat, or thrusting a sharp point into the chest — with the aid of weapons, hands and feet can exert force. To say that Qin Xi raised a mallet to strike himself until his head was shattered is not extraordinary; to dash one's head and smash it — this could not be done by force alone. There are cases of people dying from 磕头, but there is no case where the head was broken and the skull shattered in this way.
|
| | 儒增: |
此時或扣頭薦百里奚，世空言其死；若或扣頭而死，世空言其首碎也。 |
| | At that time, he may have 磕头 to recommend Bailing Xi; yet the world speaks idly of his death; if he did die from 磕头, then the world falsely claims that his head was shattered.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書言：「荊軻為燕太子刺秦王，操匕首之劍，刺之不得。秦王拔劍擊之。軻以匕首擿秦王，不中，中銅柱，入尺。」欲言匕首之利，荊軻勢盛，投銳利之刃陷堅彊之柱，稱荊軻之勇，故增益其事也。 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "Jing Ke, acting for Prince Dan of Yan, attempted to assassinate the King of Qin. He wielded a dagger and tried to stab him but failed." The King of Qin drew his sword and struck him. Jing Ke used the dagger to strike at the King of Qin, but missed; instead he hit a bronze pillar and the blade went in a foot deep." This is meant to highlight the sharpness of the dagger and Jing Ke's strength — that a keen blade could pierce such a strong pillar. To praise Jing Ke's bravery, they have exaggerated the event.
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言入銅柱，實也；言其入尺，增之也。 |
| | To say it pierced the bronze pillar is factual;
|
| | 儒增: |
夫銅雖不若匕首堅剛，入之不過數寸，殆不能入尺。以入尺言之，設中秦王，匕首洞過乎？車張十石之弩，射垣木之表，尚不能入尺。以荊軻之手力，投輕小之匕首，身被龍淵之劍刃，入堅剛之銅柱，是荊軻之力，勁於十石之弩，銅柱之堅，不若木表之剛也。 |
| | Although bronze is not as hard and strong as the dagger's blade, it could only penetrate a few inches — it likely did not go in a full foot. If one claims that the dagger went in a whole foot into the bronze pillar, then if it had struck the King of Qin directly, would not the dagger have pierced through him? A crossbow drawing ten dan of force shooting at a wooden target can barely penetrate an inch. With Jing Ke's manual strength, throwing a light and small dagger, while his body was struck by the sharp blade of Longyuan sword — for the dagger to pierce into such hard bronze pillar implies that Jing Ke's strength surpassed that of a ten-dan crossbow, and the hardness of the bronze column is less than that of wooden targets.
|
| | 儒增: |
世稱荊軻之勇，不言其多力。多力之人，莫若孟賁。使孟賁擿銅柱，能淵出一尺乎？此亦或時匕首利若干將、莫邪，所刺無前，所擊無下，故有入尺之效。夫稱干將、莫邪，亦過其實。刺擊無前、下，亦入銅柱尺之類也。 |
| | The world praises Jing Ke's bravery but does not claim he was especially strong. Among those known for great strength, none surpass Meng Ben. If Meng Ben were to strike the bronze pillar, could he drive a dagger in one foot? This may also be because the dagger was as sharp as Ganjiang or Mo Ye, blades so keen that nothing could resist them — hence the effect of penetrating a foot. To describe Ganjiang and Mo Ye in such terms is also an exaggeration beyond reality. The claim that nothing could resist their strikes or withstand them is of the same kind as saying a dagger pierced a bronze pillar a foot deep.
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書言：「董仲舒讀《春秋》，專精一思，志不在他，三年不窺園菜。」 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "Dong Zhongshu read the Spring and Autumn Annals with complete concentration, devoting his mind entirely to it; his thoughts were not on anything else. For three years, he did not look into the vegetable garden."
|
| | 儒增: |
夫言不窺園菜，實也；言三年，增之也。 |
| | To say that he did not glance at the vegetable garden is factual; to claim it was for three years, however, is an exaggeration. ✅
|
| | 儒增: |
仲舒雖精，亦時解休，解休之間，猶宜游於門庭之側，則能至門庭，何嫌不窺園菜？聞用精者，察物不見，存道以亡身，不聞不至門庭，坐思三年，不及窺園也。 |
| | Although Dong Zhongshu was deeply focused, he must have occasionally taken breaks. During these intervals, it would still be appropriate for him to walk about near the courtyard; if he could reach the courtyard, why should there be any objection to his looking into the vegetable garden? It is said that those who concentrate intensely may become so absorbed in their studies that they fail to notice the world around them, but I have never heard of anyone who did not even go near the courtyard for three years while sitting and thinking, and thus failed to look into the vegetable garden.
|
| | 儒增: |
《尚書毋佚》曰：「君子所其毋逸，先知稼穡之艱難，乃佚。」者也。人之䈥骨，非木非石，不能不解。故張而不弛，文王不為；弛而不張，文王不行；一弛一張，文王以為常。聖人材優，尚有弛張之時，仲舒材力劣於聖，安能用精三年不休？ |
| | The Shangshu Wuyi says: "A gentleman should not indulge in idleness; he must first understand the hardships of farming and harvesting, then may he rest." This is so. Human bones are neither wood nor stone; they cannot remain tense without relaxation. Therefore, to be taut but never relaxed — King Wen would not do such a thing; to relax without ever being tense — King Wen would not act in this way either; To alternate between relaxation and tension, that was the norm according to King Wen. Even a sage of superior talent still had times for relaxation and exertion; Dong Zhongshu, whose abilities were inferior to those of the sages, how could he possibly concentrate intensely for three years without rest?
|
| | 儒增: |
儒書言：「夏之方盛也，遠方圖物，貢金九牧，鑄鼎象物，而為之備，故入山澤，不逢惡物，用辟神姦，故能叶于上下，以承天休。」 |
| | The Confucian texts say: "When the Xia dynasty was at its height, distant lands sent tribute of rare objects and gold from nine regions. They cast a great tripod to represent these things as warnings against dangers; thus, when people entered mountains or marshes, they did not encounter harmful creatures. This served to ward off divine evils, enabling harmony between heaven and earth and receiving heavenly blessings."
|
| | 儒增: |
夫金之性，物也，用遠方貢之為美，鑄以為鼎，用象百物之奇，安能入山澤不逢惡物，辟除神姦乎？ |
| | Metal is a material; using tribute from distant lands to create beauty, casting it into tripods to represent the wonders of myriad things — how could this possibly ensure that one would not encounter harmful creatures in mountains and marshes or ward off divine evils?
|
| | 儒增: |
周時天下太平，越裳獻白雉，倭人貢鬯草。食白雉，服鬯草，不能除凶，金鼎之器，安能辟姦？且九鼎之來，德盛之瑞也。服瑞應之物，不能致福。男子服玉，女子服珠，珠、玉於人，無能辟除，寶奇之物，使為蘭服，作牙身，或言有益者，九鼎之語也。夫九鼎無能辟除，《傳》言能辟神姦，是則書增其文也。 |
| | During the Zhou dynasty, when peace prevailed throughout the world, Yueshang presented white pheasants and the people of Wa (Japan) offered fragrant grass. Eating white pheasants or wearing fragrant grass could not eliminate misfortune; how then could a bronze tripod ward off evil? Moreover, the arrival of the Nine Tripods was an omen of great virtue. Wearing objects associated with auspicious omens cannot bring blessings. Men wear jade, women wear pearls. Yet neither jade nor pearls can ward off harm from people. Treating rare treasures as ornaments for the body — those who claim they are beneficial do so in reference to the Nine Tripods. The Nine Tripods had no power to ward off evils; yet the Chronicles say they could repel divine evils — this is an embellishment in the text.
|
| | 儒增: |
世俗《傳》言：「周鼎不爨自沸，不投物，物自出。」此則世俗增其言也，儒書增其文也，是使九鼎以無怪空為神也。 |
| | Popular tradition says: "The Zhou dynasty tripods boiled without being heated and produced things without anything being placed inside — objects emerged by themselves." This is an exaggeration by the common people and embellishment by Confucian texts, making the Nine Tripods appear miraculous when they are in fact ordinary objects.
|
| | 儒增: |
且夫謂周之鼎神者，何用審之？周鼎之金，遠方所貢，禹得鑄以為鼎也。其為鼎也，有百物之象。如為遠方貢之為神乎？遠方之物安能神？如以為禹鑄之為神乎？禹聖，不能神。聖人身不能神，鑄器安能神？如以金之物為神乎？則夫金者、石之類也，石不能神，金安能神？以有百物之象為神乎？夫百物之象，猶雷罇也，雷罇刻畫雲雷之形，雲雷在天，神於百物，雲雷之象不能神，百物之象安能神也？ |
| | Moreover, how can one determine that the tripods of the Zhou dynasty were divine? The bronze used for the Zhou tripods was tribute from distant lands; Yu obtained it and cast them into tripods. These tripods bore images of a hundred kinds of things. If the tribute from distant lands was considered divine, then what is it about them? How could objects from distant lands be divine? Or is it because Yu cast them that they are considered divine? Yu was a sage, but he could not make things divine. A sage's body cannot be divine; how then can the objects he cast be divine? Or is it that the bronze itself was considered divine? Bronze is a type of stone; if stones cannot be divine, how can bronze be divine? Is it because they bore images of a hundred things that they were considered divine? The images of a hundred things on the tripods are like those on the Lei Zun, which is carved with patterns of thunder and clouds. Thunder and clouds exist in the sky; they are more divine than any of the hundred objects. Yet the images of thunder and clouds cannot be considered divine — how then can images of other objects be divine?
|
| | 儒增: |
《傳》言：「秦滅周，周之九鼎入于秦。」案本事，周赧王之時，秦昭王使將軍摎攻王𧹞。王𧹞惶懼犇秦，頓首受罪，盡獻其邑三十六，口三萬。秦受其獻，還王𧹞。王𧹞卒，秦王取九鼎寶器矣。若此者，九鼎在秦也。 |
| | The tradition says: "When Qin destroyed Zhou, the Nine Tripods of Zhou entered into the possession of Qin." According to historical records, during the reign of King Nanwang of Zhou, King Zhao of Qin sent General Jiu to attack Wang Li. King Li was terrified and fled to Qin, kowtowed in submission, and offered all thirty-six of his fiefdoms and 30,000 households. Qin accepted the offering and returned King Li to his position. After King Li died, King of Qin took possession of the Nine Tripods and other treasures. If this is the case, then the Nine Tripods were in the hands of Qin.
|
| | 儒增: |
始皇二十八年，北遊至琅邪，還過彭城，齊戒禱祠，欲出周鼎，使千人沒泗水之中，求弗能得。案時，昭王之後，三世得始皇帝。秦無危亂之禍，鼎宜不亡，亡時殆在周。《傳》言：「王𧹞犇秦，秦取九鼎。」或時誤也。 |
| | In the twenty-eighth year of Emperor Qin Shi Huang, he traveled north to Langya and on his return passed through Pengcheng. He observed strict rituals and made offerings in hopes of retrieving the Zhou Tripod. He sent a thousand men into the Si River to search for it, but they could not find it. According to records, after King Zhao of Qin, three generations later came Emperor Qin Shi Huang. During this time, the state of Qin experienced no disasters or turmoil; therefore, the Tripod should not have been lost. If it was indeed lost, it likely happened during the Zhou dynasty. The tradition says: "King Li fled to Qin, and Qin took the Nine Tripods." This may be an error.
|
| | 儒增: |
《傳》又言：「宋太丘社亡，鼎沒水中彭城下。其後二十九年，秦并天下。」若此者，鼎未入秦也。其亡，從周去矣，未為神也。 |
| | The tradition also says: "When the Cao Taiqiu altar was destroyed, the Tripod sank into the water beneath Pengcheng." Twenty-nine years later, Qin unified all under heaven. If this is the case, the Tripod had not yet entered into the hands of Qin. Its loss occurred when it left Zhou; it was never truly divine.
|
| | 儒增: |
春秋之時，五石隕于宋。五石者、星也。星之去天，猶鼎之亡於地也。星去天不為神，鼎亡於地何能神？春秋之時，三山亡，猶太丘社之去宋，五星之去天。三山亡，五石隕，太丘社去，皆自有為。然鼎亡，亡亦有應也，未可以亡之故，乃謂之神。如鼎與秦三山同乎？亡不能神。如有知，欲辟危亂之禍乎？則更桀、紂之時矣。衰亂無道，莫過桀、紂，桀、紂之時，鼎不亡去。周之衰亂，未若桀、紂，留無道之桀、紂，去衰末之周，非止去之宜神有知之驗也。或時周亡之時，將軍摎人眾見鼎盜取，姦人鑄爍以為他器，始皇求不得也。後因言有神名，則空生沒於泗水之語矣。 |
| | During the Spring and Autumn period, five stones fell in Song. The five stones were meteors — stars from the sky. Stars falling from the heavens are like tripods lost on earth. If stars falling from heaven are not divine, how can a tripod lost on earth be considered divine? During the Spring and Autumn period, three mountains disappeared — just as the Taiqiu altar left Song and five stars fell from heaven. The disappearance of the three mountains, the falling of the five stones, and the loss of the Taiqiu altar all had their own causes. Nevertheless, the loss of a tripod also has its corresponding cause; one cannot claim it to be divine merely because it was lost. Is the Tripod comparable to the three mountains that disappeared in Qin? Its loss does not make it divine. If one is wise, would they wish to avoid disasters and turmoil? Then it would be the time of Jie and Zhou. No rulers were more corrupt or lawless than Jie and Zhou, yet during their time the Tripod did not disappear. The decline and disorder of Zhou was not as severe as that under Jie and Zhou. The Tripod remained during the corrupt reigns of Jie and Zhou but disappeared in the waning days of Zhou — this is not evidence that its departure indicates divine wisdom or knowledge. Perhaps at the time Zhou fell, General Jiu's men saw the Tripod and stole it; later, some wicked people melted it down to make other objects — this is why Emperor Qin Shi Huang could not find it. Later, because of the mention of a divine name, people fabricated the story that it had sunk into the Si River.
|
| | 儒增: |
孝文皇帝之時，趙人新垣平上言：「周鼎亡在泗水中，今河溢通於泗水。臣望東北汾陰直有金氣，意周鼎出乎？兆見弗迎則不至。」於是文帝使使治廟汾陰南，臨河，欲祠出周鼎。人有上書告新垣平所言神器事皆詐也，於是下平事於吏，吏治，誅新垣平。夫言鼎在泗水中，猶新垣平詐言鼎有神氣見也。 |
| | During the reign of Emperor Xiaowen, Xinyuan Ping from Zhao made a report: "The Zhou Tripod is lost in the Si River; now the Yellow River has overflowed and connected with the Si River." I have observed a golden aura directly to the northeast of Fenyin — could it be that the Zhou Tripod will emerge?" "If an omen appears but is not welcomed, then it will not arrive." Thus Emperor Wen sent envoys to build a temple in the southern part of Fenyin by the river, intending to perform rituals and summon forth the Zhou Tripod. Someone submitted a written report accusing Xinyuan Ping of fabricating the story about the divine objects, and so Emperor Wen handed the matter over to officials. After investigation by the authorities, Xinyuan Ping was executed. To say that the Tripod is in the Si River is like Xinyuan Ping's false claim about a divine aura appearing from the Tripod.
|
