| | 正說: |
儒者說五經，多失其實。前儒不見本末，空生虛說；後儒信前師之言，隨舊述故，滑習辭語，苟名一師之學，趨為師教授，及時蚤仕，汲汲競進，不暇留精用心，考實根核。故虛說傳而不絕，實事沒而不見，五經並失其實。《尚書》、《春秋》事較易，略正題目麤粗之說，以照篇中微妙之文。 |
| | The Confucian scholars who expound on the Five Classics often miss their true meanings. Earlier Confucian scholars failed to see the essentials and origins, producing empty and unfounded theories; Later Confucian scholars believed in the words of their predecessors, followed old interpretations and conventional views, became fluent in rhetorical expressions, merely seeking to be recognized as disciples of a particular school of thought. They hurriedly became teachers or instructors, sought official positions at an early age, and were eager to advance rapidly, leaving no time to devote careful attention or to investigate the fundamental truths thoroughly. Therefore, empty theories have been transmitted without interruption, while factual matters have been buried and overlooked, causing all Five Classics to lose their true meanings. The "Shangshu" and the "Chunqiu" deal with matters that are relatively easier to understand; one should briefly correct superficial interpretations of their titles, in order to illuminate the subtle meanings within each passage.
|
| | 正說: |
說《尚書》者，或以為本百兩篇，後遭秦燔《詩》、《書》，遺在者二十九篇。 |
| | Those who expound on the "Shangshu" sometimes believe that it originally contained one hundred chapters, but after they were burned by the Qin dynasty along with the "Shijing" and "Shujing," only twenty-nine chapters remained.
|
| | 正說: |
夫言秦燔《詩》、《書》，是也；言本百兩篇者，妄也。蓋《尚書》本百篇，孔子以授也。遭秦用李斯之議，燔燒五經，濟南伏生抱百篇藏於山中。孝景皇帝時，始存《尚書》。伏生已出山中，景帝遣鼂錯往從受《尚書》二十餘篇。伏生老死，《書》殘不竟。鼂錯傳於倪寬。至孝宣皇帝之時，河內女子發老屋，得逸《易》、《禮》、《尚書》各一篇，奏之。宣帝下示博士，然后《易》、《禮》、《尚書》各益一篇，而《尚書》二十九篇始定矣。至孝景帝時，魯共王壞孔子教授堂以為殿，得百篇《尚書》於墻壁中。武帝使使者取視，莫能讀者，遂祕於中，外不得見。至孝成皇帝時，徵為古文《尚書》學。東海張霸案百篇之序，空造百兩之篇，獻之成帝。帝出祕百篇以校之，皆不相應，於是下霸於吏。吏白霸罪當至死。成帝高其才而不誅，亦惜其文而不滅。故百兩之篇傳在世間者，傳見之人則謂《尚書》本有百兩篇矣。 |
| | To say that the Qin burned the "Shijing" and "Shujing" is correct; to claim that it originally had one hundred chapters is false. Originally, the "Shangshu" consisted of a hundred chapters, which Confucius transmitted to his disciples. When the Qin dynasty adopted Li Si's proposal and burned the Five Classics, Fu Sheng of Jinan carried the hundred chapters and hid them in the mountains. During the reign of Emperor Xiaojing, the "Shangshu" was first preserved. After leaving the mountains, Fu Sheng was visited by Chao Cuo, whom Emperor Jing sent to study more than twenty chapters of the "Shangshu" from him. After Fu Sheng passed away in old age, the text of the "Shujing" became incomplete and was not fully preserved. Chao Cuo transmitted it to Ni Kuan. During the reign of Emperor Xiao Xuan, a woman from Hedong discovered an old house and found one lost chapter each of the "Yijing," "Liji," and "Shangshu," which she presented to the court. Emperor Xuan showed these texts to the doctoral scholars, and only then was one additional chapter added to each of the "Yijing," "Liji," and "Shangshu." Thus, the twenty-nine chapters of the "Shangshu" were finally established. During the reign of Emperor Xiaojing (Emperor Jing), when Duke Gongwang of Lu destroyed Confucius's lecture hall to build a palace, he discovered one hundred chapters of the "Shangshu" hidden within the walls. Emperor Wu sent envoys to retrieve and examine them, but no one could read them; thus they were kept secret in the imperial archives and not made available outside. During the reign of Emperor Xiangcheng, these texts were officially recognized as part of the ancient script version of the "Shangshu" school. Zhang Ba of Donghai arranged the order of the hundred chapters, fabricated a total of two hundred chapters from nothing, and presented them to Emperor Cheng. The emperor retrieved the secret collection of the original hundred chapters to compare with Zhang Ba's work, but they did not correspond at all. As a result, he was handed over to officials for punishment. The officials reported that Zhang Ba's crime should be punishable by death. Emperor Cheng admired his talent and did not execute him, but also regretted the loss of his writings and did not destroy them. Therefore, those two hundred fabricated chapters circulated in the world, and people who saw these texts came to believe that the "Shangshu" originally had two hundred chapters.
|
| | 正說: |
或言秦燔《詩》、《書》者，燔《詩經》之「書」也，其經不燔焉。 |
| | Some say that when the Qin burned the "Shijing" and "Shujing," they only burned the "book" part of the "Shijing"; the actual Classic was not burned.
|
| | 正說: |
夫《詩經》獨燔其詩。「書」、五經之總名也。《傳》曰：「男子不讀經，則有博戲之心。」子路使子羔為費宰，孔子曰：「賊夫人之子。」子路曰：「有民人焉，有社稷焉，何必讀書然後為學？」五經總名為書。傳者不知秦燔書所起，故不審燔書之實。秦始皇二十四年，置酒咸陽宮，博士七十人前為壽。僕射周青臣進頌秦始皇。齊人淳于越進諫，以為始皇不封子弟，卒有田常、六卿之難，無以救也；譏青臣之頌，謂之為諛。秦始皇下其議丞相府，丞相斯以為越言不可用，因此謂諸生之言惑亂黔首，乃令史官盡燒五經，有敢藏諸《書》百家語者刑，唯博士官乃得有之。五經皆燔，非獨諸家之書也。傳者信之，見言「詩書」，則獨謂《經》謂之書矣。 |
| | The burning by the Qin affected only the poems in the "Shijing." "The Shu" is a general term for the Five Classics. The "Zhuan" says: "If men do not read the classics, they will develop minds inclined toward frivolous games." Zilu appointed Zigao as magistrate of Fei. Confucius said: "This is harming the son of a gentleman." Zilu replied, "There are people to govern and state affairs to manage; why must one read books before being considered a scholar?" The Five Classics are collectively referred to as the "Shu." Those who transmitted these accounts did not know where the Qin's book burning began, so they failed to accurately understand what was burned. In the twenty-fourth year of Emperor Qin Shi Huang, a banquet was held at Xianyang Palace, and seventy doctoral scholars presented their congratulations before him. The Minister of Works Zhou Qingchen praised Emperor Qin Shi Huang in his address. Chunyu Yue of the Qi state offered advice, arguing that Emperor Qin Shi Huang had not enfeoffed his sons and nephews; should a crisis arise like those of Tian Chang or the Six Ministers, there would be no one to rescue the situation. He criticized Zhou Qingchen's praise as flattery. Emperor Qin Shi Huang referred the discussion to the Prime Minister's office. Chancellor Li Si considered Chunyu Yue's remarks unusable and therefore claimed that the statements of scholars were confusing the common people, so he ordered the historical officials to burn all copies of the Five Classics completely. Anyone who dared to hide any of these "books" or writings from a hundred schools of thought would be punished; only the official doctoral scholars were allowed to possess them. The Five Classics were all burned, not just books from other schools of thought. Those who transmitted this account believed it; when they saw the phrase "poetry and books," they took it to mean only the Classics, referring to them as "books."
|
| | 正說: |
傳者或知《尚書》為秦所燔，而謂二十九篇，其遺脫不燒者也。 |
| | Some transmitters knew that the "Shangshu" was burned by the Qin, and believed that its twenty-nine surviving chapters were those that had escaped destruction.
|
| | 正說: |
審若此言，《尚書》二十九篇、火之餘也。七十一篇為炭灰，二十九篇獨遺邪？夫伏生年老，鼂錯從之學時，適得二十餘篇，伏生死矣，故二十九篇獨見，七十一篇遺脫。遺脫者七十一篇，反謂二十九篇遺脫矣。 |
| | If this is indeed true, then the twenty-nine chapters of "Shangshu" are what remained after the fire. Could it be that seventy-one chapters were reduced to ashes while only the twenty-nine survived? Fu Sheng was old, and when Chao Cuo studied with him, he happened to obtain only more than twenty chapters. After Fu Sheng's death, the remaining twenty-nine became known while seventy-one were lost. Those who were actually lost were the seventy-one chapters; yet it is said that the twenty-nine were the ones lost.
|
| | 正說: |
或說《尚書》二十九篇者，法曰斗，七宿也。四七二十八篇，其一曰斗矣，故二十九。 |
| | Some say that the twenty-nine chapters of "Shangshu" correspond to the seven constellations, according to a system where each is represented by four. Four times seven makes twenty-eight chapters, and one more for the "Dou," hence twenty-nine in total.
|
| | 正說: |
夫《尚書》滅絕於秦，其見在者二十九篇，安得法乎？宣帝之時，得佚《尚書》及《易》、《禮》各一篇，《禮》、《易》篇數亦始足，焉得有法？案百篇之《序》，闕遺者七十一篇，獨為二十九篇立法，如何？或說曰：「孔子更選二十九篇，二十九篇獨有法也。」蓋俗儒之說也，未必傳記之明也。二十九篇殘而不足，有傳之者，因不足之數，立取法之說，失聖人之意，違古今之實。夫經之有篇也，猶有章句；有章句也，猶有文字也。文字有意以立句，句有數以連章，章有體以成篇，篇則章句之大者也。謂篇有所法，是謂章句復有所法也。《詩經》舊時亦數千篇，孔子刪去復重，正而存三百篇，猶二十九篇也。謂二十九篇有法，是謂三百五篇復有法也。 |
| | The "Shangshu" was destroyed during the Qin dynasty, and only twenty-nine chapters survived; how could there be a numerical system to account for it? During the reign of Emperor Xuan, one lost chapter each was found for the "Shangshu," as well as for the "Yijing" and "Liji." The number of chapters in the "Liji" and "Yijing" also became complete at that time; how could there then be a system or pattern? If we examine the "Xu" (preface) of the hundred chapters, seventy-one are missing. How could a system be established for only twenty-nine? Some say: "Confucius selected the twenty-nine chapters anew, and these twenty-nine alone have a system." This is likely an assertion by vulgar Confucian scholars; it may not be clearly supported by historical records. The twenty-nine chapters are incomplete and insufficient, yet those who transmitted them, relying on their incomplete number, fabricated the idea of a system. This misrepresents the meaning of sages and contradicts historical facts from both ancient and modern times. The division of Classics into chapters is like dividing them into sections or verses; having sections and verses is akin to having written words. Words carry meaning that forms sentences; sentences are numbered and connected into sections, and sections have structure to form chapters. A chapter is thus a larger unit composed of sentences and sections. To say that chapters follow some system implies that sections and verses also must follow such a system. The "Shijing" originally contained thousands of poems; Confucius deleted the duplicates, corrected them, and preserved three hundred. This is similar to how the twenty-nine chapters were selected. To say that there was a system in selecting the twenty-nine chapters implies that there must also have been a system for choosing the three hundred and fifty poems.
|
| | 正說: |
或說《春秋》、十二月也。 |
| | Some say the "Chunqiu" corresponds to the twelve months of the year.
|
| | 正說: |
《春秋》十二公，猶《尚書》之百篇，百篇無所法，十二公安得法？說《春秋》者曰：「二百四十二年，人道浹，王道備，善善惡惡，撥亂世，反諸正，莫近於《春秋》。」若此者，人道、王道適具足也。三軍六師萬二千人，足以陵敵伐寇，橫行天下，令行禁止，未必有所法也。孔子作《春秋》，紀魯十二公，猶三軍之有六師也；士眾萬二千，猶年有二百四十二也。六師萬二千人，足以成軍；十二公二百四十二年，足以立義。說事者好神道恢義，不肖以遭禍，是故經傳篇數，皆有所法。考實根本，論其文義，與彼賢者作書詩，無以異也。故聖人作經，賢者作書，義窮理竟，文辭備足，則為篇矣。其立篇也，種類相從，科條相附。殊種異類，論說不同，更別為篇。意異則文殊，事改則篇更，據事意作，安得法象之義乎？ |
| | The "Chunqiu" records events under twelve dukes, just as the "Shangshu" originally had a hundred chapters. If the hundred chapters of the "Shangshu" did not follow any system, how could the twelve dukes in the "Chunqiu" have one? Those who expound the "Chunqiu" say: "It spans 242 years, fully covering human affairs and embodying the Way of kingship. It commends good deeds and condemns evil ones, rectifies a chaotic world, and restores it to righteousness—nothing is closer than the 'Chunqiu.'" If this were true, then human affairs and the Way of kingship would be perfectly complete. Three armies with six divisions totaling twelve thousand men are sufficient to overcome enemies, attack invaders, and dominate the world. Orders can be carried out and prohibitions enforced—yet this does not necessarily follow any fixed system or pattern. Confucius composed the "Chunqiu," recording events under twelve dukes of Lu, just as three armies have six divisions; twelve thousand soldiers correspond to the 242 years. Six divisions with twelve thousand men are enough to form an army; the events of the twelve dukes over 242 years are sufficient to establish moral principles. Those who explain events tend to exaggerate the divine and magnify their meanings; the unworthy suffer misfortune as a result. Therefore, it is claimed that all chapters and numbers in the Classics follow some system or pattern. Investigating their origins and examining their meanings, these works are no different from books or poems written by wise men. Therefore, when sages composed the Classics and virtuous scholars wrote books, if their meanings were fully expressed and their reasoning complete, with sufficient literary expression, they became chapters. When these chapters were established, similar types were grouped together, and related categories were attached to one another. If the subjects or classifications differ, and their explanations vary, they are separated into different chapters. When meanings differ, the writing naturally varies; when events change, new chapters must be created. Based on actual events and ideas, how could there possibly be a fixed pattern or symbolic system?
|
| | 正說: |
或說《春秋》二百四十二年者，上壽九十，中壽八十，下壽七十，孔子據中壽三世而作，三八二十四，故二百四十年也。又說為赤制之中數也。又說二百四十二年，人道浹，王道備。 |
| | Some say that the 242 years of the "Chunqiu" correspond to longevity: ninety for a long life, eighty for an average one, and seventy for a short one. Confucius based his work on three generations according to the middle lifespan; three times eight is twenty-four, hence two hundred forty years. Others say it corresponds to the central number in the "Chi Zhi" system. Still others claim that 242 years fully encompass human affairs and complete the Way of kingship.
|
| | 正說: |
夫據三世，則浹備之說非；言浹備之說為是，則據三世之論誤。二者相伐，而立其義，聖人之意何定哉？凡紀事言年月日者，詳悉重之也。《洪範》五紀，歲、月、日、星。紀事之文，非法象之言也。紀十二公享國之年，凡有二百四十二，凡此以立三世之說矣。實孔子紀十二公者，以為十二公事，適足以見王義邪？據三世，三世之數，適得十二公而足也？如據十二公，則二百四十二年不為三世見也；如據三世，取三八之數，二百四十年而已，何必取「二」？說者又曰：「欲合隱公之元也。不取二年，隱公元年不載於經。」夫《春秋》自據三世之數而作，何用隱公元年之事為始？須隱公元年之事為始，是竟以備足為義，據三世之說不復用矣。說隱公享國五十年，將盡紀元年以來邪？中斷以備三八之數也？如盡紀元年以來，三八之數則中斷；如中斷以備三世之數，則隱公之元不合，何如？且年與月日，小大異耳；其所紀載，同一實也。二百四十二年謂之據三世，二百四十二年中之日月必有數矣。年據三世，月日多少何據哉？夫《春秋》之有年也，猶《尚書》之有章，章以首義，年以紀事。謂《春秋》之年有據，是謂《尚書》之章亦有據也。 |
| | If based on three generations, then the idea of completeness is unfounded; if the claim about completeness is correct, then the argument based on three generations is wrong. These two views contradict each other; yet people establish their meanings as if they were definitive. How can one determine the true intent of sages? Generally, when recording events with specific years, months, and days, it indicates detailed attention to importance. The "Hongfan" lists five chronological systems: year, month, day, and star (constellation). Texts recording events are not statements based on symbolic or numerical patterns. The total number of years that the twelve dukes ruled was 242; this is used to establish the theory of three generations. In reality, did Confucius record events under these twelve dukes because their affairs were just sufficient to illustrate the principles of kingship? Based on three generations, did the number of three generations happen to correspond exactly with these twelve dukes and be complete? If based solely on the twelve dukes, then 242 years do not necessarily represent three generations; if based on the concept of three generations and taking the number "three eights," it would be only 240 years; why then add an extra two? Some commentators further say: "It is to include the first year of Duke Yin. If we do not add two years, then the first year of Duke Yin would not be recorded in the Classic." If the "Chunqiu" was composed based on a system of three generations, why should it begin with the events of Duke Yin's first year? If one must start from the first year of Duke Yin, then it is ultimately about completeness in meaning. The theory based on three generations would no longer be applicable. Some say that Duke Yin ruled for fifty years; does this mean the record should cover all events from his first year onward? Or is it interrupted to complete the number of "three eights"? If all events from Duke Yin's first year are recorded, then the system of "three eights" would be interrupted; if it is cut short to conform to the number for three generations, then Duke Yin's first year does not fit. What should be done? Moreover, years and days are simply different in scale; what is recorded in them represents the same reality. If 242 years can be said to represent three generations, then there must also be a number for the days and months within these 242 years. If the years are based on the system of three generations, what basis is there to determine how many days or months there should be? The "Chunqiu" has years, just as the "Shangshu" has chapters. Chapters introduce meanings; years record events. To say that the years in the "Chunqiu" have a basis is to say that the chapters in the "Shangshu" also have a basis.
|
| | 正說: |
說《易》者皆謂伏羲作八卦，文王演為六十四。 |
| | Those who expound on the "Yi Jing" all say that Fu Xi created the Eight Trigrams, and King Wen expanded them into Sixty-Four.
|
| | 正說: |
夫聖王起，河出《圖》，洛出《書》。伏羲王，《河圖》從河水中出，《易》卦是也。禹之時，得《洛書》，《書》從洛水中出，《洪範》九章是也。故伏羲以卦治天下，禹案《洪範》以治洪水。古者烈山氏之王得《河圖》，夏后因之曰《連山》；烈山氏之王得《河圖》，殷人因之曰歸藏；伏羲氏之王得《河圖》，周人曰《周易》。其經卦，皆六十四。文王、周公因彖十八章究六爻。世之傳說《易》者，言伏羲作八卦；不實其本，則謂伏羲真作八卦也。伏羲得八卦，非「作」之；文王得成六十四，非「演」之也。演作之言，生於俗傳。苟信一文，使夫真是幾滅不存。 |
| | When a sage ruler arose, the He River produced the "Tu" (Diagram), and the Luo River produced the "Shu" (Script). When Fu Xi became king, the "He Tu" emerged from the He River water; this refers to the trigrams of the "Yi Jing." During Yu's time, the "Lo Shu" was obtained; the "Shu" emerged from the Luo River water. This refers to the Nine Chapters of Hong Fan. Therefore, Fu Xi governed the world with trigrams, and Yu controlled the floods by following the "Hongfan." In ancient times, the Lianshan ruler obtained the "He Tu," and the Xia dynasty inherited it as the "Lianshan"; the Lianshan ruler obtained the "He Tu," and the Yin people inherited it, calling it "Guicang"; Fu Xi became king and obtained the "He Tu," which the Zhou people called the "Zhou Yi." The trigrams in these texts are all Sixty-Four in number. King Wen and Duke of Zhou expanded the Eighteen Chapters of Tuan to study the six lines (yao). Those in later generations who transmitted and expounded on the "Yi Jing" say that Fu Xi created the eight trigrams; if they do not examine its origins, then they believe Fu Xi truly created the Eight Trigrams. Fu Xi received the eight trigrams, but did not "create" them; King Wen obtained the completed Sixty-Four Hexagrams, but did not "expand" or "develop" them. The idea that they were created or expanded originates from popular tradition. If one blindly accepts a single passage, it may lead to the true meaning being lost entirely.
|
| | 正說: |
既不知《易》之為《河圖》，又不知存於俗何家《易》也，或時《連山》、《歸藏》，或時《周易》。案《禮》，夏、殷、周三家相損益之制，較著不同。如以周家在後，論今為《周易》，則《禮》亦宜為《周禮》。六典不與今《禮》相應，今《禮》未必為周，則亦疑今《易》未必為周也。案左丘明之《傳》，引周家以卦，與今《易》相應，殆《周易》也。 |
| | If one does not know that the "Yi Jing" is the "He Tu," nor knows which version of the "Yi" in popular tradition it belongs to—sometimes the "Lianshan," sometimes the "Guicang," or sometimes the "Zhou Yi"— According to the "Li Ji" (Book of Rites), the systems of Xia, Yin, and Zhou dynasties each had their own modifications and improvements, showing clear differences. If we consider the Zhou dynasty to be later in time and argue that what is now extant is the "Zhou Yi," then by analogy, the "Li Ji" should also be called the "Zhou Li." Since the Six Classics do not correspond to the current version of "Li Ji," it is uncertain whether this current "Li" is truly from the Zhou dynasty; therefore, we may also doubt that the current "Yi Jing" necessarily originates from the Zhou. According to Zuo Qiuming's "Zuo Zhuan," which cites the Zhou dynasty using trigrams corresponding with the current "Yi Jing," it is likely that this text is the "Zhou Yi."
|
| | 正說: |
說《禮》者，皆知《禮》也。為《禮》何家《禮》也？孔子曰：「殷因於夏禮，所損益可知也。周因於殷禮，所損益可知也。」由此言之，夏、殷、周各自有禮。方今周禮邪？夏、殷也？謂之周禮，《周禮》六典，案今《禮經》不見六典。或時殷禮未絕，而六典之《禮》不傳，世因謂此為周禮也？案周官之法，不與今《禮》相應，然則《周禮》六典是也。其不傳，猶古文《尚書》、《春秋左氏》不興矣。 |
| | Those who expound on the "Li Ji" all know about the rites. But which dynasty's rites are they discussing? Confucius said: "The Yin dynasty inherited the rites of the Xia, and what was modified or improved can be known. "The Zhou inherited the rites from the Yin, and what was altered or added is also knowable." From this statement, it follows that the Xia, Yin, and Zhou each had their own rites. Is what we have now truly the "Zhou Li"? Or is it from the Xia or Yin? If we call it "Zhou Li," then according to the Six Classics of Zhou, the current version of the "Li Jing" does not include these six categories. Perhaps at times the Yin rites had not yet disappeared, and the "Li" of the Six Classics was lost; thus, people mistakenly called this version the "Zhou Li"? According to the system of Zhou officials, it does not correspond with the current version of "Li Jing." Therefore, the Six Classics in the "Zhou Li" are correct. Its non-transmission is similar to how the ancient texts of the "Shangshu" and the "Zuo Zhuan" did not become widely accepted.
|
| | 正說: |
說《論》者，皆知說文解語而已，不知《論語》本幾何篇；但周以八寸為尺，不知《論語》所獨一尺之意。 |
| | Those who expound on the "Lunyu" all think they are merely explaining words and meanings, yet they do not know how many chapters the original "Analects of Confucius" consisted of; they only know that in Zhou times, eight cun made one chi (about 23 cm), yet they do not understand the unique significance of "one chi" as used in the "Lunyu."
|
| | 正說: |
夫《論語》者、弟子共紀孔子之言行，勑記之時甚多，數十百篇，以八寸為尺，紀之約省，懷持之便也。以其遺非經，傳文紀識恐忘，故以但八寸尺，不二尺四寸也。漢興失亡。至武帝發取孔子壁中古文，得二十一篇，齊、魯二，河間九篇，三十篇。至昭帝女讀二十一篇。宣帝下太常博士，時尚稱書難曉，名之曰傳；後更隸寫以傳誦。初，孔子孫孔安國以教魯人扶卿，官至荊州剌史，始曰《論語》。今時稱《論語》二十篇，又失齊、魯、河間九篇。本三十篇，分布亡失；或二十一篇。目或多或少，文讚或是或誤。說《論語》者，但知以剝解之問，以纖微之難，不知存問本根篇數章目。溫故知新，可以為師；今不知古，稱師如何？ |
| | The "Lunyu" is a compilation by the disciples of Confucius' words and deeds. When they recorded it, there were many instances; originally, it consisted of dozens or even hundreds of chapters. They condensed it into one chi (eight cun) in length for convenience in carrying and preserving it. Because the remaining text was not considered a classic, they were afraid of forgetting the transmitted words and records; therefore, they condensed it to just one chi (eight cun), rather than two chi four cun. It was lost during the rise of the Han dynasty. It was not until Emperor Wu ordered the retrieval of ancient texts from Confucius's wall that twenty-one chapters were found, including two from Qi and Lu, nine from Hejian, totaling thirty chapters. It was during Emperor Zhao's reign that his daughter read the twenty-one chapters. Emperor Xuan ordered the Taichang and doctors to examine it, but at that time it was still considered a difficult text to understand and was named "Chuan" (Commentary); later it was transcribed in clerical script for easier recitation and transmission. Initially, Kong Anguo, a descendant of Confucius, taught it to Fu Qing of Lu. Fu Qing later became the governor of Jingzhou and first called it the "Lunyu." The current version known as the "Analects" consists of twenty chapters, and has lost nine more from Qi, Lu, and Hejian. Originally there were thirty chapters, but they have been scattered and lost over time; or twenty-one. The number of chapters may be more or less, and the texts may contain correct passages or errors. Those who expound on the "Lunyu" only know how to analyze it by dissecting individual questions and focusing on minor difficulties, without knowing or inquiring about its original number of chapters, sections, and structure. Reviewing the old to learn the new makes one worthy to be a teacher; if one does not understand antiquity, how can they claim to be a teacher?
|
| | 正說: |
孟子曰：「王者之迹熄而《詩》亡，《詩》亡然後《春秋》作。晉之《乘》，楚之《檮杌》，魯之《春秋》，一也。」若孟子之言，《春秋》者、魯《史記》之名，《乘》、《檮杌》同。孔子因舊故之名，以號《春秋》之經，未必有奇說異意、深美之據也。今俗儒說之：「春者歲之始，秋者其終也。《春秋》之經，可以奉始養終，故號為《春秋》。」《春秋》之經，何以異《尚書》？《尚書》者，以為上古帝王之書，或以為上所為下所書，授事相實而為名，不依違作意以見奇。說《尚書》者得經之實，說《春秋》者失聖之意矣。《春秋左氏傳》：「桓公十有七年冬十月朔，日有食之，不書日，官失之也。」謂官失之言，蓋其實也。史官記事，若今時縣官之書矣，其年月尚大難失，日者微小易忘也。蓋紀以善惡為實，不以日月為意。若夫《公羊》、《穀梁》之《傳》，日月不具，輒為意使。失平常之事，有怪異之說；徑直之文，有曲折之義，非孔子之心。夫《春秋》實及言夏，不言者，亦與不書日月，同一實也。 |
| | Mencius said: "When the traces of sage kings faded, the 'Shi Jing' was lost. When the 'Shi Jing' disappeared, then the 'Chunqiu' was written." "The Jin's 'Cheng,' the Chu's 'Tao Wu,' and the Lu's 'Chunqiu' are one and the same." According to Mencius, the "Chunqiu" is simply the name of Lu's historical records; it is the same as the "Cheng" and "Tao Wu." Confucius used an old name for the purpose of naming it as a classic "Chunqiu," but this does not necessarily imply any extraordinary theory, special meaning, or profound basis. Nowadays, vulgar Confucian scholars say: "Spring is the beginning of the year, and autumn its end." "Therefore, the classic 'Chunqiu' can be used to honor beginnings and nurture endings, hence it is called 'Chunqiu.'" What makes the "Chunqiu" different from the "Shangshu"? The "Shangshu" is considered to be the writings of ancient emperors, or works written by subordinates about what superiors did. Its name reflects factual records of events and appointments, not fabricated meanings intended to appear extraordinary. Those who expound the "Shangshu" grasp the true content of the classics, but those who interpret the "Chunqiu" have lost the sage's original intent. The "Zuo Zhuan" commentary on the "Chunqiu" states: "In the first month of winter in the seventeenth year of Duke Huan, there was a solar eclipse. The day is not recorded because the officials missed it." The statement that "the officials missed it" reflects the actual situation. Historical records kept by official historians are like county officials' documents today; even recording the year and month is difficult enough, let alone the specific day, which is small in detail and easily forgotten. The purpose of historical records lies in documenting good and evil deeds as facts, not in emphasizing dates and months. As for the commentaries of "Gongyang" and "Guliang," when days and months are not fully recorded, they arbitrarily assign meanings. They lose sight of ordinary facts and instead create strange or extraordinary interpretations; they twist straightforward texts into convoluted meanings, which is not the mind of Confucius. The "Chunqiu" actually mentions the Xia dynasty, but when it does not mention something, this omission is of the same nature as omitting a day or month—it reflects reality.
|
| | 正說: |
唐、虞、夏、殷、周者，土地之名。堯以唐侯嗣位，舜從虞地得達，禹由夏而起，湯因殷而興，武王階周而伐，皆本所興昌之地，重本不忘始，故以為號，若人之有姓矣。說《尚書》謂之有天下之代號唐、虞、夏、殷、周者，功德之名，盛隆之意也。故唐之為言「蕩蕩」也，虞者、「樂」也，夏者、「大」也，殷者、「中」也，周者、「至」也。堯則蕩蕩民無能名；舜則天下虞樂；禹承二帝之業，使道尚蕩蕩，民無能名；殷則道得中，周武則功德無不至。其立義美也，其褒五家大矣，然而違其正實，失其初意。唐、虞、夏、殷、周，猶秦之為秦，漢之為漢。秦起於秦，漢興於漢中，故曰猶秦、漢。猶王莽從新都侯起，故曰亡「新」。使秦、漢在《經》《傳》之上，說者將復為秦、漢作道德之說矣。 |
| | Tang, Yu, Xia, Yin, and Zhou are names of regions. Yao inherited the throne as a marquis of Tang, Shun rose to prominence from the land of Yu, Yu began his rise in Xia, Tang gained power through Yin, and King Wu launched his campaign by ascending from Zhou. All these names refer to the lands where they originally rose to greatness; they honored their origins and did not forget their beginnings, hence using them as titles—just like people having surnames. Those who interpret the "Shangshu" refer to Tang, Yu, Xia, Yin and Zhou as dynastic names representing eras of universal rule; these are considered titles signifying virtue and great achievements, expressing prosperity and grandeur. Therefore, "Tang" means "vast and boundless," "Yu" means "joy," "Xia" means "greatness," "Yin" means "central harmony," and "Zhou" means "completeness." Under Yao, the people were so content that they could not find words to describe his virtue; under Shun, all under heaven enjoyed peace and joy; Yu inherited the achievements of these two emperors and continued to uphold a way that was vast and boundless, so the people still could not find words to name it; Yin achieved the central path of virtue, and King Wu of Zhou attained virtue and merit that reached all things. Though these interpretations present beautiful meanings and greatly praise the five dynasties, they deviate from historical facts and lose their original intent. Tang, Yu, Xia, Yin and Zho are like Qin being called "Qin" or Han being called "Han." The state of Qin arose from the region of Qin, and the Han dynasty rose to power in Hanzhong; hence, they are called "Qin" and "Han." Similarly, Wang Mang arose from his title as the Marquis of Xindu, so he named himself "Xin," hence the dynasty is called "New." If Qin and Han were placed in the "Jing" (classics) or "Chuan" (commentaries), commentators would surely fabricate moral interpretations for them as well.
|
| | 正說: |
堯老求禪，四嶽舉舜。堯曰：「我其試哉！」說《尚書》曰：「試者、用也，我其用之為天子也。」文為天子也。文又曰：「女于時觀厥刑于二女。」觀者、觀爾虞舜於天下，不謂堯自觀之也。若此者，高大堯、舜，以為聖人相見已審，不須觀試，精耀相炤，曠然相信。又曰：「四門穆穆，入于大麓，烈風雷雨不迷。」言「大麓」、三公之位也。居一公之位，大總錄二公之事，眾多並吉，若疾風大雨。夫聖人才高，未必相知也。聖成事，舜難知佞，使皋陶陳知人之法。佞難知，聖亦難別。堯之才，猶舜之知也，舜知佞，堯知聖。堯聞舜賢，四嶽舉之，心知其奇，而未必知其能，故言：「我其試我！」試之於職，妻以二女，觀其夫婦之法，職治脩而不廢，夫道正而不僻。復令人庶之野而觀其聖，逢烈風疾雨，終不迷惑。堯乃知其聖，授以天下。夫文言觀、試，觀試其才也。說家以為譬喻增飾，使事失正是，誠而不存；曲折失意，使偽說傳而不絕。 |
| | When Yao grew old and sought to abdicate, the Four Yue officials recommended Shun. Yao said: "I should test him!" Commentators on the "Shangshu" say: "To 'test' means to employ; I will appoint him as Son of Heaven." This is how one becomes a Son of Heaven. The text further says: "At that time, you should observe their conduct through his two daughters." "Observing"—this means observing how Yu and Shun governed the world; it does not mean that Yao observed them himself. Interpretations like this elevate Yao and Shun, portraying them as sages who already understood each other thoroughly, needing no observation or testing; their brilliance illuminated one another, and they trusted each other completely. It also says: "At the four gates, all was respectful; entering the great grove, he did not lose his way even in fierce winds and thunderstorms." The phrase "great grove" refers to the position of the Three Dukes. Holding the position of one Duke, he generally oversaw the duties of the other two; many affairs converged upon him at once, like a sudden wind and heavy rain. Sages with great talent may not necessarily understand one another. When sage rulers accomplished their tasks, Shun found it difficult to discern flatterers and thus had Gao Yao present the method of knowing people. Flatterers are hard to recognize; even sages find them difficult to distinguish. Yao's talent was as great as Shun's discernment; Shun recognized flatterers, and Yao recognized sages. Yao heard of Shun's virtue; the Four Yue officials recommended him, and Yao knew he was extraordinary in his heart, but did not necessarily know whether he could perform. Therefore, he said: "I should test him!" He tested him in office and gave him his two daughters in marriage, observing how he conducted himself as a husband. His official duties were well managed without neglect, and his conduct as a husband was upright and not deviant. Then he sent him to the remote countryside among common people to observe his virtue; when encountering fierce winds and heavy rains, Shun remained unconfused. Only then did Yao recognize his sage-like qualities and bestowed the world upon him. The text's mention of "observing" and "testing" refers to examining one's talent. Commentators take these as metaphors or embellishments, causing the events to lose their true meaning; they are indeed not real and do not exist. They twist the original intent, allowing false interpretations to be passed down without end.
|
| | 正說: |
造說之傳，失之久矣。後生精者，苟欲明經，不原實，而原之者，亦校古隨舊，重是之文，以為說證。經之傳不可從，五經皆多失實之說。《尚書》、《春秋》行事成文，較著可見，故頗獨論。 |
| | The tradition of fabricating explanations has been erroneous for a long time. Later scholars, if they wish to understand the classics, do not seek truth but follow tradition. Even those who do seek it merely compare with ancient texts and adhere to old interpretations, regarding these words as proof for their explanations. The transmission of the classics cannot be followed; all five classics contain many false interpretations that deviate from reality. The "Shangshu" and the "Chunqiu," which record events in written form, are more clearly visible and thus have been somewhat uniquely discussed.
|
