Han shih wai chuan Han Ying's Illustrations of the didactic application of the Classic of songs |
 |
 | I. |
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. |
| V. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. |
| IX. |
| X. |
 | CHAPTER VII Han shih wai chuan |  |
16[1]
When [the tyrant] Chou killed the prince Pi-kan,[2]
Chi-tzŭ let
his hair down his back and feigned madness. When Duke Ling of
Ch`ên killed Hsieh Yeh,[2]
Têng Yüan left Ch`ên with his family.
destroyed by Ch`u, because they had killed Pi-kan and Hsieh Yeh,
and had lost Chi-tzŭ and Têng Yüan. King Chao of Yen got Kuo
Wei; Tsou Yen and Yo I came from Wei and Ch`i. Thereupon
he raised an army and attacked Ch`i, detaining King Min in Chü.[3]
In territory and population Yen[4] was no match for Ch`i. But what
enabled Yen to expand to this extent was reliance on gentlemen.
Truly,[5] there is no state always static, nor a people [always] ready
to be ruled. If it gets a sage, [the state] will be prosperous; if it
loses a sage, it will perish: from antiquity to the present time this
has been always the case. Now a bright mirror is the means of
reflecting the form, and the past is the means of knowing the
present. For to know enough to detest that whereby ancient
[dynasties] fell, but not to follow the methods by which they preserved
themselves, is no different from seeking to catch up with
the man ahead of you by walking backwards. T`ai-kung knew
it and so gave office to the successors of Wei-tzŭ and built a
mound over the tomb of Pi-kan. Now when saintly men act in
so generous a manner toward even the descendants of sages, how
much the more [generous] they must be toward [sages] still living
in their time.
The Ode says,[6]
But indeed I have committed no offense.
Hsin shu 10.73b-74a is almost identical and may either have been the direct source
for HSWC or have been derived from a common source. SY 8.7b-8b copies Hsin shu.
TTLC 3.13b-14a is also similar.
The text is corrupt: [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]. Chou has added [OMITTED] from SY; the other editions lack these characters. He
also suggests that [OMITTED] is a mistake for [OMITTED], as SY has [OMITTED], where
[OMITTED] he thinks should be [OMITTED]. CHy writes [OMITTED] ○ [OMITTED]
[OMITTED], etc., from Lu Pien's quotation of HSWC in his com. on TTLC and from
Hsin shu, which has [OMITTED]. If the reading [OMITTED] is admitted, and it
occurs in three of the texts, [OMITTED] ○ ○ ○ [OMITTED] must [OMITTED] ○ ○ ○ [OMITTED], and not "brought
them over." Since Tsou Yen actually came from Ch`i, and Yo I from Wei (cf. Mém.
hist. 4. 145), I follow CHy and read [OMITTED] for [OMITTED].
[OMITTED]. CHy has [OMITTED], as TTLC, for [OMITTED]. Lu Pien says [OMITTED] is like [OMITTED].
Chao (179) accepts CHy's reading, and suggests that Hsin shu [OMITTED] is a corruption
from the seal forms of the two characters. Chou would emend to [OMITTED] as in SY.
| CHAPTER VII Han shih wai chuan | |