University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XXXVII.

Critical Remarks on Various Books (An-shu).

The Confucianists look up to Confucius as the founder of their
school, whereas the Mêhists regard Mê Ti as their master.[1] The
Confucian doctrine has come down to us, that of Mê Ti has fallen
into desuetude, because the Confucian principles can be put in use,
while the Mêhist system is very difficult to practise. How so?

The Mêhists neglect the burials, but honour the ghosts. Their
doctrine is abnormal, self-contradictory, and irreconcilable with
truth, therefore it is hard to practise. Which are its anomalies?

Provided that ghosts are not the spirits of the departed, then
they can have no knowledge of the honour shown them. Now
the Mêhists aver, that the ghosts are indeed the spirits of the
dead. They treat the souls well, and neglect the corpses. Thus
they are generous to the spirits and mean with reference to their
bodies. Since generosity and meanness do not harmonize, and the
externals and internals do not agree, the spirits would resent it,
and send misfortunes down upon their votaries. Though there
might be ghosts, they would, at any rate, be animated by a deadly
hatred. Human nature is such, that it likes generosity, and detests
meanness. The feelings of the spirits must be very much the same.
According to Mê Tse's precepts one would worship the ghosts, and
pray for happiness, but the happiness obtained thereby would be
very scarce, and misfortune on misfortune would be the result.
This is but one instance among a hundred, but the entire Mêhist
system is like that. The cause that it has lost its ground, and is
not being handed down, is contained therein.

The Tso-chuan of the Ch`un-ch`iu[2] was recovered from the wall
of the house of Confucius. Under the reign of the emperor Hsiao
Wu Ti, Prince Kung of Lu demolished the school of Confucius for
the purpose of building a palace. There he found thirty books
of the Ch`un-ch`iu, which had been concealed.[3] These were the
Tso-chuan. Kung Yang Kao, Ku Liang Ch`ih[4] and Hu Mu[5] all transmitted
the Ch`un-ch`iu, representing different schools, but the commentary
of Tso Ch`iu Ming alone was in time the nearest to Confucius
and did embody the right views:

The Liki was composed in the school of Confucius. The Grand
Annalist (the author of the Shi-chi) was a man of great talents in
the Han time. Now the statements of Tso Ch`iu Ming are in accordance
with these two books,[6] whereas the writings of Kung Yang
Kao, Ku Liang Ch`ih and Hu Mu differ very much. Besides these
writers are too far remote from Confucius. It is much better to
be near, than to be distant, and better to see, than to know by
hearsay.

Liu Tse Chêng mocked at the Tso Chuan,[7] whereas his servants,
his wife, and his sons used to recite it. At Kuang Wu Ti's[8] time
Ch`ên Yuan and Fan Shu[9] reported to the throne on the Tso-chuan,
collecting all the facts and giving their opinions on the pros and
cons. Then the fame of Tso Ch`iu Ming became established. Fan
Shu soon after was dismissed for an offence. Ch`ên Yuan and Fan
Shu were the most talented men of the empire. In their arguments
on the merits of the Tso Chuan they display a remarkable vigour.
Ch`ên Yuan used to express himself very cautiously and Fan Shu's
criticisms were silenced.[10] Hence it became evident that Tso Ch`iu
Ming gives us the truth.

To relate marvellous stories is not at all in the style of Confucius,
who did not speak of strange things. The Lü-shih-ch`un-ch`iu[11]
e. g. belongs to this class of works.[12] The Kuo-yü is the exoteric
narrative of Tso Ch`iu Ming. Because the text of the Tso-chuan Classic
is rather concise, he still made extracts and edited the text of the
Kuo-yü to corroborate the Tso-chuan. Thus the Kuo-yü of Tso Ch`iu
Ming is a book which the Literati of our time regard as genuine.

Kung Sun Lung wrote a treatise on the hard and white.[13] He split
words, dissected expressions, and troubled about equivocal terms.
His investigations have no principles and are of no use for government.

Tsou Yen in Ch`i published three works which are vague and
diffuse;[14] he gives very few proofs, but his words startle the reader.
Men of great talents are very often led astray by their imagination
and show a great lack of critical acumen. Their style is brilliant,
but there is nothing in it, and their words are imposing, but their
researches are conspicuous by the absence of sober judgment.

When Shang Yang[15] was minister of Ch`in, he developed the
system of agriculture and fighting, and, when Kuan Chung[16] held
the same position in Ch`i, he wrote the book on weight. He made
the people wealthy, the State prosperous, the sovereign powerful,
and the enemies weak, and adjusted rewards and punishments. His
work[17] is classed together with that of Tsou Yen, but the Grand
Annalist has two different records about them.[18] People are perplexed
thereby, and at a loss, which view to take.

Chang Yi was a contemporary of Su Ch`in. When the latter
died, Chang Yi was certainly informed of it. Since he must have
known all the details, his words ought to have served as basis to
fix the thruth. However, the reports are not clear, there being
two versions. Chang Shang of Tung-hai[19] also wrote a biography.
Was Su Ch`in an invention of Chang Shang, for how is it possible
that there is such a discrepancy between the two versions?

In the Genealogical Tables of the Three Dynasties[20] it is said
that the Five Emperors and Three Rulers were all descendants of
Huang Ti, and that from Huang Ti downward they were successively
born without being again informed by the breath of heaven. In
the special record of the Yin dynasty[21] we read, however, that
Chien Ti,[22] the mother of Hsieh,[23] while bathing in a river, met a
black bird, which dropped an egg. She swallowed it, and subsequently
gave birth to Hsieh.[24]

In the special record of the Chou[25] dynasty we find the notice
that the mother of Lord Chi, Chiang Yuan,[26] while going into the
country, saw the footprints of a giant. When she stept into them,
she became with child, and gave birth to Lord Chi.[27]

Now we learn from the Genealogical Tables that Hsieh and
Lord Chi were both descendants of Huang Ti, whereas we read in
the records of the Yin and Chou dynasties that they were conceived
from the sperm of the black bird and the giant. These two versions
ought not to be transmitted simultaneously, yet the Great
Annalist recorded them both indiscriminately. The consorts of emperors
should not stroll into the country or bathe in a river. Now
the one is said to have bathed in a river, and to have swallowed
the egg of a black bird, and the other went into the country, and
there walked in the footprints of a giant. That is against all the
laws of decorum and a mixing up of the distinctions between right
and wrong.

The "New Words"[28] is the work of Lu Chia,[29] which was
appreciated very much by Tung Chung Shu.[30] It deals with sovereigns
and subjects, good and bad government, the words are worth remembering,
the facts related, excellent, and show a great amount
of knowledge. They may supplement the Classics; although there
is not much to be added to the words of the old sages, at all
events there is nothing amiss with Lu Chia's words. The utterances
of Tung Chung Shu, on the other hand, about the rain sacrifices
responding to heaven and the earthen dragon attracting the rain
are very obscure.[31]

Droughts will happen in consequence of the rain sacrifices
(being in disorder), but have nothing to do with the state sacrifices
of the Hsia dynasty. Was the marquis of Chin responsible, or was
his administration defective, so that the Yang and the Yin were not
in harmony? Chin had dropped the state sacrifices of the Hsia.
When the marquis of Chin was laid up with sickness, he took the
advice of Tse Ch`an of Chêng and instituted the Hsia sacrifices,
whereupon he recovered from his disease.[32] Had in fact the rain
sacrifices not been in order, or the dragon neglected, the same misfortune
would have befallen Chin again. Provided the drought was
attracted by the administration, the latter should have been reorganised,
but what would be the use of making provisions for
the rain sacrifices or the dragon, if the administration was defective?

Kung Yang in his commentary on the Ch`un-ch`iu says that
during the time of extraordinary heat, it suffices to reform the
government, when the Yin and the Yang fluids mix, and dryness
and moisture unite; such being the law of nature. Wherefore must
the rain sacrifices still be prepared then, and the dragons be put
up? Do the spirits delight in these offerings? If, when the rain
comes, the broiling heat did not relax, nor the disastrous drought
cease, where would be the effect of the changes and reforms?

Moreover heat and cold are the same as dryness and moisture;
all are the results of government, and man is responsible for them.
It is difficult therefore to see the reason, why in time of drought
people pray for happiness, but not in cold or hot weather. In case

that there is a retribution, we ought to have recourse to the rain
sacrifices and to the dragon for heat and cold as well. Men of
superior intellect and great knowledge, however, do not believe in
either of these theories.

Tung Chung Shu does not call himself a scholar in his books,
probably thinking that he surpassed all the others. Among the
prolific writers of the Han time Sse Ma Ch`ien and Yang Tse Yün[33]
are the Yellow River and the Han,[34] all the rest like the Ching and
Wei[35] rivers. Yet Sse Ma Ch`ien gives us too little of his own judgment,
Yang Tse Yün does not speak on common topics, and Tung
Chung Shu's discussions on the Taoist doctrines are very strange.
These are the three most famous men of the north.

The Chan-shu[36] states that Tung Chung Shu disturbed their books,
which means the sayings of Confucius. The readers either hold
that "to disturb our books" means that he throws the works of
Confucius into disorder, or they suppose that "luan" is equivalent
to "adjust," and that he adjusts the writings of Confucius. In both
cases it is the same word "luan," but between order and disorder
there is a great distance. Yet the readers do not equally apply
their minds, nor thoroughly study the question, hence their wrong
statements. To say that Tung Chung Shu carried disorder into the
writings of Confucius, would imply an extraordinary talent, and to
say that he adjusted these writings, would likewise imply a wonderful
knowledge. Nobody ever said of Sse Ma Ch`ien or Yang Tse Yün
that they belonged to the school of the Sage or not, or that they
disturbed or adjusted the works of Confucius. Most people now-adays
do not think enough and, when treating a problem, lose sight
of the principal facts. Therefore we have these two doubtful views,
between which the scholars are vacillating.

The work of Tung Chung Shu is not antagonistic to the Confucian
school, neither does it equal the writing of Confucius. Therefore
the statement that it invalidates those writings is preposterous.
On the other hand the writings of Confucius are not in confusion,
consequently the assertion that it brings these writings into good
order is wrong likewise.

Confucius said,[37] "When the music-master Chih[38] began and
then came the finish (luan)[39] of the Kuan-chü,[40] how magnificent it
was and how it filled the ears!"

The finish (luan) in our case refers to the sayings of Confucius.
Confucius lived under the Chou and laid the foundation (of
the Confucian doctrine); Tung Chung Shu under the Han finished
it, in so far as it was not yet complete, and Sse Ma Ch`ien supplemented
it here and there. That is the idea. In the collections
of irregular verse and dithyrambs[41] every song has a refrain (luan),
which amounts to the same. Since it was Tung Chung Shu who
gave the last touch to the Analects of Confucius, we should not be
surprised that his remarks on the offering of the rain sacrifice and
the use of dragons have some meaning.

Yen Yuan said, "What man is Shun, and who am I?"[42] —
Among the Five Emperors and Three Rulers Shun was his only
ideal. He knew that he was pursuing the same goal. The ideals
of the wise and virtuous and the aims of the silent scholar are in
fact identical.

What Tung Chung Shu says about morals, virtue, and government
deserves the highest praise, but as regards researches into
every day life and discussions of the most common errors, Huan
Chün Shan[43] stands unrivalled. Tung Chung Shu's writings may be
equalled, but it would be very difficult to challenge Huan Chün Shan.

A Bayardo has his special features distinguishing him from
other horses, or is a noble steed with a peculiar gait. There may
be horses capable of running a thousand li, they will never be
called Bayardos, because the colour of their hair differs from that
of Bayardo. There may be men whose writings could be compared
with those of Tung Chung Shu, or whose essays would rank
close ofter those of Huan Chün Shan, yet they would not be like

the two scholars, their names would always be different. A horse
might learn to make a thousand li, it would not become a Bayardo
or a Bucephalus thereby, and a man might aspire to sagehood and
knowledge, he would not become a Confucius or a Mê Ti for the
following reason:

It is very difficult to equal Huan Chün Shan's writings. When
two blades cut one another, we see, which is sharp and which
blunt, and, when two treatises are compared together, one finds
out, which of the two is right and which wrong. This is the case
of the "Four Difficulties"[44] by Han Fei Tse, the treatise on "Salt
and Iron"[45] by Huan K`uan,[46] and the "New Reflections"[47] by Huan
Chün Shan.

The statements of the people are often doubtful and untrue,
yet some mistaken critics regard them as true, which leads to
great dilemmas. If a judge deciding a case has his doubts about
it, so that though giving his judgment he would hesitate to inflict
a punishment, truth and untruth would not be determined, and
right and wrong not established. Then people would be entitled
to say that the talents of the judge were not sufficient for his
post. If in ventilating a question one does not do it thoroughly,
merely noting two doubtful opinions and transmitting them both,
one does not do much to settle the question. Would it not be
better then to break through the confusion and cut the Gordian
knot, for words must be intelligible, and expressions convey a
meaning?

Confucius wrote the Ch`un-ch`iu in such a way that he recommended
the slightest good thing and blamed the smallest evil.
Whenever there was anything praiseworthy, his words served to
set forth its excellence, and whenever there was anything open to
blame, he pointed out its badness with a view to stigmatise the
action. The "New Reflections" fall in with the Ch`un-ch`iu in
this respect. But the public prizes antiquity, and does not think
much of our own times. They fancy that the modern literature
falls short of the old writings. However, ancient and modern
times are the same. There are men of great and of small talents,
and there is truth and falsehood. If irrespective of the intrinsic
value they only esteem what is old, this would imply that the
ancients excelled our moderns. Yet men like Tsou Po Ch`i of Tung-fan,

Yuan T`ai Po and Yuan Wên Shu of Lin-huai,[48] Wu Chün Kao
and Chou Ch`ang Shêng of K`uei-chi,[49] though they never attained the
dignity of state-ministers, were all men of stupendous erudition and
abilities and the most elegant and dashing knights of the pen.[50]

The Yuan-sse of Tsou Po Ch`i, the Yi-chang-chü of Yuan T`ai Po,
the Hsien-ming of Yuan Wen Shu, the Yüeh-yo of Wu Chün Kao, and
the Tung-li of Chou Ch`ang Shêng could not be surpassed by Liu
Tse Chêng or Yang Tse Yün. Men of genius may be more or less
gifted, but there are no ancients or moderns; their works may be
right or wrong, but there are no old or new ones. Although no
special works have been written by men like Ch`ên Tse Hui of
Kuang-ling,[51] Yen Fang, Pan Ku,[52] at present clerk of a board, the
officer of the censorate, Yang Chung, and Chuan Yi, their verses and
their memorials are written in the most fascinating and brilliant
style. Their poetry resembles that of Ch`ü Yuan[53] and Chia,[54] their
memorials those of T`ang Lin and Ku Yang.[55] Placed side by side,
the beauty of their compositions proved to be the same. At present
they are not yet illustrious, but after a hundred generations they
will be on a par with Liu Tse Chêng[56] and Yang Tse Yün.[57]

Li Sse freely culled from the works of Han Fei Tse, and Hou
P`u Tse did much to divulge the T`ai-hsüan-ching of Yang Tse Yün.
Han Fei Tse and Li Sse belonged to the same school, and Yang Tse
Yün and Hou P`u Tse lived at the same court.[58] They had an eye
for what was remarkable and useful, and were not influenced in
their opinions and judgments by considerations of time. Searching
truth and seeking whatever was good, they made it their principle
not to look too far for it, and not to despise those with whom

they were working shoulder to shoulder. They had a great partiality
for everything uncommon, and quite uncommon was the
fame which they won thereby. Yang Tse Yün revised the Li-sao.
He could not completely change a whole chapter, but whenever he
found anything wrong, he altered it. Though it be impossible to
read all the thirteen thousand chapters contained in the list of the
Six Departments of Literature,[59] one may know at least their purport
and take up for discussion some of those passages which give
no proper sense.