the day Sin-maou of the 4th month of the third year of duke Yin.[1]
‘And not only so. In the 21st year of duke Sëang, both Kung-yang and Kuh-lëang have an entry to the effect that Confucius was then born. But in the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw only the births of the heir-sons of the rulers of States were entered, as in II. vi. 5. In other cases, the births even of hereditary nobles, who exercised an all-powerful sway in the government of their States, like the members of the Ke family [in Loo], did not find a place in the tablets; and though the master be the teacher of emperors and kings for myriads of ages, yet at his birth he was only the son of the commandant of the city of Tsow. The historiographers of Loo would not make a record of that event, and to say that he himself afterward entered it in the classic which he prepared, is in the highest degree absurd.
‘Moreover Tso, after the capture of the lin in the 14th year of duke Gae, has further protracted the text to the 4th month of the 16th year, when the death of Chung-ne is recorded;—which even Tso Ching-nan considered to be not far from an act of forgery.
‘Thus there are not only additions in the three commentaries to the proper text of the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw of things which are strange and partly incredible, but the authors of them added [to the text] and suppressed [portions of it] according to their pleasure. In what they write under the 21st year of Sëang, Kung and Kuh added to the text, to do honour to the master from whom they had received it, and Tso made his addition in the 16th year of Gae, to show his grief for the death of the master;—neither addition was in the original text of the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw. The three writers made their commentaries according to what was current in men's mouths, and what they heard with their ears, in their time, and each of them thrust in whatever addition he desired to make. Subsequent scholars again have adopted what they found in the three commentaries, one favouring this and another that, and trying to make it clear; but that they have attained to the mind of the sage in the use of his stylus, now writing down and now retrenching, a thousand years before them, is what I am not able to believe.’[2]
- ↑ See my note on the passage in question, where I approve of a different interpretation of the text of Kung and Kuh from that which Ma Twan-lin mentions. My Chinese text in that passage is that of Kung and Kuh, and I take this opportunity to say that the text throughout is gathered from the K‘ang-he edition of the Classic. The editors generally follow Tso-she; but occasionally, as in this case, they adopt the text of Kung or Kuh. They have not told us by what principles they were guided in the formation or preference of that which they have given.
- ↑ 春秋古經,雖漢藝文志.有之,然夫子所修之春秋,其本文世所不見,而自漢以來,所編古經,則 俱自三傳中取出經文,名之日正經耳,然三傳所載經文,多有異同,則學者何所折衷,如公及邾儀父盟於蔑,左氏以為蔑,公榖以為眜,則不知夫子所書者,日蔑乎,日眜乎,築郿,左氏以為郿,公榖以為微,則不知夫子所書者,日郿乎,日微乎,會於厥憖,公榖以為屈銀,則不知夫子所書者,日厥憖乎,日屈銀乎,若是者, 殆 不可勝數,蓋不特亥豕魯魚之偶誤其一二而已,然此特名字之訛耳,其事未嘗背馳於大義,尙無所關也,至於君氏卒,則以為聲子,魯之夫人也,尹氏卒,則以為師尹,周之卿士也,然則夫子所書隱三年,夏四月辛卯之死者,竟為何人乎,不寕惟是,公羊榖梁於襄公二十一年,皆書孔子生,按春秋惟國君世子生,則書之,子同生是也,其餘世卿擅國政,如季氏之徒,其生亦未嘗書之於冊,夫子萬世帝王之師,然其始生,乃鄹邑大夫之子耳,魯史未必書也,魯史所不書,而謂夫子自紀其生之年,於所修之經,決無是理也,而左於哀公十四年獲麟之後,又復引經以至十六年四月,書仲尼卒,社征南亦以為近誣,然則春秋本文,其附見於三傳者,不特乖異未可盡信,而三子以意增損者有之矣,蓋襄二十一年所書者,公榖尊其師授而增書之也,哀十六年所書者,左氏痛其師亡而增書之也,俱非春秋之本文也,三子者,以當時口耳所傳受者,各自為傳,又以其意之所欲增益者,攙入之,後世諸儒,復據其見於三子之書者,互有所左右而發明之,而以為得聖人筆削之意於千載之上,吾未之能信也.
19]
