<Previous Section>
<Next Section>

《禍虛篇》

世謂受福祐者，既以為行善所致；又謂被禍害者，為惡所得。以為有沉惡伏過，天地罰之，鬼神報之。天地所罰，小大猶發； 鬼神所報，遠近猶至。

《傳》曰：「子夏喪其子而喪其明，曾子弔之，哭。子夏曰：『天乎！予之無罪也！』曾子怒曰：『商！汝何無罪也？ 吾與汝事夫子於洙、泗之間，退而老於西河之上，使西河之民，疑汝於夫子，爾罪一也。喪爾親，使民未有異聞，爾罪二也。喪爾子，喪爾明， 爾罪三也。而曰汝何無罪歟？』

子夏投其杖而拜，曰：『吾過矣！吾過矣！吾離群而索居，亦以久矣！』」

夫子夏喪其明，曾子責以罪，子夏投杖拜曾子之言，蓋以天實罰過，故目失其明；己實有之，故拜受其過。 始聞暫見，皆以為然。熟考論之，虛妄言也。

夫失明猶失聽也，失明則盲，失聽則聾。病聾不謂之有過，失明謂之有罪，惑也。蓋耳目之病，猶心腹之有病也。耳目失明聽，謂之有罪，心腹有病，可謂有過乎？

伯牛有疾，孔子自牖執其手，曰：「亡之命矣夫！斯人也而有斯疾也！」原孔子言，謂伯牛不幸，故傷之也。如伯牛以過致疾，天報以惡，與子夏同，孔子宜陳其過，若曾子謂子夏之狀。今乃言「命」，命非過也。

且〔夫〕天之罰人，猶人君罪下也。所罰服罪，人君赦之。子夏服過，拜以自悔，天德至明，宜愈其盲。如非天罪，子夏失明， 亦無三罪。

且喪明之病，孰與被厲之病？喪明有三罪，被厲有十過乎？

顏淵早夭，子路葅醢，早死、葅醢，〔天下〕極禍也，以喪明言之，顏淵、子路有百罪也。由此言之，曾子之言誤矣。

然子夏之喪明，喪其子也。子者、人情所通，親者、人所力報也。喪親，民無聞；喪子，失其明，此恩損於親， 而愛增於子也。增則哭泣無數，數哭中風，目失明矣。

曾子因俗之議，以著子夏三罪。子夏亦緣俗議，因以失明，故拜受其過。曾子、子夏未離於俗，故孔子門敘行，未在上第也。

秦襄王賜白起劍，白起伏劍將自刎，曰：「我有何罪於天乎？」良久，曰：「我固當死。長平之戰，趙卒降者數十萬，我詐而盡（）〔坑〕之，是足以死。」遂自殺。白起知己前罪，服更後罰也。

夫白起知己所以罪，不知趙卒所以（）〔坑〕。如天審罰有過之人，趙降卒何辜于天？如用兵妄傷殺，則四十萬眾必有不亡，不亡之人，何故以其善行無罪而竟（）〔坑〕之？卒不得以善蒙天之祐，白起何故獨以其罪伏天之誅？由此言之，白起之言，過矣。

秦二世使使者詔殺蒙恬。蒙恬喟然嘆曰：「我何過於天？無罪而死！」良 久，徐曰：「恬罪故當死矣！夫起臨洮屬之遼東，城徑萬里，此其中不能毋絕地脈。此乃恬之罪也！」即吞藥自殺。

太史公非之曰：「夫秦〔之〕初滅諸侯，天下〔之〕心未定，夷傷未瘳，而恬為名將，不以此時彊諫，救百姓之急，養老矜孤，脩眾庶之和，〔而〕阿意興功，此其（子）〔兄〕弟（過）〔遇〕誅，不亦宜乎？何與乃罪地脈也？」

夫蒙恬之言既非，而太史公非之亦未是。何則？蒙恬絕〔地〕脈，罪至當死，地養萬物，何過於人，而（蒙恬）絕其脈？〔蒙恬〕知己有絕地脈之罪，不知地脈所以絕之過，自非如此，與不自非何以異？ 太史公為非恬之為名將，不能以彊諫，故致此禍。夫當諫不諫，故致受死亡之戮。

身任李陵，坐下蠶室，如太史公之言，所任非其人，故殘身之戮，天命而至也。非蒙恬以不彊諫，故致此禍，則己下蠶室，有非者矣。己無非，則其非蒙恬，非也。

作伯夷之《傳》，（則）〔列〕善惡之行，云：「七十子之徒，仲尼獨薦顏淵好學。然回也屢空，糟糠不厭，卒夭死。 天之報施善人如何哉？

盜跖日殺不辜，肝人之肉，暴戾恣睢，聚黨數千，橫行天下，竟以壽終。是獨遵何哉？」

若此言之，顏回不當早夭，盜跖不當全活也。不怪顏淵不當夭，而獨謂蒙恬當死，過矣。

漢將李廣與望氣王朔燕語，曰：「自漢擊匈奴而廣未常不在其中，而諸校尉以下，才能不及中，然以胡軍（攻） 〔功〕取侯者數十人，而廣不為（侯）後人，然終無尺（土）〔寸〕之功以得（見）封邑者，何也？豈吾相不當侯〔邪〕？且固命也？」

朔曰：「將軍自念，豈常有恨者乎？」廣曰：「吾為隴西太守，常反，吾誘而降之八百餘人，吾詐而同日殺之。 至今恨之，獨此矣！」

朔曰：「禍莫大於殺已降，此乃將軍所以不得侯者也。」

李廣然之，聞者信之。 夫不侯猶不王者也。不侯何恨？不王何負乎？孔子不王，論者不謂之有負；李廣不侯，王朔謂之有恨。然則王朔之言，失論之實矣。

論者以為：人之封侯，自有天命，天命之符，見於骨體。大將軍衛青在建章宮時，鉗徒相之曰：「貴至封侯。」後竟以功封萬戶侯。衛青未有功，而鉗徒見其當封之證。由此言之，封侯有命，非人操行所能得也。鉗徒之言，實而有效；王朔之言，虛而無驗也。多橫恣而不罹禍，順道而違福，王朔之說，白起自非、蒙恬自咎之類也。

倉卒之世，以財利相劫殺者眾。同車共船，千里為商，至闊迥之地，殺其人而并取其財。尸捐不收，骨暴不葬，在水為魚鱉之食 ，在土為螻蟻之糧。惰窳之人，不力農勉商，以積穀貨，遭歲饑饉，腹餓不飽，椎人若畜，割而食之，無君子小人，並為魚肉，人所不能知， 吏所不能覺，千人以上，萬人以下，計一聚之中，生者百一，死者十九，可謂無道，至痛甚矣，皆得陽達，富厚安樂。天不責其無仁義之心。

道相并殺，非其無力作，而倉卒以人為食，加以渥禍，使之夭命，章其陰罪，明示世人，使知不可為非之驗，何哉？王朔之言，未必審然。

《傳書》：「李斯同才，幽殺韓非於秦，後被車裂之罪；商鞅欺舊交，擒魏公子卬，後受誅死之禍。」彼欲言其賊賢欺交，故受患禍之報也。 夫韓非何過而為李斯所幽？公子卬何罪而為商鞅所擒？車裂誅死，賊賢欺交，幽死見擒，何以致之？如韓非、公子卬有惡，天使李斯、商鞅報之，則李斯、商鞅為天奉誅，宜蒙其賞，不當受其禍；如韓非、公子卬無惡，非天所罰，李斯、商鞅不得幽、擒。

論者說曰：「韓非、公子卬有陰惡伏罪，人不聞見，天獨知之，故受戮殃。」夫諸有罪之人，非賊賢則逆道。如賊賢，則被所賊者何負？如逆道，則被所逆之道何非？

凡人窮達禍福之至，大之則命，小之則時。太公窮賤，遭周文而得封；甯戚隱阨，逢齊桓而見官。非窮賤隱阨有非， 而得封見官有是也。窮達有時，遭遇有命也。

太公、甯戚，賢者也，尚可謂有非。聖人、純道者也。虞舜為父弟所害，幾死再三。有遇唐堯，堯禪舜。（ 立）〔不〕為帝，嘗見害，未有非；立為帝，未有是。前，時未到；後，則命時至也。

案古人君臣困窮，後得達通，未必初有惡，天禍其前；卒有善，神祐其後也。一身之行，一行之操，結髮終死，前後無異；然一成一敗，一進一退，一窮一通，一全一壞，遭遇適然，命時當也。

Chapter XII. Wrong Notions on Unhappiness(Huo-hsü).

Since what the world calls happiness and divine grace is believed to be the outcome of moral conduct, it is also a common belief that the victims of misfortune and disgrace are thus visited because of their wickedness. Those sunk in sin, and steeped in iniquity Heaven and Earth punish, and the spirits retaliate upon them. These penalties, whether heavy or light, will be enforced, and the retributions of the spirits reach far and near.

Tse Hsia1 is related to have lost his sight, while mourning for his son. Tsêng Tse2 by way of condolence wept. Tse Hsia thereupon exclaimed "O Heaven, I was not guilty!" Tsêng Tse grew excited, and said "In what way are you innocent, Shang?" 3 I served our master with you between the Chu4 and the Sse, but you retired to the region above the West River, 5 where you lived, until you grew old. You misled the people of the West River into the belief that you were equal to the master. That was your first fault. When mourning for your parents, you did nothing extraordinary, that people would talk about. That was your second fault. But in your grief over your son, you lost your eye-sight. That was your third fault. How dare you say that you are not guilty?"

Tse Hsia threw away his staff, went down on his knees and said, "I have failed, I have failed! I have left human society, and also led a solitary life for ever so long." 6

Thus Tse Hsia having lost his sight, Tsêng Tse reproved him for his faults. Tse Hsia threw away his stick, and bowed to Tsêng Tse's words. Because, as they say, Heaven really punishes the guilty, therefore evidently his eyes lost their sight. Having thus humbly acknowledged his guilt, he is reported to have regained his sight by degrees. Everybody says so, nevertheless a thorough investigation will show us that this belief is illusory.

Loss of sight is like loss of hearing. Loss of sight is blindness, and loss of hearing, deafness. He who suffers from deafness, is not believed to have faults, therefore it would be erroneous to speak of guilt, if a man becomes blind. Now the diseases of the ear and the eye are similar to those of the heart and the stomach. In case the ear and the eye lose their faculties, one speaks of guilt perhaps, but can any fault be inferred, when the heart or the stomach are sick?

Po Niu was ill. Confucius grasped his hand through the window saying "It will kill him, such is his fate! Such a man to get such a disease!" 7 Originally Confucius spoke of Po Niu's bad luck, and therefore pitied him. Had Po Niu's guilt been the cause of his sickness, then Heaven would have punished him for his wickedness, and he would have been on a level with Tse Hsia. In that case Confucius ought to have exposed his guilt, as Tsêng Tse did with Tse Hsia. But instead he spoke of fate. Fate is no fault.

Heaven inflicts its punishments on man, as a sovereign does on his subjects. If a man thus chastised, submits to the punishment, the ruler will often pardon him. Tse Hsia admitted his guilt, humiliated himself, and repented. Therefore Heaven in its extreme kindness ought to have cured his blindness, or, if Tse Hsia's loss of sight was not a retribution from Heaven, Tse Hsia cannot have been thrice guilty.

Is not leprosy much worse than blindness? If he who lost his sight, had three faults, was then the leper 8 ten times guilty?

Yen Yuan9 died young and Tse Lu came to a premature end, being chopped into minced meat. 10 Thus to be butchered is the most horrid disaster. Judging from Tse Hsia's blindness, both Yen Yuan and Tse Lu must have been guilty of a hundred crimes. From this it becomes evident that the statement of Tsêng Tse was preposterous.

Tse Hsia lost his sight, while bewailing his son. The feelings for one's children are common to mankind, whereas thankfulness to one's parents is sometimes forced. When Tse Hsia was mourning for his father and mother, people did not notice it, but, when bewailing his son, he lost his sight. This shows that his devotion to his parents was rather weak, but that he passionately loved his son. Consequently he shed innumerable tears. Thus ceaselessly weeping, he exposed himself to the wind, and became blind.

Tsêng Tse following the common prejudice invented three faults for Tse Hsia. The latter likewise stuck to the popular belief. Because he had lost his sight, he humbly acknowledged his guilt. Neither Tsêng Tse nor Tse Hsia could rid of these popular ideas. Therefore in arguing, they did not rank very high among Confucius followers.

King Hsiang of Ch`in11 sent a sword to Po Ch`i,12 who thereupon was going to commit suicide, falling on the sword. "How have I offended Heaven?," quoth he. After a long while he rejoined:--- "At all events I must die. At the battle of Ch`angp`ing13 the army of Chao, several hundred thousand men, surrendered, but I deceived them, and caused them to be buried alive. Therefore I deserve to die." Afterwards he made away with himself. 14

Po Ch`i was well aware of his former crime, and acquiesced in the punishment consequent upon it. He knew, how he himself had failed, but not, why the soldiers of Chao were buried alive. If Heaven really had punished the guilty, what offence against Heaven had the soldiers of Chao committed, who surrendered? Had they been wounded and killed on the battle-field by the random blows of weapons, many out of the four hundred thousand would certainly have survived. Why were these also buried in spite of their goodness and innocence? Those soldiers being unable to obtain Heaven's protection through their virtue, why did Po Ch`i alone suffer the condign punishment for his crime from Heaven? We see from this that Po Ch`i was mistaken in what he said.

The Ch`in emperor Erh Shih Huang Ti15 sent an envoy to Mêng T`ien,16 and commanded him to commit suicide. Mêng T`ien heaving a deep sigh said "How have I failed against Heaven? I die innocent." After a long while, he slowly began, "Yet I am guilty, therefore I am doomed to die. When I was constructing the Great Wall connecting Liao-tung17 with Lin-t`ao,18 ten thousand Li in a straight line, I could not avoid cutting the veins of the earth. That was my guilt." Upon this he swallowed a drug, and expired. 19

The Grand Annalist Sse Ma Ch`ien finds fault with him. "When the Ch`in dynasty, he said, had exterminated the feudal princes, and peace was not yet restored to the empire, nor the wounds healed, Mêng T`ien, a famous general at that time, did not care to strongly remonstrate with the emperor, or help people in their distress, feeding the old, befriending the orphans, or bringing about a general concord. He flattered those in power, and instigated them to great exploits. That was the fault of men of his type, who well deserved to be put to death. Why did he make the veins of the earth responsible?" 20

If what Mêng T`ien said was wrong, the strictures of the Grand Annalist are not to the point either. How so? Mêng T`ien being guilty of having cut the veins of the earth, deserved death for this great crime. How did the earth, which nourishes all beings, wrong man? Mêng T`ien, who cut its veins, knew very well that by doing so he had committed a crime, but he did not know, why by lacerating the veins of the earth he had made himself guilty. 21 Therefore it is of no consequence, whether Mêng T`ien thus impeached himself, or not. The Grand Annalist blames Meng T`ien for not having strongly protested, when he was a famous general, that therefore he met with this disaster, for those that do not speak, when they ought to remonstrate, will have to suffer a violent death.

Sse Ma Ch`ien himself had to suffer for Li Ling in the warm room. 22 According to the Grand Annalist's own view the misfortune suffered tells against a person. Consequently capital punishment takes place by Heaven's decree. If Sse Ma Ch`ien censures Mêng T`ien for not having strongly remonstrated with his sovereign, wherefore he incurred his disaster, then there must have been something wrong about himself likewise, since he was put into the warm room. If he was not wrong, then his criticisms on Mêng T`ien are not just.

In his memoir on Po Yi23 the Grand Annalist, giving examples of good and bad actions says, "Out of his seventy disciples Confucius only recommended Yen Yuan for his ardent love of learning. Yet Yen Yuan was often destitute. He lived on bran, of which he could not even eat his fill, and suddenly died in his prime. Does Heaven reward good men thus?"

"Robber Chê assassinated innocent people day after day, and ate their flesh. By his savageness and imposing haughtiness he attracted several thousand followers, with whom he scourged the empire. Yet he attained a very great age after all. Why was he so specially favoured?"

Yen Yuan ought not to have died so prematurely, and robber Chê should not have been kept alive so long. Not to wonder at Yen Yuan's premature death, but to say that Mêng T`ien deserved to die, is inconsistent.

The Han general Li Kuang24 said in a conversation which he had with the diviner Wang Shê, "Ever since the Han25 have fought the Hsiung-nu,26 I was there. But several tens of officers of a lower rank than commander of a city gate, with scarcely moderate abilities, have won laurels in the campaigns against the Hu27 and marquisates withal. I do not yield the palm to these nobles, but how is it that I have not eveu acquired a square foot of land as a reward of my services, and much less been enfeoffed with a city? Are my looks not those of a marquis? Surely it is my fate."

Wang Shê asked him to think, whether there was anything which always gave him pangs of conscience. Li Kuang replied, "When I was magistrate of Lung-hsi,28 the Ch`iang29 continuously rebelled. I induced over eight hundred to submission, and, by a stratagem, had them all killed on the same day. This is the only thing for which I feel sorry upto now."

Wang Shê rejoined:---"There can be no greater crime than to murder those that have surrendered. That is the reason, why you, general, did not get a marquisate." 30

Li Kuang agreed with him, and others who heard of it, believed this view to be true. Now, not to become a marquis is like not becoming an emperor. Must he who is not made a marquis, have anything to rue, and he who does not become emperor, have committed any wrong? Confucius was not made an emperor, but nobody will say of him that he had done any wrong, whereas, because Li Kuang did not become a marquis, Wang Shê said that he had something to repent of. But his reasoning is wrong.

Those who go into these questions, mostly hold that, whether a man will be invested with a marquisate or not, is predestinated by Heaven, and that marks of Heaven's fate appear in his body. When the great general Wei Ch`ing31 was in the Chien-chang palace, a deported criminal with an iron collar predicted his fate to the effect that he was so distinguished, that he would even be made a marquis. Later on, he in fact became a marquis over ten thousand families, owing to his great services. Before Wei Ch`ing had performed his great achievements, the deported criminal saw those signs pointing to his future rank. Consequently, to be raised to the rank of a marquis depends on fate, and man cannot attain to it by his works. What the criminal said turned out true, as shown by the result, whereas Wang Shê's assertion is untenable and without proof. Very often people are perverse and selfish without becoming unhappy by it, and others who always follow the path of virtue, may lose their happiness. Wang Shê's opinion is of the same kind as the self-reproach of Po Ch`i, and the self-impeachment of Mêng T`ien.

In this flurried, bustling world it constantly happens that people rob and murder each other in their greed for wealth. Two merchants having travelled together in the same cart or the same boat a thousand Li, one kills the other, when they arrive at a far-off place, and takes away all his property. The dead body is left on the spot, uncared for, and the bones bleech in the sun unburied. In the water, the corpse is eaten up by fish and turtles, on land, ants and vermin feed upon it. The lazy fellows won't exert their strength in agriculture, but resort to commerce, and even that reluctantly, in order to amass grain and goods. When then in a year of scarcity they have not enough to still the hunger of their bellies, they knock down their fellow-citizens like beasts, cut them to pieces, and eat their flesh. No difference is made between good and bad men, they are all equally devoured. It is not generally known, and the officials do not hear of it. In communities of over a thousand men up to ten thousand only one man out of a hundred remains alive, and nine out of ten die. 32 This is the height of lawlessness and atrocity, yet all the murderers walk publicly about, become wealthy men, and lead a gay and pleasant life, without Heaven punishing them for their utter want of sympathy and benevolence.

They kill one another, when they meet on the roads, not because they are so poor, that they cannot undertake anything, but only because they are passing through hard times, they feed on human flesh, thus bringing endless misery on their fellow-creatures, and compassing their premature deaths. How is it possible that they can make their guilt public, openly showing to the whole world the indelible proofs thereof? Wang Shê's opinion can certainly not be right.

The historians tell us that Li Sse,33 envious that Han Fei Tse34 equalled him in talent, had him assassinated in jail 35 in Ch`in, but that, afterwards, he was torn to pieces by carts, 36 furthermore that Shang Yang,37 under pretence of his old friendship, captured Ang, prince of Wei, but that, subsequently, he had to suffer death. They wish to imply that those men had to endure these misfortunes as a punishment for their having destroyed a wise man, or broken an old friendship. For what cause had Han Fei Tse given, to be incarcerated by Li Sse, or what fault had prince Ang committed, to be taken prisoner by Shang Yang? How did the murder of a scholar, who died in prison, and the breaking of an old friendship resulting in the arrest of the prince, bring about the violent death of the culprit, torn to pieces by carts, 38 or the decapitation? If Han Fei Tse or prince Ang were wicked, and Heaven had placed retribution in the hands of Li Sse and Shang Yang, then the latter would have acted by Heaven's order, and be deserving of his reward, not of misfortune. Were Han Fei Tse and prince Ang blameless, and not punished by Heaven, then Li Sse and Shang Yang ought not to have imprisoned and captured them.

It will be argued that Han Fei Tse and Prince Ang had concealed their crimes, and hidden their faults so, that nobody heard about them, but Heaven alone knew, and therefore they suffered death and mishap. The guilt of men consists, either in outrages on the wise, or in attacks on the well-minded. If they commit outrages on the wise, what wrong have the victims of these outrages done? And if they attack the well-minded, what fault have the people thus attacked committed? 39

When misery or prosperity, fortune or mishap are falling to man's share with greater intensity, it is fate, when less so, it is time. T`ai Kung40 was in great distress, when he happened to be enfeoffed with a territory by the Chou king Wên Wang. Ning Ch`i41 was living in obscurity and difficulties, when Duke Huan of Ch`i gave him an appointment. It cannot be said that these two men, when they were poor and miserable, had done wrong, but had reformed, when they obtained their investment or appointment. Calamity and prosperity have their time, and good or bad luck depend on fate.

T`ai Kung and Ning Ch`i were worthies, but they may have had their faults. Sages, however, possess perfect virtue. Nevertheless Shun was several times almost done to death by the foul play of his father and brother. 42 When he met with Yao, the latter yielded the throne to him, and raised him to the imperial dignity. It is evident that, when Shun had to endure these insidious attacks, he was not to blame, and that he did not behave well, when he was made emperor. First, his time had not yet come, afterwards, his fate was fulfilled, and his time came.

When princes and ministers in olden days were first distressed, and afterwards crowned with success, it was not, because they had at first been bad, and Heaven sent them calamities, or that subsequently they suddenly improved, and then were helped and protected by the spirits. The actions and doings of one individual from his youth to his death bear the same character from first to last. Yet one succeeds, the other fails, one gets on, the other falls off, one is penniless, the other well-to-do, one thriving, the other ruined. All this is the result of chance and luck, and the upshot of fate and time.

Notes

1. A disciple of Confucius.

2. One of the most famous disciples of Confucius, whose name has been connected with the authorship of the Great Learning.

3. Pu Shang was the name of Tse Hsia. Tse Hsia is his style.

4. A small river in the province of Shantung, flowing into the Sse.

5. Presumably the western course of the Yellow River.

6. Quoted from the Li-ki, T`an Kung I (cf. Legge's translation, Sacred Books of the East Vol. XXVII, p. 135).

7. Quotation of Analects VI, 8.

8. Po Niu, who was suffering from leprosy.

9. The favourite disciple of Confucius, whose name was Yen Hui.

10. The Tso-chuan, Book XII Duke Ai 15th year, relates that Tse Lu was killed in a revolution in Wei, struck with spears, no mention being made of his having been hacked to pieces (cf. Legge, Ch`un Ch`iu Pt. II, p. 842). This is related, however, in the Li-ki, T`an-kung I (Legge Sacred Books Vol. XXVII, p. 123) and by Huai Nan Tse VII, 13v.

11. King Ch`ao Hsiang of Ch`in 305-249 b.c.

12. A famous general of the Ch`in State who by treachery annihilated the army of Chao Vid. p. 136.

13. In Shansi.

14. Po Ch`i had fallen into disfavour with his liege upon refusing to lead another campaign against Chao.

15. 209-207 b.c.

16. A general of Erh Shih Huang Ti's father, Ch`in Shih Huang Ti, who fought successfully against the Hsiung-nu, and constructed the Great Wall as a rampart of defence against their incursions.

17. The Manchurian province of Fêng-t`ien.

18. A city in Kansu at the western extremity of the Great Wall.

19. Quoted from the Shi-chi chap. 88, p. 5.

20. Remarks of Sse Ma Ch`ien to Shi-chi chap. 88, p. 5v.

21. The earth is here treated like an animated being, and its wounding by digging out ditches for the earth-works requisite for the Great Wall, and by piercing mountains, is considered a crime. But provided that Mêng T`ien suffered the punishment of his guilt, then another difficulty arises. Why did Heaven allow Earth to be thus maltreated, why did it punish innocent Earth? Wang Ch`ung's solution is very simple. Heaven neither rewards nor punishes. Its working is spontaneous, unpremeditated, and purposeless. Mêng T`ien's death is nothing but an unfelicitous accident.

22. For his intercession in favour of the defeated general Li Ling the emperor Wu Ti condemned Sse Ma Ch`ien to castration, which penalty was inflicted upon him in a warm room serving for that purpose. (Cf. Chavannes, Mém. Historiques Vol. I, p. XL.)

23. Shi-chi chap. 61, p. 3v. Po Yi (12th cent. b.c.) and his elder brother Shu Ch`i were sons of the Prince of Ku-chu in modern Chili. Their father wished to make the younger brother Shu Ch`i his heir, but he refused to deprive his elder brother of his birth-right, who, on his part, would not ascend the throne against his father's will. Both left their country to wander about in the mountains, where at last they died of cold and hunger. They are regarded as models of virtue.

24. Died 125 b.c.

25. The Han dynasty. The Former Han dynasty reigned from 206 b.c.-25 a.d. the Later Han dynasty from 25-220 a.d.

26. A Turkish tribe.

27. A general term for non-Chinese tribes in the north.

28. District in Kansu.

29. Tribes in the West of China.

30. A quotation from Shi-chi chap. 109, p. 6, the biography of General Li

31. A favourite and a general of Han Wu Ti, died 106 b.c.

32. A Chinese does not take exception to the incongruity of the equation:--- 100 : 1 = 10 : 1. The meaning is plain:---a small percentage of survivors, and a great many dying.

33. Prime Minister of Ch`in Shih Huang Ti and a great scholar. He studied together with Han Fei Tse under the philosopher Hsün Tse.

34. A Taoist philosopher, son of a duke of the Han State.

35. By his intrigues Li Sse had induced the king of Ch`in to imprison Han Fei Tse. He then sent him poison, with which Han Fei Tse committed suicide. Vid. Shi-chi chap. 63, p. 11v., Biography of Han Fei Tse.

36. Li Sse fell a victim to the intrigues of the powerful eunuch Chao Kao. The Shi-chi chap. 87, p. 20v., Biography of Li Sse, relates that he was cut asunder at the waist on the market place. At all events he was executed in an atrocious way. The tearing to pieces by carts driven in opposite directions is a punishment several times mentioned in the Ch`un-ch`iu.

37. Shang Yang is Wei Yang, Prince of Shang, died 338 b.c. In the service of the Ch`in State he defeated an army of Wei, commanded by Prince Ang, whom he treacherously seized, and assassinated at a meeting, to which he had invited him as an old friend. According to the Shi-chi, chap. 68, p. 9, Biography of Prince Shang, he lost his life in battle against his former master, and his corpse was torn to pieces by carts like Li Sse.

38. The culprit being bound to the carts, which then were driven in different directions.

39. Why does Heaven punish the innocent through the guilty? If Han Fei Tse and Ang had sinned in secret, Heaven would have been unjust towards those they had wronged, and so on.

40. A high officer, who had gone into exile to avoid the tyrannous rule of Chou Hsin 1122 b.c., and subsequently joined Wên Wang.

41. Ning Ch`i lived in the 7th cent. b.c.

42. Cf. p. 173.
<Previous Section>
<Next Section>
IATHPublished by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia