書虛篇

世信虛妄之書，以為載於竹帛上者，皆賢聖所傳，無不然之事，故信而是之，諷而讀之；睹真是之傳，與虛妄之書相違，則並謂短書不可信用。夫幽冥之實尚可知，沈隱之情尚可定，顯文露書，是非易見，籠總並傳，非實事，用精不專，無思於事也。

夫世間傳書諸子之語，多欲立奇造異，作驚目之論，以駭世俗之人；為譎詭之書，以 著殊異之名。

傳書言：延陵季子出遊，見路有遺金。當夏五月，有披裘而薪者，季子呼薪者 曰：“取彼地金來。”

薪者投鐮於地，瞋目拂手而言曰：“何子居之高，視之下，儀貌之壯，語言之野也！ 吾當夏五月，披裘而薪，豈取金者哉？”

季子謝之，請問姓字。薪者曰：“子皮相之士也！何足語姓字！”遂去不顧。

世以為然，殆虛言也。夫季子恥吳之亂，吳欲共立以為主，終不肯受，去之延陵， 終身不還，廉讓之行，終始若一。

許由讓天下，不嫌貪封侯。伯夷委國饑死，不嫌貪刀鉤。廉讓之行，大 可以況小，小難以況大。

季子能讓吳位，何嫌貪地遺金？季子使於上國，道過徐。徐君好其寶劍，未之即予。還而徐君死 ，解劍帶塚樹而去。廉讓之心，恥負其前志也。季子不負死者，棄其寶劍，何嫌一叱生人取金於地？

季子未去吳乎？公子也；已去吳乎，延陵君也。公子與君，出有前後，車有附從，不能空行於 塗，明矣。既不恥取金，何難使左右？而煩披裘者？

世稱柳下惠之行，言其能以幽冥自修潔也。賢者同操，故千歲交志。置季子於冥昧之處， 尚不取金，況以白日，前後備具，取金於路，非季子之操也。

或時季子實見遺金，憐披裘薪者，欲以益之；或時言取彼地金，欲以予薪者，不自取也。世俗傳言，則言季子取遺金也。

傳書或言：顏淵與孔子俱上魯太山，孔子東南望，吳閶門外有系白馬，引顏淵指以示之曰：“ 若見吳昌門乎？”顏淵曰：“見之。”孔子曰：“門外何有？”

曰“有如系練之狀。”

孔子撫其目而正之，因與俱下。下而顏淵發白齒落，遂以病死。蓋以精神不能若孔子，強力 自極，精華竭盡，故早夭死。世俗聞之，皆以為然。如實論之，殆虛言也。

案《論語》之文，不見此言。考《六經》之傳，亦無此語。夫顏淵能見千里之外， 與聖人同，孔子、諸子，何諱不言？

蓋人目之所見，不過十裏。過此不見，非所明察，遠也。傳曰：“太山之高巍然，去之百里， 不見垂，遠也。”

案魯去吳，千有餘裏，使離硃望之，終不能見，況使顏淵，何能審之？如才庶幾者，明目異 於人，則世宜稱亞聖，不宜言離硃。

人目之視也，物大者易察，小者難審。使顏淵處昌門之外，望太山之形，終不能見。況從 太山之上，察白馬之色，色不能見，明矣。非顏淵不能見，孔子亦不能見也。何以驗之？

耳目之用，均也。目不能見百里，則耳亦不能聞也。陸賈曰：“離婁之明，不能察帷薄之內；師曠之聰，不能聞百里之外。”昌門之與太山，非直帷薄之內、百里之外也。

秦武王與孟說舉鼎不任，絕脈而死。舉鼎用力，力由筋脈，筋脈不堪，絕傷而死，道理宜 也。今顏淵用目望遠，望遠目睛不任，宜盲眇，發白齒落，非其致也。

發白齒落，用精於學，勤力不休，氣力竭盡，故至於死。

伯奇放流，首發早白。《詩》雲：“惟憂用老。”伯奇用憂，而顏淵用睛，暫望倉卒，安能致此？

儒書言：舜葬於蒼梧、禹葬於會稽者，巡狩年老，道死邊土。聖人以天下為家，不別遠近， 不殊內外，故遂止葬。

夫言舜、禹，實也；言其巡狩，虛也。舜之與堯，俱帝者也，共五千里之境，同四海之內；二帝 之道，相因不殊。《堯典》之篇，舜巡狩東至岱宗，南至霍山，西至太華，北至恆山。以為四岳者，四方之中，諸 侯之來，並會岳下，幽深遠近，無不見者，聖人舉事，求其宜適也。

禹王如舜，事無所改，巡狩所至，以複如舜。舜至蒼梧，禹到會稽，非其實也。

實舜、禹之時，鴻水未治，堯傳於舜，舜受為帝，與禹分部，行治鴻水。堯崩之後， 舜老，亦以傳於 禹。舜南治水，死於蒼梧；禹東治水，死於會嵇。賢聖家天下，故因葬焉。

吳君高說：會稽本山名，夏禹巡守，會計於此山，因以名郡，故曰會稽。

夫言因山名郡可也，言禹巡狩會計於此山，虛也。巡狩本不至會稽，安得會計於此山？宜聽 君高之說，誠會稽為會計，禹到南方，何所會計？如禹始東死於會稽，舜亦巡狩，至於蒼梧，安所會計？

百王治定則出巡，巡則輒會計，是則四方之山皆會計也。百王太平，升封太山。太山之上，封可 見者七十有二，紛綸湮滅者，不可勝數。如審帝王巡狩輒會計，會計之地如太山封者，四方宜多。

夫郡國成名，猶萬物之名，不可說也。獨為會稽立歟？周時舊名吳、越也，為吳、越立名，從何往 哉？六國立名，狀當如何？天下郡國且百餘，縣邑出萬，鄉亭聚裏，皆有號名，賢聖之才莫能說。君高能說會稽，不 能辨定方名。會計之說，未可從也。

巡狩考正法度，禹時吳為裸國，斷發文身，考之無用，會計如何？

傳書言：舜葬於蒼梧，象為之耕；禹葬會稽，鳥為之田。蓋以聖德所致，天使鳥獸報佑之也 。世莫不然。考實之，殆虛言也。

夫舜、禹之德不能過堯，堯葬於冀州，或言葬於崇山，冀州鳥獸不耕，而鳥獸獨為舜、 禹耕，何天恩之偏駁也？

或曰：“舜、禹治水，不得寧處，故舜死於蒼梧，禹死於會稽。勤苦有功，故天報之； 遠離中國，故天痛之。”

夫天報舜、禹，使鳥田象耕，何益舜、禹？天欲報舜、禹，宜使蒼梧、會稽 常祭祀之。使鳥獸田耕，不能使人祭。祭加舜、禹之墓，田施人民之家，天之報佑聖人，何其拙也，且無益哉！

由此言之，鳥田象耕，報佑舜、禹，非其實也。實者，蒼梧多象之地，會稽眾鳥所居。《 禹貢》曰：“彭蠡既瀦，陽鳥攸居。”天地之情，鳥獸之行也。象自蹈土，鳥自食蘋。土蹶草盡，若耕田狀， 壤靡泥易，人隨種之，世俗則謂為舜、禹田。

海陵麋田，若象耕狀，何嘗帝王葬海陵者邪？

傳書言：吳王夫差殺伍子胥，煮之於鑊，乃以鴟夷橐投之於江。子胥恚恨，驅水為濤，以溺殺人。 今時會稽丹徒大江、錢塘浙江，皆立子胥之廟。蓋欲慰其恨心，止其猛濤也。夫言吳王殺子胥投之於江，實也； 言其恨恚驅水為濤者，虛也。

屈原懷恨，自投湘江，湘江不為濤；申徒狄蹈河而死，河水不為濤。世人必曰：“屈原、申徒狄 不能勇猛，力怒不如子胥。”夫衛菹子路而漢烹彭越，子胥勇猛不過子路、彭越。然二士不能發怒於鼎鑊之 中，以烹湯菹汁瀋漎旁人。

子胥亦自先入鑊，後乃入江；在鑊中之時，其神安居？豈怯於鑊湯， 勇於江水哉！何其怒氣前後不相副也？

且投於江中，何江也？有丹徒大江，有錢唐浙江，有吳通陵江。或言投於丹徒大江 ，無濤，欲言投於錢唐浙江。浙江、山陰江、上虞江皆有濤。

三江有濤，豈分橐中之體，散置三江中乎？

人若恨恚也，仇讎未死，子孫遺在，可也。今吳國已滅，夫差無類，吳為會稽，立置太守，子 胥之神，複何怨苦，為濤不止，欲何求索？

吳、越在時，分會稽郡，越治山陰，吳都今吳，餘暨以南屬越，錢唐以北屬吳。錢唐之江，兩國界也。山陰、上虞在越界中，子胥入吳之江為濤，當自上吳界中，何為入越之地？怨恚吳王、發怒越江，違失道理，無神之驗也。

且夫水難驅，而人易從也。生任筋力，死用精魂。子胥之生，不能從生人營衛 其身，自令身死，筋力消絕，精魂飛散，安能為濤？

使子胥之類數百千人，乘船渡江，不能越水。一子胥之身，煮湯鑊之中，骨肉糜爛，成為羹菹 ，何能有害也？

周宣王殺其臣杜伯，燕簡公殺其臣莊子義。其後杜伯射宣王，莊子義害簡公，事理似然，猶為虛 言。今子胥不能完體，為杜伯、子義之事以報吳王，而驅水往來，豈報仇之義、有知之驗哉？

俗語不實，成為丹青； 丹青之文，賢聖惑焉。

夫地之有百川也，猶人之有血脈也。血脈流行，泛揚動靜，自有節度。百川亦然，其朝 夕往來，猶人之呼吸氣出入也。

天地之性，上古有之，《經》曰：“江、漢朝宗於海。”唐、虞之前也，其發海中之時，漾 馳而已；入三江之中，殆小淺狹，水激沸起，故騰為濤。

廣陵曲江有濤，文人賦之。大江浩洋，曲江有濤，竟 以隘狹也。吳殺其身，為濤廣陵，子胥之神，竟無知也。

溪穀之深，流者安洋，淺多沙石，激揚為瀨。夫濤瀨，一也。謂子胥為濤，誰居溪穀為瀨者乎？

案濤入三江，岸沸踴，中央無聲。必以子胥為濤，子胥之身，聚岸涯也？

濤之起也，隨月盛衰，小大滿損不齊同。如子胥為濤，子胥之怒，以月為節也？

三江時風，揚疾之波亦溺殺人，子胥之神，複為風也？

秦始皇渡湘水，遭風，問湘山何祠。 左右對曰：“堯之女，舜之妻也。”始皇太怒，使刑徒三千人，斬湘山之樹而履之。夫謂子胥之神為濤，猶謂二女之精為風也。

傳書言：孔子當泗水而葬，泗水為之卻流。此言孔子之德，能使水卻，不湍其墓也。世人信之。 是故儒者稱論，皆言孔子之後當封，以泗水卻流為證。如原省之，殆虛言也。

夫孔子死，孰與其生？生能操行，慎道 應天，死，操行絕，天佑至德，故五帝、三王招致瑞應，皆以生存，不以死亡。孔子生時，推排不容， 故歎曰：“鳳鳥不至，河不出圖，吾已矣夫！”

生時無佑，死反有報乎？孔子之死，五帝、三王，之死也。五帝、三王無佑，孔子之死獨有天報， 是孔子之魂聖，五帝之精不能神也。

泗水無知，為孔子卻流，天神使之。然則，孔子生時，天神不使人尊敬。如泗水卻流，天 欲封孔子之後，孔子生時，功德應天，天不封其身，乃欲封其後乎？

是蓋水偶自卻流。江河之流，有回復之處；百川之行，或易道更路，與卻流無以異。則泗水卻流，不為神怪也。

傳書稱：魏公子之德，仁惠下士，兼及鳥獸。方與客飲，有鸇擊鳩。鳩走，巡於公子案下。 追擊，殺於公子之前，公子恥之，即使人多設羅，得鸇數十枚，責讓以擊鳩之罪。擊鳩之鸇，低頭不敢 仰視，公子乃殺之。鸇世稱之曰：“魏公子為鳩報仇。”此虛言也。

夫鸇，物也，情心不同，音語不通。聖人不能使鳥獸為義理之行，公子何人， 能使鸇低頭自責？鳥為者以千萬數，向擊鳩蜚去，安可複得？

能低頭自責，是聖鳥也。曉公子之言，則知公子之行矣。知公子之行，則不擊鳩於其前。

人猶不能改過，鳥與人異，謂之能悔，世俗之語，失物類之實也。

或時公子實捕鸇，鸇得。人持其頭，變折其頸，疾痛低垂，不能仰視。緣公子惠義之人，則因褒稱，言鸇服過。蓋言語之次，空生虛妄之美；功名之下，常有非實之加。

傳書言：齊桓公妻姑姊妹七人。此言虛也。夫亂骨肉，犯親戚，無上下之序者，禽獸之性，則亂 不知倫理。案桓公九合諸侯，一匡天下，道之以德，將之以威，以故諸侯服從，莫敢不率，非內亂懷鳥獸之性者所 能為也。

夫率諸侯朝事王室，恥上無勢而下無禮也。外恥禮之不存，內何犯禮而自壞？外內不相副，則功無成而威 不立矣。

世稱桀、紂之惡，不言淫於親戚。實論者謂夫桀、紂惡微於亡秦，亡秦過泊於王莽，無 淫亂之言。桓公妻姑姊七人，惡浮於桀、紂，而過重於秦、莽也。

《春秋》采毫毛之美，貶纖芥之惡。桓公惡大，不貶何哉？魯文姜，齊襄公之妹也，襄公通焉。《 春秋》經曰：“莊二年冬，夫人姜氏會齊侯於郜。”

《春秋》何尤於襄公，而書其奸？何宥於桓公，隱而不譏？如經失之，傳家左丘明、公羊、谷梁 何諱不言？

案桓公之過，多內寵，內嬖如夫人者六。有五公子爭立，齊亂，公薨三月乃訃。世聞內嬖六人，嫡庶 無別，則言亂於姑姊妹七人矣。

傳書言：齊桓公負婦人而朝諸侯，此言桓公之淫亂無禮甚也。夫桓公大朝之時，負婦人於 背，其游宴之時，何以加此？

方修士禮，崇曆肅敬，負婦人於背，何以能率諸侯朝事王室？

葵丘之會，桓公驕矜，當時諸侯畔者九國。睚眥不得，九國畔去，況負婦人，淫亂之行， 何以肯留？

或曰：“管仲告諸侯：吾君背有疽創，不得婦人，瘡不衰愈。諸侯信管仲，故無畔者。”

夫十室之邑，必有忠信若孔子。當時諸侯千人以上，必知方術治疽，不用婦人。

管仲為君諱也，諸侯知仲為君諱而欺己，必恚怒而畔去，何以能久統會諸侯，成功於霸？

或曰：“桓公實無道，任賢相管仲，故能霸天下。”

夫無道之人，與狂無異，信讒遠賢，反害仁義，安能任管仲，能養人令之成事：

桀殺關 龍逢，紂殺王子比干，無道之君莫能用賢。使管仲賢，桓公不能用；用管仲，故知桓公無亂行也。

有 賢明之君，故有貞良之臣。臣賢，君明之驗，奈何謂之有亂？

難曰：“衛靈公無道之君，時知賢臣。管仲為輔，何明桓公不為亂也？”

夫靈公無道，任用三臣，僅以不喪，非有功行也。桓公尊九九之人，拔甯戚於車下，責苞茅不貢， 運兵功楚，九合諸侯，一匡天下，千世一出之主也。而雲負婦人於背，虛矣。

說《尚書》者曰：“周公居 攝，帶天子之綬，戴天子之冠，負扆南面而朝諸侯。”

戶牖之間曰扆，南面之坐位也。負南面鄉坐，扆在後也。桓公朝諸侯之時，或南面坐，婦 人立於後也。世俗傳雲，則曰負婦人於背矣。此則夔一足、宋丁公鑿井得一人之語也。

唐、虞時，夔為大夫，性知音樂，調聲悲善。當時人曰：“調樂如夔一足矣。”世俗傳 言：“夔一足。”

案秩宗官缺，帝舜博求，眾稱伯夷，伯夷稽首讓於夔龍。

秩宗卿官，漢之宗正也。斷 足，非其理也。且一足之人，何用行也？

夏後孔甲，田於東蓂山，天雨晦冥，入於民家，主人方乳。或曰：“後來之 子必貴。”或曰：“不勝，之子必賤。”孔甲曰：“為餘子，孰能賤之？”遂載以歸，析繚，斧斬 其足，卒為守者。 孔甲之欲貴之子，有餘力矣，斷足無宜，故為守者。

今夔一足，無因趨步，坐調音樂，可也；秩宗之官，不宜一足，猶守者斷足，不可貴 也。孔甲不得貴之子，伯夷不得讓於夔焉。

宋丁公者，宋人也。未鑿井時，常有寄汲，計之，日去一人作。自鑿井後，不復寄汲，計之 ，日得一人之作。故曰：“宋丁公鑿井得一人。”俗傳言曰：“丁公鑿井得一人於井中。”

夫人生於人，非生於土也。穿土鑿井，無為得人。

推此以論，負婦人之語，猶此類也。負婦人而坐，則雲婦人在背。知婦人在背非道，則生管 仲以婦人治疽之言矣。

使桓公用婦人徹胤服，婦人於背；女氣瘡可去，以婦人治疽。方朝諸侯，桓公重 衣，婦人襲裳，女氣分隔，負之何益？

桓公思士，作庭燎而夜坐，以思致士，反以白日負婦人見諸侯乎？ 傳書言聶正為嚴翁仲刺殺韓王，此虛也。

夫聶政之時，韓列侯也。列侯之三年，聶政刺韓相俠累。十二年列侯卒。與聶政殺俠累，相去十七年。而言聶政刺殺韓王，短書小傳，竟虛不可信也。

傳書又言：燕太子丹使刺客荊軻刺秦王，不得，誅死。後高漸麗複以擊築見秦王，秦王 說之；知燕太子之客，乃冒其眼，使之擊築。漸麗乃置鉛於築中以為重，當擊築，秦王膝進，不能自禁。漸麗 以築擊秦王顙，秦王病傷，三月而死。

夫言高漸麗以築擊秦王，實也；言中秦王病傷三月而死，虛也。

夫秦王者，秦始皇帝也。 始皇二十年，燕太子丹使荊軻刺始皇，始皇殺軻，明矣。二十一年，使將軍王翦功燕，得太子首；二十五年，遂 伐燕，而虜燕王嘉。後不審何年，高漸麗以築擊始皇，不中，諸漸麗。當二十七年，遊天下，到會稽，至琅邪，北 至勞、盛山，並海，西至平原津而病，到沙丘平臺，始皇崩。

夫讖書言始皇還，到沙丘而亡；傳書又言病築瘡三月而死於秦。一始皇之身，世或言死於沙丘，或言死於秦，其死言恆病瘡。傳書之言，多失其實，世俗之人，不能定也。

Chapter XXIII. Falsehoods in Books (Shu-hsü).

The world trusts in delusive books, taking everything indited on bamboo and silk for the records of wise and sage men and for absolutely true. In this belief they uphold, hum, and read them. When they see that really true records disagree with these fallacious books, they regard those records as light literature ¹ unworthy of faith. Recondite truth can still be found out, and profound or abstruse meanings, be determined. By explaining the words and elucidating the text, right and wrong are easily discovered. When all is recorded indiscriminately, the authors do not investigate things; they are not critical enough, and do not think of what they say.

Those who transmit the sayings of scholars, mostly wish to produce something wonderful and unprecedented. They will write a book which causes ordinary readers to stand aghast and stare in blank amazement, and compose a work unheard of, to win the name of an uncommonly clever writer.

There is the following narrative:

When Chi Tse² of Yen-ling³ was once travelling, he saw a piece of gold left on the roadside. It was the fifth month of summer, and there was a man who had put on a fur-coat and was gathering fuel. ⁴Chi Tse shouted for the fuel-gatherer to fetch him the gold on the ground. ⁵

The gatherer dropped his sickle, stared at him, and clapping his hands exclaimed, "How haughty you are, and how you look down upon others! Your outward appearance is that of a gentleman, but you talk like a ruffian. Now, in the fifth month of summer I have donned my fur to gather fuel. Why should I take up gold?" ⁶

Chi Tse apologised and inquired after his name and style, but the fuel-gatherer replied, "You are a student who of human features knows nothing more than the skin. How could I tell you my name and surname?", and he took no further notice of him.

The world believes in the truth of this story, but it is idle talk, I dare say. Chi Tse was apprehensive of a revolution in Wu, because its people would have him become their lord. He would not consent, on any account, and proceeded to Yen-ling, never to return. His unselfishness remained the same from first to last.

Hsü Yu⁷ yielded the empire, and he did not long for a marquisate. Po Yi turned his back upon his country, and died of hunger. He did not covet a crooked blade. ⁸ In the matter of disinterestedness we may draw an inference from great acts upon small ones, but should not surmise great ones from small ones.

Chi Tse was able to resign the throne of Wu, --- how should he be covetous of gold lying on the ground? When Chi Tse went on a mission to a powerful State, on his way he passed through Hsü. The prince of Hsü was fond of his sword, but at that time he did not yet give it him. On his return, the prince of Hsü was no more. Then he unbuckled his sword, suspended it on a tree over the grave, and went away. In his unselfishness he would not become unfaithful to his former intention. ⁹ How then should Chi Tse, who remained faithful to a deceased person and parted with his sword, out of greed call out to a living man to fetch the gold on the ground?

Before Chi Tse had left Wu, he was a prince, and after he had left it, he was the sovereign of Yen-ling. When a prince or a sovereign goes out, he has his retinue in front and in the rear, and carriages are following. It is plain that he cannot walk quite alone on the highway. If he was not ashamed of taking the gold, why did he not order his attendants to fetch it rather than to call upon the man in the furcoat?

In regard to Liu Hsia Hui's behaviour, people say that even left in the dark and unseen, he would still continue his purification. The virtuous have the same conduct, and for a thousand years maintain the same ideals. Confined to a dark place, Chi Tse would still refrain from taking gold --- how much less would he appropriate it on the road in bright daylight, and in the presence of all his men. That would not be like Chi Tse.

Perhaps it was thus that Chi Tse, seeing the gold lying about, out of pity for the fuel-gatherer in the fur, desired to help him with it, or at the time when he bade him take up the gold on the ground, he wished to give it him, and did not want it for himself, and then all the common traditions stated that Chi Tse wanted the gold.

The books contain another report namely that Yen Yuan and Confucius both ascended Mount T`ai in Lu. Confucius, looking out to the south-east, saw that outside the palace gate of Wu a white horse was attached. He pointed it out to Yen Yuan, asking him whether he perceived the palace-gate of Wu.¹⁰Yen Yuan having replied in the affermative, Confucius said, "And what is outside the gate?"

The other rejoined, "Something looking like suspended silk".

Confucius rubbed his eyes and corrected his error. Then both descended together. Afterwards the hair of Yen Yuan turned white, his teeth fell out, and, subsequently, he died of sickness. ¹¹ His spirit was not on a par with that of Confucius. Having overstrained his strength, all his brightness and vitality was consumed, therefore he died early. All common people who have heard of this, believe it, if, however, we go into the matter, we discover its futility.

In the text of the Analects there is no mention of this, neither have the Six Classics recorded it. If Yen Yuan was able to see farther than one thousand Li, he would have been equal to the Sage --- wherefore then were Confucius and all the other scholars silent upon this?

The human eye can only see as far as ten Li, beyond this limit it does not perceive anything. The cause of this inability to distinguish is the distance. It is on record that Mount T`ai is of imposing height, but that at a distance of a hundred Li it does not appear as big as a snail, owing to the distance.

Between Lu and Wu the distance is over a thousand Li. If Li Chu¹² looked out for Wu, he would not perceive anything, and Yen Yuan should be able to distinguish it? Provided that his talents were nearly perfect, and his sight different from that of other people, then the world ought to praise him as a second sage, instead of speaking of Li Chu.

The sight of the human eye is such, that big things are easily distinguished, whereas small ones are perceived with difficulty. Were Yen Yuan placed outside the palace-gate of Wu and turning his looks upon the shape of the T`ai-shan, it would be quite impossible for him to descry it, and it is still much more evident that viewed from the top of the T`ai-shan, the colour of the white horse would remain invisible to him. Not only could Yen Yuan not see it, even Confucius would be incapable of seeing it. How can we establish this proposition?

The faculties of the ear and the eye are similar. As it is not possible to command a view of a hundred Li, so the ear cannot hear so far either. Lu Chia says that, notwithstanding his keen sight, Li Lou¹³ could not discern what was behind a curtain, and that the music-master K`uang, in spite of his keenness of hearing, could not hear beyond a hundred Li. The space between the palace-gate and Mount T`ai is more difficult to overlook than what lies behind a screen, or beyond a hundred Li.

King Wu of Ch`in conjointly with Mêng Yüeh lifted a tripod, which proved too heavy for him, for he burst a blood-vessel and died. ¹⁴ Lifting a tripod requires force, which issues from muscles and arteries. If these cannot stand the effort, they break, and death ensues. That is the natural course. Now Yen Yuan used his eyes to look to a great distance. Provided that the pupils of his eyes were unable to bear the strain, then he should have become blind, but the discolouring of his hair, and the loss of his teeth could not have been the consequence.

The hair may turn white, and the teeth fall out in consequence of excessive study. If all the forces are strained without ceasing, the vital energy is exhausted, and this may lead to death.

Po Chi was deported, and his hair soon became white. We read in the Shiking that [by constant grief one becomes old]. ¹⁵Po Chi thus tortured his mind, but Yen Yuan used his eyes and suddenly cast a glance at something for a moment. How could this have such a result?

The books of the Literati state that Shun was buried in Ts`ang-wu,¹⁶ and Yü in Kwei-chi.¹⁷ On their tours of inspection they had become old, and died, on their journey, in the border land. As sages they regarded the whole world as their home, and did not draw a distinction between far and near, or make a difference between inside and outside. Accordingly they where interred at the place where they just halted.

To speak of Shun and Yü is right, but what they say about their progress, imaginary:---Shun and Yao were both emperors reigning over a territory of 5000 Li, which was situated between the Four Seas. The mode of government of the two emperors was continued uninterruptedly, and no change took place. According to the Yao-tien,¹⁸Shun, on his progress, went eastward as far as the T`ai-tsung,<sup>19</sup> southward to Mount Ho, westward to the T`ai-hua, and northward to the Hêng-shan.²⁰ These were considered to be the Four Sacred Mountains. In the sphere within these four frontiers the feudal lords came and assembled at the foot of the sacred mountains. From far and near, and from the remotest out-of-theway places they made their appearance. ²¹ Whatever the Sage undertook, he sought their welfare.

Yü was a ruler like Shun, and things did not change. The places which he visited, on his inspections, were those where Shun had been. That Shun went to Ts`ang-wu, and Yü arrived at Kuei-chi, cannot be true. ²²

It is a fact that at the time of Shun and Yü, the Great Flood had not yet been regulated. Yao transmitted his power to Shun, who received it, and thus become emperor. He entrusted part of his work to Yü, viz. the regulation of the waters. After the decease of Yao, Shun was already old, and he handed over the empire to Yü. Shun regulated the waters in the south, and died in Ts`ang-wu, Yü worked in the east, and expired in Kuei-chi. Worthies and sages regard the world as their home, and they are buried accordingly.

Wu Chün Kao²³ asserts that Kuei-chi is originally the name of a mountain. When, in the Hsia period, Yü made a tour of inspection, a review was held on this mountain. Hence a circuit was named. That would be the origin of Kuei-chi.

To say that a circuit received its name from a mountain is possible, but the assertion that Yü, on a tour of inspection, held a review on this mountain, is a fiction. On his tour he did not come as far as Kuei-chi, how could he hold a review on this mountain then? If the view of Wu Chün Kao were to be accepted, and the meaning of Kuei-chi were really a review, ²⁴ how did Yü hold his review, when he arrived in the south? In case Yü died already on his first progress to the east in Kuei-chi, Shun also, on his progress, arrived in Ts`ang-wu; how about his review there?

Provided that the many rulers, after having established their government, set out on a tour of inspection, and then, at once, held a review, then such reviews must have taken place on all the mountains in the four directions. In times of universal peace these rulers used to ascend Mount T`ai and sacrifice there. Of such sacrifices on Mount T`ai there are records of seventy-two, and those monuments which are obliterated and washed away, are innumerable. If really the emperors, on their progress, at once had a review, the places of such meetings round about must have been much more numerous than the sacrifices on Mount T`ai.

The circuit cities have their names as things have theirs, which do not admit of explanation. ²⁵ Should Kuei-chi alone make an exception? In the Chou epoch its ancient name was Wu and Yüeh.²⁶ When these names originated, where did they come from? When names were given during the time of the Six States, how had they to be formed? The cities of the circuits of China are over a hundred, ²⁷ the district cities exceed ten thousand, besides villages, boroughs, and hamlets, all have their proper names. Even sages would not be able to explain their meanings. Wu Chün Kao could account for Kuei-chi, but would be unable to interpret all the other geographical names, therefore his definition of Kuei-chi cannot be accepted either.

The object of those inspections was to examine and correct the methods of government. At Yü's time, Wu was a country inhabited by naked savages, who cut their hair and tattooed their bodies. There was no need for examining, and how could a review have taken place?

It is on record that, when Shun was interred at Ts`ang-wu, elephants tilled the ground for him, and that, when Yü was buried at Kuei-chi, crows laboured in his field. ²⁸ This is believed to have been the upshot of the virtues of the sages, Heaven causing birds and animals to reward them by such blessings. There is nobody on earth who does not share this view, but a critical test will show the futility of the statement.

The virtues of Shun and Yü did not surpass that of Yao, who was buried in Chi-chou,²⁹ or, as some say, in Chung-shan.³⁰ At Chi-chou, birds and animals did not till for him. If they solely worked for Shun and Yü, why did Heaven grant its favours with such partiality?

Some hold that Shun and Yü, while controlling the floods, had no resting-place, and that, therefore, Shun died in Ts`ang-wu, and Yü in Kuei-chi. By their toils they displayed merit, therefore Heaven recompensed them; and they were far away from China, therefore it pitied them.

Now, if Heaven rewarded Shun and Yü, making the crows labour and the elephants till, what profit did Shun and Yü derive from it? In order to requite Shun and Yü, Heaven should have caused Ts`ang-wu and Kuei-chi to offer sacrifices to them in perpetuity, however it made birds and beasts work, and did not cause the people to sacrifice. Oblations would have been made on the tombs of Shun and Yü, whereas the cultivation of fields benefitted other people only. How could Heaven, shedding its blessings on the Sages, be so inconsistent, that it did not do them any good?

These reasons must convince us that it is not correct to regard the labouring of the crows and the tilling of the elephants as special blessings conferred upon Shun and Yü. The facts are that Ts ang-wu was a country where elephants abound, ³¹ and that in Kuei-chi hosts of birds used to alight. We learn from the Yü-kung that [the P`êng-li³² being confined to its proper limits, ³³ the wild geese had places to settle on.] ³⁴ The nature of Heaven and Earth finds expression in the doings of birds and beasts. Elephants stamp the ground of their own accord, and so do birds pick out plants. When the earth has thus been pounded, and the weeds are destroyed, it looks like a tilled field, and, when the soil has been loosened and the clods have been turned, man can forthwith proceed to plant.

There is a common saying that for Shun and Yü a grave was cultivated at Hai-ling.³⁵ A field tilled by a deer ³⁶ is like one tilled by elephants, but how could the emperors have been buried in Hai-ling?

It has been recorded that the king of Wu, Fu Ch`ai, put Wu Tse Hsü to death, had him cooked in a cauldron, sewed into a leathern pouch, and thrown into the River. <sup>37</sup>Wu Tse Hsü incensed, lashed up the waters, that they rose in great waves, and drowned people. At present, temples for him have been erected on the Yangtse of Tan-t`u³⁸ in Kuei-chi as well as on the Chekiang river of Ch`ien-t`ang,³⁹ for the purpose of appeasing his anger and stopping the wild waves. The allegation that the king of Wu put Wu Tse Hsü to death and threw him into the River, is reliable, but it is absurd to say that, out of spite, Wu Tse Hsü lashed the waters, that they rose in waves.

Ch`ü Yuan full of disgust threw himself into the Hsiang,<sup>40</sup> but the waves of the Hsiang did not swell. Shên T`u Ti⁴¹ jumped into the Yellow River and died, but the billows of the river did not rise. People will certainly object that as to violence and wrath Ch`ü Yuan and Shên T`u Ti did not equal Wu Tse Hsü. Now, in Wei, Tse Lu was pickled, and P`êng Yüeh was cooked in Han.<sup>42</sup> The valour of Wu Tse Hsü did not exceed that of Tse Lu and P`êng Yüeh. Yet these two men could not vent their anger, when they were in the tripod and the cauldron, they did not bespatter the bystanders with broth from the cooked flesh, or with sauce from the minced meat.

Moreover, Wu Tse Hsü first was put into the cauldron, and subsequently thrown into the river. Where was his spirit, when he was in the cauldron? Wherefore was it so timourous in the broth of the cauldron, and so bold in the water of the river? Why was his indignation not the same at these different times?

Furthermore, when he was thrown into the river, which river was it? There is the Yangtse of Tan-t`u, the Chekiang river of Ch`ien-t`ang, and the Ling river of Wu-t`ung. Some maintain that he was thrown into the river near Tan-t`u, but the Yangtse has no great waves. Should any one say that he was thrown into the Chekiang river of Ch`ien-t`ang, it must be borne in mind, that not only the Chekiang river, but also the Shan-yin and the Shang-yü⁴³ rivers have waves.

Since all the three rivers have huge waves, was perhaps the body in the pouch divided, and its parts cast into the three rivers?

For human hatred there is still some justification, as long as the deadly enemy is alive, or some of his descendants are still left. Now the Wu State is destroyed since long, and Fu Ch`ai has no scions. Wu is the present Kuei-chi, which has been transformed into a prefecture. Why does the spirit of Wu Tse Hsü still resent the wrong once done him, and never cease to excite the waves? What does he demand?

At the time of Wu and Yüeh, they had divided the Kuei-chi circuit, so that Yüeh was governing Shan-yin,⁴⁴ whereas Wu had built its capital in the present Wu. South of Yü-chi,⁴⁵ all the land belonged to Yüeh, north of Ch`ien-t`ang, to Wu. The river of Ch`ient`ang formed the frontier between the two kingdoms. Shan-yin and Shang-yü⁴⁶ were both situated in the territory of Yüeh. When Wu Tse Hsü in the river of Wu caused the waves, they ought to have come into the Wu territory; why did they enter the land of Yüeh? That Wu Tse Hsü, harbouring a grudge against the king of Wu, wreaked his malice on the Yüeh river, is contrary to reason, and not the act of a spirit.

Besides, it is difficult to excite the waves, but easy to move men. The living rely on the strength of their nerves, the dead must use their soul. Alive, Wu Tse Hsü could not move the living, or take care of his body, and himself caused its death. When the strength of his nerves was lost and his soul ⁴⁷ evaporated and dispersed, how could he still make waves?

There are hundreds and thousands in the predicament of Wu Tse Hsü, who, crossing a river in a boat, did not reach the other shore. But the body of Wu Tse Hsü alone was boiled in hot water in a cauldron. When his bones and his flesh had been cooked soft and become a stew with broth, could he still do any harm?

King Hsüan of Chou killed his minister, the Earl of Tu, and Viscount Chien of Chao, his officer Chuang Tse Yi. Subsequently, the Earl of Tu shot King Hsüan, and Chuang Tse Yi smote Viscount Chien.⁴⁸ These events seem to be true, and yet they are fictitious. Now not having his body intact, Wu Tse Hsü could not have acted like the Earl of Tu or Chuang Tse Yi, taking his revenge upon the king of Wu. How can the rolling to and fro of the waves be considered a revenge or a proof of Wu Tse Hsü's consciousness?

Popular legends though not true, form the subjects of paintings, and, by these pictures, even wise and intelligent men allow themselves to be mystified. ⁴⁹

The earth has numerous rivers just as man, his veins and arteries. The blood flowing through them, these arteries throb and pulsate, and have their own times and measures. So it is with the rivers. Their flowing forwards and backwards in the morning and the evening, ⁵⁰ is like human respiration i. e., the inhalation and exhalation of air.

The nature of heaven and earth has remained the same from the oldest time. The Classic says, ["The Yangtse and the Han pursued their common course to the sea."] ⁵¹ So it was previous to Yao and Shun already. When the waters fall into the ocean, they merely accelerate their course, but, upon entering the three rivers, ⁵² they begin to roar and foam in their channel, which is usually shallow and narrow, and thus rise as great waves.

The Ch`ü river of Kuang-ling<sup>53</sup> has such great waves. A poet wrote the verse:---"How majestic rolls the Yangtse, and lo! the billows of the Ch`ü!" ⁵⁴ Illegal HTML character: decimal 156