Questionings of the Classic of Mountains and Seas (山海經)山海經疑詰
予讀山海經。每卷首標之曰大禹製郭氏傳。則此經當謂夏禹所著矣。然予疑非禹製。何者。傳曰。子爲父隱。父爲子隱。論語曰。其父攘羊。而子證之。蓋惡之也。孔子修春秋。雖直筆之書。以魯爲父母邦。凡大惡則皆諱避不書。若山海經果是禹製。當諱父之大恥。觀東北經云。洪水滔天。鯀竊帝之息壤。以堙洪水。帝令祝融殺鯀于羽郊。鯀是禹父。不宜斥書此事。若以爲實事不得不書。則不甚言竊。而云取帝之壤。亦不蔽于義也。按獻經表云。昔洪水洋溢。鯀旣無功。高使禹繼之。伯益與伯翳驅禽獸別水土。紀其珍怪。益等類物善惡。著山海經。皆賢聖之遺事。據此則疑伯益所著。然其序。則云禹別九州。物無遁形。因著山海經云云。此二說亦不同。是皆所惑者。又有一惑焉。尙書曰。高殛鯀于羽山。蓋以鯀理水。績用不成故也。此經云。帝殛鯀于羽郊。所謂帝者。上帝也。鯀雖竊帝壤。苟能堙洪水。則於高爲有功。於帝爲有罪。高不宜誅。而帝獨誅矣。若爲帝所誅。又不當爲高所殛。若爲高所殛。則其不竊帝壤堙洪水明矣。上帝其何名而殺鯀耶。此二說亦不同。安所從耶。在醇儒。當以尙書爲正。而以山海經爲荒怪之說矣。然旣曰禹製。禹之說。可謂怪乎。待後之明智君子有以辨之耳。
Reading the Classic of Mountains and Seas, I find it marked at the head of every volume, 「Composed by the Great Yu (大禹), transmitted by Mr. Guo (郭氏).」 If that is so, this classic should be said to have been composed by Yu, the king of Xia. But I doubt that Yu composed it. Why so?
The Commentary says, 「The son hides it for the father, and the father hides it for the son」; and in the Analects (論語) it is said, 「His father stole a sheep, and the son bore witness to it」 — which was said, no doubt, in abhorrence of the thing. When Confucius compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals, though it is writing set down with an upright brush, yet he held Lu to be the country of his parents, and all its great evils he shunned and avoided and did not record.
If the Classic of Mountains and Seas were indeed composed by Yu, he ought to have hidden his father's great shame. Yet in the Classic of the Northeast (東北經) it says, 「When the flood brimmed over to Heaven, Gun (鯀) stole the Breathing Soil (息壤) of the High God and filled up the flood with it. The High God commanded Zhurong (祝融) to put Gun to death at the outskirts of Yu (羽郊).」 Gun was Yu's father. It is not fitting to set this matter down openly. And even if, being fact, it could not be left unrecorded, had he not said so harshly that he 「stole」 it but said that he 「brought the High God's soil」, it would not have been shut off from righteousness either.
Looking at the 「Memorial Presenting the Classic」 (獻經表), it says, 「Of old the flood brimmed and overflowed, and since Gun had had no success in it, King Yao had Yu carry the work on. Boyi (伯益) and Boyi (伯翳) drove out the birds and the beasts and distinguished the waters from the earth, and recorded the rare and monstrous things in them. Boyi (伯益) and the others classified the good and the evil of things and composed the Classic of Mountains and Seas; and all of it is work left behind by worthy and holy men.」 By this it seems doubtful, and rather that Boyi composed it. Yet its preface (序) says, 「When Yu divided the nine provinces, no thing could hide its form. From this he composed the Classic of Mountains and Seas.」 These two sayings are not alike either, and all of this is matter for bewilderment.
And there is one thing more that bewilders me. The Book of Documents (尙書) says, 「King Yao put Gun to death at Mount Yu (羽山)」 — because, no doubt, Gun's work of managing the waters came to no success. Yet this classic says, 「The High God put Gun to death at the outskirts of Yu.」 What is called 「the God」 (帝) is the High God. Though Gun stole the High God's soil, if he had truly been able to fill up the flood, then he had merit in Yao's eyes and guilt in the High God's. Yao ought not to have put him to death; the High God alone ought to have done it. And if he was put to death by the High God, then again he ought not to have been put to death by Yao; and if he was put to death by Yao, then it is clear that he did not steal the High God's soil and fill up the flood with it. In that case, on what ground should the High God have put Gun to death? These two sayings are not alike either; which of them is one to follow?
A pure scholar would surely take the Book of Documents for the correct one and hold the Classic of Mountains and Seas to be coarse and monstrous talk. Yet since it is said that Yu composed it, can one call Yu's words monstrous? I only wait for some clear-sighted and wise gentleman of a later day to sift it out.