An Appraisal of the Writing and the Substance of Liu Zihou柳子厚文質評
夫心之所洩。必在於文。故予嘗以爲見其文足敬其人。披其文足相其質矣。及讀唐柳子厚文。然後知言之失也。敢評之曰。子厚之書。其文之賁也周。其心之洩也浮。其文可敬。其人不可敬也。何以言之。曰。汎濫渟滀。出入子史。洸洸乎其可駭者。子厚之辭也。非文之賁而其若是耶。故曰文之賁也周。然以子厚平生行己之素較之。其身之所未備。其意之所未行。固亦多矣。於文莫不皆悉。此豈心之所蓄歟。特託而列於文耳。故曰心之洩也浮。請以一二篇明之。讀斬曲几文。則其端平正直之心。疑若可見。然韋執誼，王叔文，王伾等。皆宵人者也。子厚以章章名士。撓節從之。其相得之甚。使天下指以爲二王，劉，柳。則是可謂其行之直乎。然則柳子之曲。不爲不多。奈何忘己之曲。而規規然寓意於斬曲几。以譏世之爲耶。是擧其斤執其斧。自斬其身也。何曲几之得斬耶。讀乞巧文則曰。臣有大拙。智所不化。醫所不攻。此亦非實之言也。方二王時。劉柳等更相倡譽。以爲伊，周，管，葛復生矣。嗚呼。以二王爲伊，周，管，葛。孰不爲伊，周，管，葛哉。其言可謂巧矣。而不可謂拙也。其巧之不足耶。又胡乞於天孫哉。人猶不可欺。況天乎。吾故曰質之不如文也。
Now what leaks out of the mind lies of necessity in a man's writing. Therefore I used to hold that to look upon a man's writing was enough to make one revere the man, and to open and read his writing was enough to examine his substance. But only after I had read the writings of Liu Zihou (柳子厚) of Tang did I know that the saying was wrong. I make bold to appraise him and say:
Zihou's writing is thorough in its figured splendor, but what leaks out of his mind is unsettled and shallow. His writing may be revered; the man may not be revered. On what ground do I say so?
Brimming and brimming, gathered and heaped, going in and out among the many masters and the histories, broad and broad and fit to astonish — such is Zihou's language. Were it not for the figured splendor of writing, could it be like this? Therefore I say that the figured splendor of his writing is thorough.
Yet if one measures him against the very substance with which Zihou bore himself all his life, what he had not in his own person and what he carried not out in his own purpose are truly many as well. And yet in his writing there is nothing that is not fully there. How should this be what was heaped up in his mind? He only lodged it there and set it out in his writing. Therefore I say that what leaked out of his mind is unsettled and shallow.
Let me make it clear by one or two pieces. When one reads 「A Writing on Cutting Down the Crooked Armrest」 (斬曲几文), the mind of him — upright and level, straight and true — seems as though it could be seen. But Wei Zhiyi (韋執誼), Wang Shuwen (王叔文) and Wang Pi (王伾) were all small men. Zihou, a scholar of plain and shining name, bent his integrity and followed them, and consorted with them so deeply that he made all the world point and say 「the two Wangs and Liu and Liu」. Can this be called straightness in his conduct? If it cannot, then the crookedness of Master Liu is not small. How is it, then, that he forgets his own crookedness and, as though held fast, lodges his meaning in the cutting down of a crooked armrest and so reproaches the doings of the world? This is to take up the axe and grasp the adze and hew at his own body. How should he be able to cut down a crooked armrest?
When one reads 「A Writing Begging for Skill」 (乞巧文), it says: 「Your servant has a great clumsiness, which wisdom cannot mend and the physician's art cannot cure.」 This too is not a word that fits the fact. In the time of the two Wangs, Liu and Liu and the rest praised one another by turns, saying 「Yi Yin (伊尹) and the Duke of Zhou (周公), Guan Zhong (管仲) and Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮) are born again」. Alas, if the two Wangs are to be called Yi Yin and the Duke of Zhou, Guan Zhong and Zhuge Liang, then who could fail to become a Yi Yin, a Duke of Zhou, a Guan Zhong, a Zhuge Liang? That saying may be called skillful; it cannot be called clumsy. In what, then, is his skill lacking, that he should go further and beg of the Weaving Maid (織女)? Men can hardly be deceived, how much less Heaven. I therefore say that his substance fell short of his writing.