Huoxu — False Tales of Calamity禍虛篇
世謂受福佑者既以為行善所致，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。
The world says that those who receive fortune and help have brought it about by doing good, and it says as well that those who suffer disaster and harm have got it by doing evil. It holds that where there is sunken evil and hidden fault, Heaven and earth punish it and the ghosts and spirits repay it. What Heaven and earth punish, small or great, still comes out; what the ghosts and spirits repay, far or near, still arrives.
傳曰：「子夏喪其子而喪其明，曾子吊之，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！』」
It is handed down: "Zixia lost his son and lost his sight. Zengzi came to condole with him and wept. Zixia said, 'O Heaven, I am without guilt!' Zengzi grew angry and said, 'Shang, how are you without guilt? You and I served the Master together between the Zhu and the Si, and then withdrew and grew old by the Xi River, and you made the people of the Xi River take you for the Master. That is your first guilt. When you lost your parent, you let the people hear nothing out of the ordinary. That is your second guilt. You lost your son and lost your sight. That is your third guilt. And you say, how are you without guilt?' Zixia threw down his staff and bowed, saying, 'I was wrong, I was wrong! I have left the company and lived alone, and that for a long time now!'"
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，已實有之，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，亦換三罪。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，子路醢。早死、醢，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。
Now when Zixia lost his sight, Zengzi charged him with guilt, and Zixia threw down his staff and bowed to Zengzi's words. This was because Heaven truly punishes faults, and so his eyes lost their sight, and because he truly had them in him, and so he bowed and accepted his fault. On first hearing it and seeing it for a moment, everyone takes it for so; but when it is examined closely and argued out, they are empty and reckless words.
Now losing sight is like losing hearing. Lose the sight and a man is blind; lose the hearing and he is deaf. Not to say that there is fault in the illness of deafness, and yet to say that there is guilt in losing sight, is to be deluded. Now the illness of the ear and the eye is like having an illness in the heart and belly. If losing sight and hearing in the ear and the eye is called having guilt, can having an illness in the heart and belly be called having a fault? When Boniu was ill, Confucius took his hand through the window and said, "He is lost. It is his destiny! That such a man should have such an illness!" Trace Confucius's words: he said that Boniu was unfortunate, and so grieved for him. If Boniu had brought on his illness by fault, and Heaven had repaid him with evil as with Zixia, Confucius ought to have set out his faults in the manner of Zengzi speaking to Zixia. But he spoke instead of destiny, and destiny is not fault.
Again, Heaven's punishing of men is like a ruler putting those below him to guilt. When the one punished submits to his guilt, the ruler pardons him. Zixia submitted to his fault, and bowed in repenting of himself. If the virtue of Heaven is of the utmost brightness, it ought to have healed his blindness. And if it was not Heaven's charge of guilt, then Zixia's losing his sight was exchanged for three guilts all the same. Again, how does the illness of losing sight stand against the illness of taking leprosy? If there are three guilts in losing sight, are there ten faults in taking leprosy? Yan Yuan died young, and Zilu was minced. To die early and to be minced are the utmost disasters. Speaking by the losing of sight, Yan Yuan and Zilu had a hundred guilts. Speaking from this, the words of Zengzi are wrong.
Yet Zixia lost his sight because he lost his son. A son is what the feelings of men run through, and a parent is what men strive to repay. When he lost his parent the people heard nothing, and when he lost his son he lost his sight. In this the kindness owed the parent was lessened and the love given the son was increased. Where it is increased, the weeping and the tears are past counting, and weeping often he was struck by the wind, and his eyes lost their sight. Zengzi went along with the opinion of the common world, and so set out three guilts of Zixia. Zixia too followed the common opinion, and because he had lost his sight bowed and accepted his fault. Zengzi and Zixia had not left the common world behind, and so in the ranking of conduct at Confucius's gate they were not in the highest class.
秦〔昭〕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，趙降卒何辜於天？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，卒不得以善蒙天之佑？白起何故獨以其罪伏天之誅？由此言之，白起之言過矣。
King Zhaoxiang of Qin sent Bai Qi a sword. Bai Qi bent over the sword and was about to cut his own throat, saying, "What guilt have I before Heaven?" After a long while he said, "I ought indeed to die. In the battle of Changping, the soldiers of Zhao who surrendered were several hundred thousand, and I deceived them and buried them all alive. That is enough to die for." Then he killed himself. Bai Qi knew the guilt that went before him, and submitted to the punishment that followed. Now Bai Qi knew why he was held guilty, but did not know why the soldiers of Zhao were buried. If Heaven truly punishes men who have faults, what wrong had the surrendered soldiers of Zhao done before Heaven? If in the use of troops he wounded and killed at random, then among those four hundred thousand there must have been some who were not to perish. Why then were those who were not to perish buried in the end, for all their good conduct and their freedom from guilt, so that they could not in the end win Heaven's help by their goodness? And why did Bai Qi alone bend beneath Heaven's execution for his guilt? Speaking from this, the words of Bai Qi are wrong.
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。」即吞葯自殺。太史公非之曰：「夫秦初滅諸侯，天下心未定，夷傷未瘳，而恬為名將，不以此時強諫，救百姓之急，養老矜孤，修眾庶之和，阿意興功，此其（子）〔兄〕弟（過）〔遇〕誅，不亦宜乎！何與乃罪地脈也？」
The Second Emperor of Qin sent an envoy with an edict to put Meng Tian to death. Meng Tian sighed deeply and said, "What fault have I before Heaven, that I die without guilt?" After a long while he said slowly, "Tian's guilt does indeed deserve death. I raised the wall from Lintao and joined it as far as Liaodong, a wall of ten thousand li, and in all that length it could not but cut through the veins of the earth. This then is Tian's guilt." Then he swallowed poison and killed himself. The Grand Historian said that he was wrong, saying, "Now Qin had just destroyed the feudal lords, the heart of the world was not yet settled, and the wounded were not yet healed. Tian was a famous general, and at such a time he did not press his remonstrance and save the people from their straits, nourish the aged, pity the orphaned and mend the concord of the multitude, but flattered the imperial will and raised up great works. Was it not fitting that these brothers met with execution? Why lay the guilt on the veins of the earth?"
夫蒙恬之言既非，而太史公非之亦未是。何則？蒙恬絕脈，罪至當死。地養萬物，何過於人，而蒙恬絕其脈？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）〔乃〕非恬之為名將，不能以強諫，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。非蒙恬以不強諫，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，仲尼獨荐顏淵好學。然回也屢空，糟糠不厭，卒夭死。天之報施善人如何哉！盜蹠日殺不辜，肝人之肉，暴戾恣睢，聚党數千，橫行天下，竟以壽終。是獨遵何哉？」若此言之，顏回不當早夭，盜蹠不當全活也。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，且固命也？」朔曰：「將軍自念，豈常有恨者乎？」
Now Meng Tian's words are wrong already, but the Grand Historian's holding him wrong is not right either. Why so? If Meng Tian cut the veins and his guilt reached to deserving death, then, since the earth nourishes the ten thousand things, what fault had it toward men, that Meng Tian should cut its veins? He knew that he had the guilt of cutting the veins of the earth, but did not know the fault by which the veins of the earth came to be cut. If holding oneself wrong is like this, how does it differ from not holding oneself wrong?
The Grand Historian held Meng Tian wrong for this: that being a famous general he could not press his remonstrance, and so brought on this disaster. Now the saying is that he did not remonstrate when he ought to have remonstrated, and so came to suffer the punishment of death. But he himself stood surety for Li Ling, and fell into guilt and went down into the silkworm chamber. By the Grand Historian's own words, the man he stood surety for was not the right man, and so the punishment that maimed his body arrived by the ordinance of Heaven. If Meng Tian is to be held wrong for not pressing his remonstrance and so bringing on this disaster, then there was something wrong in his own going down into the silkworm chamber too. And if there was nothing wrong in him, then his holding Meng Tian wrong is itself wrong.
In composing the account of Boyi he set out the conduct of the good and the evil, saying, "Among the followers, the seventy disciples, Zhongni recommended Yan Yuan alone as loving learning. Yet Hui was often in want and could not eat his fill of dregs and chaff, and died young in the end. How is Heaven's repaying and bestowing upon good men! Robber Zhi killed the guiltless day after day and made mince of men's flesh. Violent and willful, he gathered a band of some thousands and ranged across the world, yet he came to the end of his years. What was it that he followed alone?" By these words, Yan Hui ought not to have died young, and Robber Zhi ought not to have lived out his life whole. Not to think it strange that Yan Yuan ought not to have died young, and yet to say that Meng Tian alone deserved to die, is wrong.
Li Guang, a general of Han, was talking at his ease with Wang Shuo, who watched the vapors, and said, "Since Han struck at the Xiongnu, there has been no campaign in which Guang was not among them. Yet of the colonels and those below them, whose talents do not reach the middling sort, there are several tens of men who have won a marquisate by attacking the barbarian armies. Guang falls behind no one, and yet in the end he has not a foot or an inch of merit by which to gain a fief. Why is this? Are my features not fit for a marquisate, or is it simply destiny?" Wang Shuo said, "Let the general think back. Is there not something you have always regretted?"
廣曰：「吾為隴西太守，羌常反，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，而鉗徒見其當封之証。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。
Guang said, "When I was Grand Administrator of Longxi, the Qiang were forever rebelling, and I lured more than eight hundred of them into surrender, and deceived them and killed them all on the same day. To this day what I regret is this alone." Wang Shuo said, "Of disasters there is none greater than killing those who have already surrendered. This then is why the general gets no marquisate." Li Guang took it for so, and those who heard it believed it. Now not to be a marquis is like not being a king. What regret is there in not being a marquis, and what fault in not being a king? Confucius did not become a king, and those who argue do not say that he bore a fault; Li Guang did not become a marquis, and Wang Shuo said that he had a regret. Then the words of Wang Shuo have lost the truth of the argument. Those who argue hold that a man's enfeoffment as marquis has its own ordinance from Heaven. The token of Heaven's ordinance appears in the bone and the body. When the Grand General Wei Qing was at the Jianzhang Palace, a convict in an iron collar read his features and said, "Your rank will reach the enfeoffment of a marquis." Afterward he was indeed enfeoffed by merit as a marquis of ten thousand households. Wei Qing had no merit yet, and the convict saw the proof that he was to be enfeoffed. Speaking from this, there is an ordinance in the enfeoffment of a marquis, and it is not a thing that a man's conduct can gain. The convict's words were true and had their effect, and Wang Shuo's words were empty and had no proof.
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，以積谷貨，遭歲飢饉，腹餓不飽，椎人若畜，割而食之，無君子小人，并為魚肉：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。
Many are violent and willful and do not meet with disaster, and many follow the Way and miss good fortune. The saying of Wang Shuo is of the same kind as Bai Qi holding himself wrong and Meng Tian blaming himself. In a hurried and troubled age, many threaten and kill one another for goods and gain. Men ride in one cart and share one boat and trade a thousand li, and coming to a lonely place they kill the man and take his goods as well. The corpse is cast aside and not gathered up, the bones lie bare and are not buried; in the water they become food for fish and turtles, and in the earth fodder for mole crickets and ants. Idle and slack men, who do not work hard at farming and strive at trade so as to store up grain and goods, meet a year of famine, and their bellies hunger and are not filled, and they club men as they would beasts, and cut them up and eat them, and gentleman and small man alike are made into fish and flesh. Men cannot know of it, and the clerks cannot find it out. From a thousand men upward and ten thousand men downward, reckon within a single settlement: of the living there is one in a hundred, and of the dead nine in ten. It may be called the utmost in lawlessness and the sharpest of pain, yet all of them come out into the open, rich and thick and easy and glad. Heaven does not charge them with having no heart of benevolence and right, and with killing one another on the road; it does not hold it wrong that they will not work with their strength, and in their haste make food of men, so as to lay thick disaster upon them, cut short their destined span, bring out their hidden guilt, and show it plainly to the men of the world so that they may know the proof that wrongdoing cannot be done. Why is this? The words of Wang Shuo are not certainly examined and right.
傳書李斯妒同才，幽殺韓非於秦，後被車裂之罪，商鞅欺舊交，擒魏公子，後受誅死禍。
It is handed down in a book that Li Si envied a talent equal to his own, and shut up Han Fei in Qin and killed him, and afterward suffered the punishment of being torn apart by carts; and that Shang Yang deceived an old friend and seized the noble son of Wei, and afterward received the disaster of being put to death.
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、公子無惡，非天所罰，李斯、商鞅不得幽擒。論者說曰：「韓非、公子有陰惡伏罪，人不聞見，天獨知之，故受戮殃。」
They wish to say that because these men harmed the worthy and deceived their friends, they received the repayment of trouble and disaster. Now what fault had Han Fei, that he should be shut up by Li Si, and what guilt had the noble son, that he should be seized by Shang Yang? If being torn apart by carts and being put to death came of harming the worthy and deceiving a friend, then by what did being shut up and dying, and being seized, come about? If Han Fei and the noble son had evil in them, and Heaven sent Li Si and Shang Yang to repay it, then Li Si and Shang Yang carried out an execution on Heaven's behalf, and ought to have received its reward, and not to have suffered its disaster. If Han Fei and the noble son had no evil, and were not punished by Heaven, then Li Si and Shang Yang could not have shut up the one and seized the other. Those who argue say, "Han Fei and the noble son had hidden evil and buried guilt, which men did not hear or see, but Heaven alone knew, and so they received slaughter and calamity."
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？
Now the several men who have guilt either harm the worthy or go against the Way. If they harm the worthy, what fault lies on the one who is harmed? If they go against the Way, what wrong is there in the Way that is gone against?
凡人窮達禍福之至，大之則命，小這則時。太公窮賤，遭周文而得封。甯戚隱厄，逢齊桓而見官。非窮賤隱厄有非，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，卒有善神佑其後也。一身之行，一行之操，結髪終死，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。
In general, when a man comes to straits or to success, to disaster or to fortune, the great of it is destiny and the small of it is the time. Taigong was in straits and lowly, and met King Wen of Zhou and gained a fief. Ning Qi was hidden and in hardship, and met Duke Huan of Qi and was given office. It is not that there was wrong in them while they were in straits and lowly, hidden and in hardship, and right in them when they gained a fief and were given office. There is a time for straits and for success, and there is an ordinance in the meeting. Taigong and Ning Qi were worthy men, and it may still be said that there was wrong in them. The sage is a man of the pure Way, yet Shun of Yu was harmed by his father and his younger brother and came near death two or three times. Then came his meeting with Yao of Tang, and Yao yielded the throne to Shun, who was set up and became emperor. When he was harmed of old there was no wrong in him, and when he was set up as emperor there was no right in him. In the earlier time the hour had not yet come; in the later, the destiny and the hour had arrived. Look at the men of old, the rulers and the servants who were hard pressed and in straits and afterward gained their way: it was not that there was surely evil at first, so that Heaven sent disaster upon their earlier days, and goodness at last, so that the spirits helped their later days. The conduct of one body and the bearing of one course of conduct, from the binding up of the hair to the end in death, are no different before and after. Yet one time it succeeds and one time it fails, one time it goes forward and one time it draws back, one time it is in straits and one time it gets through, one time it is whole and one time it is broken. The meeting happens to be so, and the destiny and the hour fall out as they do.