Yuzeng — Exaggerations in Speech語增篇
傳語曰：「聖人憂世深，思事勤，愁擾精神，感動形體，故稱堯若腊，舜若，桀、紂之君垂腴尺餘。」夫言聖人憂世念人，身體贏惡，不能身體肥澤，可也。言堯、舜若腊與，桀、紂垂腴尺餘，增之也。
A saying handed down runs: "The sage's grief for the world is deep and his thought upon affairs is diligent, so that his spirit is troubled with sorrow and his body is stirred. Therefore it is said that Yao was like dried meat and Shun like cured meat, while the rulers Jie and Zhou Xin had fat hanging down more than a foot." Now to say that the sage grieves for the world and is anxious for men, so that his body is worn and poor and cannot be fat and glossy, is right. To say that Yao and Shun were like dried meat and cured meat, and that Jie and Zhou Xin had fat hanging down more than a foot, is an addition.
齊桓公云：「寡人未得仲父極難，既得仲父甚易。」桓公不及堯、舜，仲父不及禹、契，桓公猶易，堯、舜反難乎？以桓公得管促易，知堯、舜得禹、契不難。
Duke Huan of Qi said, "Before I had Zhongfu it was extremely hard; once I had Zhongfu it was very easy." Duke Huan did not come up to Yao and Shun, and Zhongfu did not come up to Yu and Xie, yet for Duke Huan it was still easy. Was it then harder for Yao and Shun? From the ease Duke Huan had when he got Guan Zhong, we know that it was not hard for Yao and Shun when they got Yu and Xie.
夫易則少憂，少憂則不愁，不愁則身體不㮡。舜承堯太平，堯、舜襲德。功假荒服，堯尚有憂，舜安（能）〔而〕無事。故《經》曰：「上帝引逸」，謂虞舜也。舜承安繼治，任賢使能，恭己無為而天下治。故孔子曰：「巍巍乎，舜、禹之有天下而不與焉。」
Now when a thing is easy there is little worry; with little worry there is no grief; and without grief the body does not waste away. Shun inherited the great peace of Yao, and Yao and Shun took over virtue one from the other. Their merit reached as far as Huangfu. Yao still had worries, but Shun was at ease and had nothing to do. Therefore the Classic says, "The Lord on High drew him to ease," and this speaks of Yu Shun. Shun inherited peace and carried on good rule; he entrusted the worthy and employed the able, made himself reverent and did nothing, and all under Heaven was well governed. Therefore Confucius said, "How lofty! Shun and Yu possessed all under Heaven and yet had no part in it."
夫不與尚謂之㮡若，如德劣承衰，若孔子栖栖，周流應聘，身不得容，道不得行，可骨立（跛）〔皮〕附，僵仆道路乎？紂為長夜之飲，糟丘酒池，沉湎於酒，不舍晝夜，是必以病。病則不甘飲食，不甘飲食則肥腴不得至尺。《經》曰：「惟湛樂是從，時亦罔有克壽。」魏公子無忌為長夜之飲，困毒而死。紂雖未死，宜贏㮡矣。然桀、紂同行則宜同病，言其腴垂過尺餘，非徒增之，又失其實矣。
Now if one who had no part in it is still called wasted and dry, then what of Confucius, whose virtue was poorer and who came after a declining age, who hurried about and traveled everywhere answering summonses, whose person found no place and whose way was not carried out? Should his bones have stood out with the skin clinging to them, and should he have fallen stiff on the road? Zhou Xin (紂) held drinking that lasted whole nights, with hills of lees and a pond of wine, and he sank into drink and did not stop by day or night. By this he must surely have fallen ill. When a man is ill, food and drink are not sweet to him; and when food and drink are not sweet, his fat cannot reach a foot. The Classic says, "They followed only deep pleasure, and then too none could reach long life." Prince Wuji of Wei held drinking that lasted whole nights and died worn out by its poison. Though Zhou Xin did not die of it, he ought to have been lean and wasted. And if Jie and Zhou Xin acted alike they ought to have sickened alike; so to say that their fat hung down more than a foot is not merely an addition but also misses the fact.
傳語又稱紂力能索鐵伸鉤，撫梁易柱。言其多力也。蜚廉、惡來之徒，并幸受寵。言好伎力之主致伎力之士也。或言武王伐紂，兵不血刃。夫以索鐵伸鉤之力，輔以蜚廉、惡來之徒，與周軍相當，武王德雖盛，不能奪紂素所厚之心，紂雖惡，亦不失所與同行之意。雖為武王所擒，時亦宜殺傷十百人。今言不血刃，非紂多力之效，蜚廉、惡來助紂之驗也。
A saying handed down also says that Zhou Xin (紂) had strength enough to twist iron like rope and to straighten hooks, to hold up a beam and change a pillar. This speaks of his great strength. It says that Feilian and Elai and their like all enjoyed his favor. This means that a ruler fond of skill and strength draws to himself men of skill and strength. Some say that when King Wu attacked Zhou Xin the soldiers did not bloody their blades. Now with the strength that twisted iron and straightened hooks, aided by Feilian and Elai and their like, standing against the army of the house of Zhou, King Wu's virtue, however abundant, could not have taken away the hearts of those whom Zhou Xin had long treated well; and Zhou Xin, however wicked, would not have lost the loyalty of those who acted with him. Even though he was taken by King Wu, he ought at that time to have killed and wounded ten or a hundred men. Now to say that the blades were not bloodied is neither proof that Zhou Xin had great strength nor evidence that Feilian and Elai helped him.
案武王之符瑞不過高祖。武王有白魚、赤烏之佑，高祖有斷大蛇、老嫗哭於道之瑞。武王有八百諸侯之助，高祖有天下義兵之佐。武王之相，望羊而已；高祖之相，龍顏隆准，項紫，美須髯，身有七十二黑子。高祖又逃呂后於澤中，呂后輒見上有雲氣之驗，武王不聞有此。夫相多於望羊，瑞明於魚烏，天下義兵并來會漢，助強於諸侯。武王承紂，高祖襲秦。二世之惡，隆盛於紂，天下畔秦，宜多於殷。案高祖伐秦，還破項羽，戰場流血，暴尸萬數，失軍亡眾，幾死一再，然後得天下，用兵苦，誅亂劇。獨云周兵不血刃，非其實也。言其易，可也；言不血刃，增之也。案周取殷之時，太公陰謀之書，食小兒丹，教云亡殷，兵到牧野，晨舉脂燭。察《武成》之篇，牧野之戰，血流浮杵，赤志千里。由此言之，周之取殷，與漢、秦一實也。而云取殷易，兵不血刃，美武王之德，增益其實也。凡天下之事，不可增損，考察前後，效驗自列。自列，則是非之實有所定矣。
Consider that King Wu's tokens and auspices did not surpass those of Gaozu. King Wu had the help of the white fish and the red crow; Gaozu had the omens of the great snake cut in two and of the old woman who wept on the road. King Wu had the help of eight hundred feudal lords; Gaozu had the aid of the righteous armies of all under Heaven. As for King Wu's features, they were only eyes that looked upward; as for Gaozu's features, he had a dragon face and a high nose, a purple neck and a fine beard, and seventy-two black moles on his body. Gaozu also fled from Empress Lü into the marshes, and Empress Lü at once saw the proof of a cloudy vapor above him, while of King Wu no such thing is heard. Now his features were more than eyes that looked upward, his omens brighter than the fish and the crow, and the righteous armies of all under Heaven came together to Han, so that his help was stronger than the feudal lords. King Wu came after Zhou Xin (紂), and Gaozu came after Qin. The wickedness of the Second Emperor was greater than Zhou Xin's, so those under Heaven who turned against Qin were surely more than those who turned against Yin. Consider that Gaozu attacked Qin and came back and broke Xiang Yu: on the battlefields blood flowed and the corpses left in the open were counted by the ten thousand; he lost armies and lost his hosts and came near death once and twice, and only then won all under Heaven. His use of arms was bitter and his cutting down of disorder was severe. To say that the soldiers of the house of Zhou alone did not bloody their blades is not the fact of it. To say that it was easy is right; to say that they did not bloody their blades is an addition. Consider that when the house of Zhou took Yin, the book of secret plans by Taigong tells how they fed a small child cinnabar and taught it to say that Yin would perish, and how, when the army reached Muye, they raised fat torches at dawn. Examine the chapter Wu cheng: in the battle at Muye blood flowed until pestles floated and the red reached a thousand li. Speaking from this, the taking of Yin by the house of Zhou was one and the same in fact with Han and with Qin. Yet it is said that taking Yin was easy and that the soldiers did not bloody their blades. This makes King Wu's virtue fine and adds to the fact. In all the affairs of the world nothing may be added or taken away; examine what came before and after, and the evidence sets itself out. Once it sets itself out, the fact of right and wrong has something to fix it.
世稱紂力能索鐵伸鉤；又稱武王伐之，兵不血刃。夫以索鐵伸鉤之力當人，則是孟賁、夏育之匹也；以不血刃之德取人，是則三皇、五帝之屬也。以索鐵之力，不宜受服；以不血刃之德，不宜頓兵。今稱紂力，則武王德貶；譽武王，則紂力少。索鐵、不血刃，不得兩立；殷、周之稱不得二全。不得二全，則必一非。
The world says that Zhou Xin (紂) had strength enough to twist iron like rope and to straighten hooks, and it also says that when King Wu attacked him the soldiers did not bloody their blades. Now to meet men with the strength that twists iron and straightens hooks is to be a match for Meng Ben and Xia Yu; to take men by the virtue that does not bloody the blade is to be of the company of the Three Sovereigns and the Five Emperors. With strength that twists iron he ought not to have submitted; with virtue that does not bloody the blade there ought to have been no breaking of arms. Now if Zhou Xin's strength is praised, King Wu's virtue is lowered; and if King Wu is praised, Zhou Xin's strength is small. Twisting iron and not bloodying the blade cannot both stand; the two sayings about Yin and about the house of Zhou cannot both be whole. If they cannot both be whole, one must be wrong.
孔子曰：「紂之不善，不若是之甚也。是以君子惡居下流，天下之惡皆歸焉。」孟子曰：「吾於《武成》，取二三策耳。以至仁伐不仁，如何其血之浮杵也？」若孔子言，殆（沮）〔且〕浮杵；若孟子之言，近不血刃。浮杵過其實，不血刃亦失其正。一聖一賢，共論一紂，輕重殊稱，多少異實。
Confucius said, "The wickedness of Zhou Xin (紂) was not so extreme as this. Therefore the gentleman hates to dwell downstream, where all the evil under Heaven comes home to him." Mencius said, "Of the Wu cheng I take only two or three tablets. When the utterly benevolent attacked the unbenevolent, how could the blood have floated pestles?" If we follow the words of Confucius, it came near to floating pestles; if we follow the words of Mencius, it comes near to not bloodying the blade. Floating pestles goes past the fact, and not bloodying the blade also loses what is right. One sage and one worthy discuss the same Zhou Xin, yet they weigh him differently in their words and differ in fact as to more and less.
紂之惡不若王莽。紂殺比干，莽鴆平帝；紂以嗣立，莽盜漢位。殺主隆於誅臣，嗣立須於盜位，士眾所畔，宜甚於紂。漢誅王莽，兵頓昆陽，死者萬數，軍至漸台，血流沒趾。而獨謂周取天下，兵不血刃，非其實也。
The wickedness of Zhou Xin (紂) was not so great as Wang Mang's. Zhou Xin killed Bigan; Mang poisoned Emperor Ping. Zhou Xin came to the throne as heir; Mang stole the seat of Han. Killing a ruler is greater than cutting down a minister, and coming to the throne as heir is better than stealing the seat. The officers and hosts who turned away ought to have been more than with Zhou Xin. When Han cut down Wang Mang, the army was broken at Kunyang and the dead were counted by the ten thousand; the army reached the Jian Terrace and blood flowed until it covered their feet. Yet of the house of Zhou alone it is said that when it took all under Heaven the soldiers did not bloody their blades. That is not the fact of it.
傳語曰：「文王飲酒千鍾，孔子百觚。」欲言聖人德盛，能以德將酒也。如一坐千鍾百觚，此酒徒，非聖人也。飲酒有法，胸腹小大，與人均等。
A saying handed down runs: "King Wen drank a thousand zhong of wine and Confucius a hundred gu." It means to say that the sage's virtue was so abundant that he could master wine by virtue. But if at one sitting a man takes a thousand zhong or a hundred gu, this is a drunkard and not a sage. There is a rule in the drinking of wine, and the size of the chest and the belly is the same in a sage as in other men.
飲酒用千鍾，用肴宜盡百牛，百觚則宜用十羊。夫以千鍾百牛、百觚十羊言之，文王之身如防風之君，孔子之體如長狄之人，乃能堪之。案文王、孔子之體，不能及防風、長狄。以短小之身，飲食眾多，是缺文王之廣，貶孔子之崇也。
If a man drinks a thousand zhong, he ought to use up a hundred oxen for his dishes; and a hundred gu ought to use up ten sheep. Now speaking of a thousand zhong with a hundred oxen and of a hundred gu with ten sheep, King Wen's body would have to be like the body of the ruler of Fangfeng and Confucius's frame like a man of the Changdi before they could bear it. Consider that the bodies of King Wen and Confucius could not come up to Fangfeng and the Changdi. To say that with small bodies they ate and drank so much is to chip away at King Wen's breadth and to lower Confucius's height.
案《酒誥》之篇，「朝夕曰祀茲酒」，此言文王戒慎酒也。朝夕戒慎，則民化之。外出戒慎之教，內飲酒盡千鍾，導民率下，何以致化？承紂疾惡，何以自別？且千鍾之效，百觚之驗，何所用哉？
Consider the chapter Jiu gao: "Morning and evening say, use this wine for sacrifice." This says that King Wen warned against wine and was careful with it. If he warned and was careful morning and evening, the people were changed by it. But if outside he put forth a teaching of warning and care while inside he drank a thousand zhong to the full, then in leading the people and guiding those below, by what would he bring about their change? Coming after Zhou Xin (紂) and hating wickedness, by what would he mark himself off? And where would one use the proof of a thousand zhong and the evidence of a hundred gu?
使文王、孔子因祭用酒乎，則受福胙不能厭飽；因饗射之用酒乎，饗射飲酒自有禮法；如私燕賞賜飲酒乎，則賞賜飲酒，宜與下齊。賜尊者之前，三觴而退，過於三觴，醉酗生亂。文王、孔子，率禮之人也，賞賚左右，至於醉酗亂身：自用酒千鍾百觚，大之則為桀、紂，小之則為酒徒，用何以立德成化，表名垂譽乎？世聞「德將毋醉」之言，見聖人有多德之效，則虛增文王以為千鍾，空益孔子以百觚矣。
Suppose King Wen and Confucius used wine for sacrifice: then in receiving the blessing and the sacrificial meat they could not have had their fill. Suppose they used wine at the feast and the archery: the drinking at feast and archery has its own rites. Suppose they drank at a private banquet by the host's gift: then drinking by gift ought to be the same as for those below. When wine is given before an honored man, one withdraws after three cups, and past three cups drunken brawling breeds disorder. King Wen and Confucius were men who followed the rites. Would they have given to those about them until they were drunk and brawling and their own persons disordered? And if they themselves used a thousand zhong or a hundred gu of wine, then at the greatest they would be Jie and Zhou Xin and at the least drunkards. By what would they set up virtue and bring about change, make their names shine and leave praise behind them? The world heard the words "Led by virtue, he does not get drunk," and saw that the sage had the proof of abundant virtue, and so it emptily added to King Wen and made it a thousand zhong, and vainly added to Confucius and made it a hundred gu.
傳語曰：「紂沉湎於酒，以糟為丘，以酒為池，牛飲者三千人，為長夜之飲，亡其甲子。」
A saying handed down runs: "Zhou Xin (紂) sank into wine and made hills of lees and a pond of wine; three thousand men drank there like oxen; he held drinking that lasted whole nights and forgot the count of his days."
夫紂雖嗜酒，亦欲以為樂。令酒池在中庭乎，則不當言為長夜之飲，坐在深室之中，閉窗舉燭，故曰長夜。令坐於室乎，每當飲者起之中庭，乃復還坐，則是煩苦相藉，不能甚樂。令池在深室之中，則三千人宜臨池坐，前俯飲池酒，仰食肴膳，倡樂在前，乃為樂耳。如審臨池而坐，則前飲害於肴膳，倡樂之作不得在前。夫飲食既不以禮，臨池牛飲，則其啖肴不復用杯，亦宜就魚肉而虎食。則知夫酒池牛飲，非其實也。
Now though Zhou Xin loved wine, he too wished to take pleasure in it. If the pond of wine stood in the middle of the courtyard, then it should not be called drinking that lasted whole nights; it is because he sat deep within a chamber with the windows shut and torches lit that it is called a long night. If they sat in the chamber, then each time they were to drink they would rise and go out to the courtyard and then come back and sit again, and this is a troublesome, hard business, with men treading on one another, and there could be no great pleasure in it. If the pond stood inside the deep chamber, then the three thousand men ought to have sat facing the pond, bending forward to drink the pond's wine and looking up to eat the dishes, with players and music before them; only so would it be a pleasure. But if they really sat facing the pond, then drinking in front of them would get in the way of the dishes, and the playing of the music could not be before them. And since their eating and drinking was not by rite, and they faced the pond and drank like oxen, then in eating the dishes too they would use no cups, but ought to have gone at the fish and the meat and fed like tigers. From this we know that the pond of wine and the drinking like oxen are not the fact of it.
傳又言：紂懸肉以為林，令男女裸而相逐其間，是為醉樂淫戲無節度也。夫肉當內於口，口之所食，宜潔不辱。今言男女裸相逐其間，何等潔者？如以醉而不計潔辱，則當其浴於酒中，而裸相逐於肉間。何為不肯浴於酒中？以不言浴於酒，知不裸相逐於肉間。
The tradition also says that Zhou Xin (紂) hung up meat to make a forest and had men and women run naked after one another among it, and that this was drunken pleasure and lewd sport without measure. Now meat is what goes into the mouth, and what the mouth eats ought to be clean and undefiled. Now it is said that men and women ran naked after one another among it; what is clean in that? If they were drunk and took no account of clean and unclean, then they should have bathed in the wine and run naked after one another among the meat. Why were they not willing to bathe in the wine? Since it is not said that they bathed in the wine, we know that they did not run naked after one another among the meat.
傳者之說，或言：車行灑，騎行炙，百二十日為一夜。夫言用酒為池，則言其車行酒非也；言其懸肉為林，即言騎行炙非也。
Among those who hand the tale down, some say that wine went round by cart and roast meat went round on horseback, and that a hundred and twenty days made one night. Now if it is said that wine made a pond, then saying that the wine went round by cart is wrong; and if it is said that the hanging meat made a forest, then saying that the roast meat went round on horseback is wrong.
或時紂沉湎覆酒，滂㩗於地，即言以酒為池。釀酒糟積聚，則言糟為丘。懸肉以林，則言肉為林。林中幽冥，人時走戲其中，則言裸相逐。或時載酒用鹿車，則言車行酒、騎行炙。或時十數夜，則言其百二十。或時醉不知問日數，則言其亡甲子。周公封康叔，告以紂用酒期於悉極，欲以戒之也。而不言糟丘酒池，懸肉為林，長夜之飲，亡其甲子。聖人不言，殆非實也。
Perhaps Zhou Xin (紂) sank into wine and spilled it, and it ran over the ground, and so it was said that wine made a pond. He brewed wine and the lees piled up, and so it was said that the lees made a hill. He hung meat like a forest, and so it was said that meat made a forest. The middle of the forest was dark and men now and then ran about and played in it, and so it was said that they ran naked after one another. Perhaps he used a deer cart to carry the wine, and so it was said that wine went round by cart and roast meat on horseback. Perhaps it was ten nights and more, and so it was said to be a hundred and twenty. Perhaps he was drunk and did not know to ask the count of the days, and so it was said that he forgot the count of his days. When the Duke of Zhou enfeoffed Kang Shu, he told him that Zhou Xin's use of wine had gone to the very utmost, and he did so in order to warn him. Yet he did not speak of hills of lees and a pond of wine, of meat hung to make a forest, of drinking that lasted whole nights, or of forgetting the count of his days. The sage did not speak of them, and so they are probably not the fact.
傳言曰：「紂非時與三千人牛飲於酒池。」夫夏官百，殷二百，周三百。紂之所與相樂，非民，必臣也；非小臣，必大官，其數不能滿三千人。傳書家欲惡紂，故言三千人，增其實也。
A saying handed down runs: "Zhou Xin (紂) drank like an ox with three thousand men at the pond of wine out of season." Now the offices of Xia were a hundred, those of Yin two hundred, those of the house of Zhou three hundred. Those with whom Zhou Xin took his pleasure were not the common people but surely his ministers, and not the small ministers but surely the great officers; their number could not have filled three thousand men. The writers who handed down the books wished to make Zhou Xin hateful, and so they said three thousand men and added to the fact.
傳語曰：「周公執贄下白屋之士。」謂候之也。夫三公，鼎足之臣，王者之貞干也；白屋之士，閭巷之微賤者也。三公傾鼎足之尊，執贄候白屋之士，非其實也。時或待士卑恭，不驕白屋人，則言其往候白屋。或時起白屋之士，以璧迎禮之，人則言其執贄以候其家也。
A saying handed down runs: "The Duke of Zhou held gifts of greeting and humbled himself before the scholar of the plain house." This means that he paid him a call. Now the three dukes are the ministers who are the legs of the cauldron, the firm trunk of the king; and the scholar of the plain house is a mean and lowly man of the lanes. That one of the three dukes should tip the honor of a cauldron's leg and hold gifts of greeting to call on a scholar of a plain house is not the fact of it. Perhaps at that time he was humble and courteous in treating scholars and was not proud toward men of plain houses, and so it was said that he went to call at a plain house. Or perhaps he raised up a scholar of a plain house and welcomed him with a jade disc and treated him with courtesy, and men then said that he held gifts of greeting and called at his home.
傳語曰：「堯、舜之儉，茅茨不剪，采椽不斫。」
A saying handed down runs: "Such was the thrift of Yao and Shun that the thatch was not trimmed and the oak rafters were not hewn."
夫言茅茨采椽，可也；言不剪不斫，增之也。《經》曰「弼成五服」。五服，五采服也。服五采之服，又茅茨采椽，何宮室衣服之不相稱也？服五采，畫日月星辰，茅茨采椽，非其實也。
Now to speak of thatch and oak rafters is right; to say that they were not trimmed and not hewn is an addition. The Classic says, "He helped complete the five fu." The five fu are the robes of five colors. If he wore robes of five colors and yet had thatch and oak rafters, how could palace and clothing be so ill matched? To wear the five colors, with the sun and the moon and the stars painted on them, and yet to have thatch and oak rafters, is not the fact of it.
傳語曰：「秦始皇帝燔燒詩書，坑殺儒士。」言燔燒詩書，滅去《五經》文書也。坑殺儒士者，言其皆挾經傳文書之人也。
A saying handed down runs: "The First Emperor of Qin burned the Odes and the Documents and buried the scholars alive." To say that he burned the Odes and the Documents means that he did away with the writings of the Five Classics. To say that he buried the scholars alive means that they were all men who carried the writings of the classics and the commentaries.
燒其書，坑其人，詩書絕矣。言燒燔詩書、坑殺儒士，實也；言其欲滅詩書，故坑殺其人，非其誠，又增之也。
He burned their books and buried the men, and the Odes and the Documents were cut off. To say that he burned the Odes and the Documents and buried the scholars alive is fact; to say that he buried the men because he wished to do away with the Odes and the Documents is not the truth of it, and is a further addition.
秦始皇帝三十四年，置酒咸陽台，儒士七十人前為壽。仆射周青臣進頌始皇之德。齊淳于越進諫始皇不封子弟功臣自為（狹）〔挾〕輔，刺周青臣以為面諛。始皇下其議於丞相李斯。李斯非淳于越曰：「諸生不師今而學古，以非當世，惑亂黔首。臣請敕史官，非秦記皆燒之；非博士官所職，天下有敢藏詩書、百家語、諸刑書者，悉詣守尉集燒之；有敢偶語詩書，棄市；以古非今者，族滅。吏見知弗舉，與同罪。
In the thirty-fourth year of the First Emperor of Qin, wine was set out on the terrace at Xianyang, and seventy scholars came forward to drink his health. The pushe Zhou Qingchen came forward and praised the First Emperor's virtue. Chunyu Yue of Qi came forward and remonstrated that the First Emperor did not enfeoff his sons and brothers and his meritorious ministers to be supports at his side, and he pricked at Zhou Qingchen for flattering to the face. The First Emperor sent the matter down to be discussed by the prime minister Li Si. Li Si held Chunyu Yue to be wrong and said, "These scholars do not take the present for their teacher but study antiquity, and so they hold the age wrong and confuse and disorder the common people. Your servant asks that the officers of records be commanded to burn all that is not the record of Qin; that except for what the office of the erudites holds in charge, any in the empire who dare keep the Odes, the Documents, the sayings of the hundred schools or the books of punishments bring them all to the governors and commandants to be gathered and burned; that any who dare speak the Odes and the Documents together be put to death in the marketplace; that those who hold the present wrong by antiquity have their kin wiped out; and that officers who see and know and do not report it be held guilty with them."
始皇許之。明年三十五年，諸生在咸陽者多為妖言。始皇使御史案問諸生，諸生傳相告引者，自除犯禁者四百六十七人，皆坑之。燔詩書，起淳于越之諫；坑儒士，起自諸生為妖言，見坑者四百六十七人。傳增言坑殺儒士，欲絕詩書，又言盡坑之。此非其實而又增之。
The First Emperor allowed it. The next year, the thirty-fifth, many of the scholars who were in Xianyang spoke wicked words. The First Emperor had the censors examine and question the scholars, and the scholars passed word on one another and dragged one another in, so that four hundred and sixty-seven men who had broken the ban were picked out, and all of them were buried. The burning of the Odes and the Documents arose from Chunyu Yue's remonstrance; the burying of the scholars arose from the scholars speaking wicked words, and those buried were four hundred and sixty-seven men. Those who hand the tale down add to it and say that he buried the scholars alive because he wished to cut off the Odes and the Documents, and they say further that he buried them all. This is not the fact of it, and is a further addition.
傳語曰：「町町若荊軻之閭。」言荊軻為燕太子丹刺秦王，後誅軻九族，其後恚恨不已，復夷軻之一里，一里皆滅，故曰町町。此言增之也。
A saying handed down runs: "Tingting, like the lane of Jing Ke." It means that Jing Ke stabbed at the king of Qin for Prince Dan of Yan, and that afterward Jing Ke's kin to the ninth degree were cut down, and that after this the anger and the hatred did not cease, so that Jing Ke's whole lane was razed as well and the one lane was wiped out; and therefore it is called tingting. These words are an addition.
夫秦雖無道，無為盡誅荊軻之里。始皇幸梁山之宮，從山上望見丞相李斯車騎甚盛，恚，出言非之。其後左右以告李斯，李斯立損車騎。始皇知左右泄其言，莫知為誰，盡捕諸在旁者皆殺之。其後墜星下東郡，至地為石，民或刻其石曰「始皇帝死，地分」。皇帝聞之，令御史逐問，莫服，盡取石旁人誅之。夫誅從行於梁山宮及誅石旁人，欲得泄言、刻石者，不能審知，故盡誅之。荊軻之閭何罪於秦而盡誅之？如刺秦王在閭中，不知為誰，盡誅之，可也。荊軻已死，刺者有人，一里之民，何為坐之？始皇二十年，燕使荊軻刺秦王，秦王覺之，體解軻以徇，不言盡誅其閭。彼或時誅軻九族，九族眾多，同里而處，誅其九族，一里且盡，好增事者則言町町也。
Now though Qin was without the way, there was no reason to cut down the whole of Jing Ke's lane. The First Emperor went to the palace at Liangshan, and from the height he looked down and saw that the carriages and horsemen of the prime minister Li Si were very many; he was angry and spoke words against it. Afterward those about him told Li Si, and Li Si at once cut down his carriages and horsemen. The First Emperor knew that someone about him had let his words out, but he did not know who it was, so he seized all those who had been at his side and killed them all. Afterward a star fell in Dong Commandery and became a stone when it reached the ground, and some of the people cut on that stone, "The First Emperor will die and the land will be divided." The Emperor heard of it and had the censors go and question them, but no one confessed, so he took all the men beside the stone and cut them down. Now the killing of those who went with him at the Liangshan palace and the killing of the men beside the stone were because he wished to get the one who had let out the words and the one who had cut the stone, and could not find it out for certain, and so killed them all. What crime had Jing Ke's lane done to Qin that they should all be cut down? If the one who stabbed the king of Qin were in the lane and it were not known who he was, then to cut them all down would be right. But Jing Ke was already dead and the one who stabbed was known. Why should the people of a whole lane be punished with him? In the twentieth year of the First Emperor, Yan sent Jing Ke to stab the king of Qin; the king of Qin became aware of it and had Jing Ke pulled apart and paraded, and it is not said that his whole lane was cut down. Perhaps they cut down Jing Ke's kin to the ninth degree, and his kin to the ninth degree were many and dwelt in the same lane, so that when his nine degrees of kin were cut down the one lane was nearly emptied, and those fond of adding to a story then said tingting.