Zhengshuo — Setting the Classics Straight正說篇
儒者說《五經》，多失其實。前儒不見本末，空生虛說。後儒信前師之言，隨舊述故，滑習辭語。苟名一師之學，趨為師教授，及時蚤仕，汲汲竟進，不暇留精用心，考實根核。故虛說傳而不絕，實事沒而不見，《五經》並失其實。《尚書》、《春秋》事較易，略正題目粗粗之說，以照篇中微妙之文。
When Confucian scholars explain the Five Classics, they often lose the truth of them. The earlier scholars did not see root and branch, and out of nothing they gave birth to empty theories. The later scholars believed the words of their earlier masters, followed the old and handed on the former, and made their phrases glib. They carelessly put on themselves the name of one master's learning and hurried to become masters and teach. They took office early while the time served and pressed on eagerly in the race to advance, with no leisure to keep their minds fine and search out the root and the truth of things. So empty theories are handed down and never break off, while the real facts sink from sight, and all the Five Classics alike lose their truth. In the Documents and the Chunqiu the matters are easier to weigh. I shall roughly set right the coarse theories about their titles, and light up by that the fine and subtle writing within the chapters.
說《尚書》者，或以為本百兩篇，後遭秦燔《詩》、《書》，遺在者二十九篇。夫言秦燔《詩》、《書》，是也；言本百兩篇者，妄也。蓋《尚書》本百篇，孔子以授也。遭秦用李斯之議，燔燒《五經》，濟南伏生抱百篇藏於山中。孝景皇帝時，始存《尚書》。伏生已出山中，景帝遣晁錯往從受《尚書》二十餘篇。伏生老死，《書》殘不竟，晁錯傳於倪寬。至孝宣皇帝之時，河內女子發老屋，得逸《易》、《禮》、《尚書》各一篇，奏之。宣帝下示博士，然後《易》、《禮》、《尚書》各益一篇，而《尚書》二十九篇始定矣。至孝〔武〕帝時，魯共王壞孔子教授堂以為殿，得百篇《尚書》於牆壁中。武帝使使者取視，莫能讀者，遂秘於中，外不得見。至孝成皇帝時，徵為古文《尚書》學。東海張霸案百篇之序，空造百兩之篇，獻之成帝。帝出秘百篇以校之，皆不相應，於是下霸於吏。吏白霸罪當至死，成帝高其才而不誅，亦惜其文而不滅。故百兩之篇，傳在世間者，傳見之人則謂《尚書》本有百兩篇矣。或言秦燔詩書者，燔《詩經》之書也，其經不燔焉。夫《詩經》獨燔其詩。《書》，《五經》之總名也。傳曰：「男子不讀經，則有博戲之心。」子路使子羔為費宰，孔子曰「賊夫人之子。」子路曰：「有民人焉，有社稷焉，何必讀書，然後為學。」《五經》總名為書。傳者不知秦燔書所起，故不審燔書之實。秦始皇三十四年，置酒咸陽宮，博士七十人前為壽。僕射周青臣進頌秦始皇。齊人淳于越進諫，以為始皇不封子弟，卒有田常、六卿之難，無以救也，譏青臣之頌，謂之為諛。秦始皇下其議丞相府，丞相斯以為越言不可用，因此謂諸生之言惑亂黔首，乃令史官盡燒《五經》，有敢藏諸〔詩〕書百家語者刑，唯博士官乃得有之。《五經》皆燔，非獨諸〔詩〕家之書也。傳者信之，見言詩書則獨謂《〔詩〕經》之書矣。
Those who explain the Documents sometimes hold that it had a hundred and two chapters at first, and that later, when Qin burned the Odes and the Documents, twenty-nine chapters were left. Now to say that Qin burned the Odes and the Documents is right, but to say that there were a hundred and two chapters at first is nonsense. The Documents had a hundred chapters at first, and Confucius handed them down. When Qin took up the proposal of Li Si and burned the Five Classics, Fu Sheng of Jinan carried the hundred chapters in his arms and hid them in the mountains. In the time of Emperor Xiaojing the Documents was preserved at last. Fu Sheng had already come out of the mountains, and Emperor Jing sent Chao Cuo to go and receive more than twenty chapters of the Documents from him. Fu Sheng grew old and died, so the Documents was broken and not finished, and Chao Cuo handed it on to Ni Kuan. By the time of Emperor Xiaoxuan, a woman of Henei pulling down an old house found one lost chapter each of the Yi, the Rites and the Documents, and presented them to the throne. Emperor Xuan sent them down to be shown to the erudites, and only then did the Yi, the Rites and the Documents each gain one chapter, and the twenty-nine chapters of the Documents were fixed at last. By the time of Emperor Xiaowu, King Gong of Lu pulled down the hall where Confucius had taught, to make a palace of it, and found the hundred chapters of the Documents inside the wall. Emperor Wu sent an envoy to take them and look at them, and no one could read them, so they were stored away in the palace and could not be seen outside. By the time of Emperor Xiaocheng, men were summoned and the study of the old script Documents was set up. Zhang Ba of Donghai looked at the preface to the hundred chapters, made up the hundred and two chapters out of nothing, and presented them to Emperor Cheng. The emperor brought out the hundred chapters that were stored away and compared them, and none of them matched, and so he sent Ba down to the officers. The officers reported that Ba's crime deserved death, but Emperor Cheng held his talent high and did not execute him, and he valued the writing too and did not destroy it. So the hundred and two chapters were handed down in the world, and those who received and saw them say that the Documents had a hundred and two chapters at first. Some say that when it is said Qin burned the Odes and the Documents, it was the books of the Odes classic that were burned, and that the classic itself was not burned. They say the Odes alone had its poems burned. But the Documents is the general name of the Five Classics. A commentary says, "If a man does not read the classics, he will have a gambler's heart." Zilu had Zigao made steward of Bi, and Confucius said, "You are ruining another man's son." Zilu said, "There are people there, and there are altars of land and grain. Why must one read books before it counts as learning?" The general name of the Five Classics is the Documents. Those who hand down the story do not know how the burning of the books in Qin arose, and so they do not look into the truth of that burning. In the thirty-fourth year of the First Emperor of Qin a feast was set out in the Xianyang Palace, and seventy erudites came forward to drink his health. The supervisor Zhou Qingchen came forward and sang the praises of the First Emperor. Chunyu Yue, a man of Qi, came forward and remonstrated. He held that if the First Emperor did not enfeoff his sons and younger brothers, then when the trouble of a Tian Chang or of six ministers came suddenly there would be no way to save the state, and he blamed Qingchen's praises and called them flattery. The First Emperor sent the question down to the chancellor's office, and the chancellor Si held that Yue's words could not be used. On this ground he said that the words of the scholars confused and disordered the people, and he ordered the officers of records to burn all the Five Classics, and to punish any who dared to hide the Odes, the Documents and the words of the hundred schools, and only the office of erudite might keep them. The Five Classics were all burned, not the books of the Odes school alone. Those who hand down the story believe this, and when they see mention of the Odes and the Documents they say it means the books of the Odes classic alone.
傳者或知《尚書》為秦所燔，而謂二十九，篇其遺脫不燒者也。審若此言，《尚書》二十九篇，火之餘也。七十一篇為炭灰，二十九篇獨遺邪？夫伏生年老，晁錯從之學時，適得二十餘篇。伏生死矣，故二十九篇獨見，七十一篇遺脫。遺脫者七十一篇，反謂二十九篇遺脫矣。
Those who hand down the story sometimes know that the Documents was burned by Qin, and yet say that the twenty-nine chapters are the ones that slipped away and were not burned. Looked at closely, by such words the twenty-nine chapters of the Documents are what the fire left. Did seventy-one chapters become charcoal and ash and twenty-nine chapters alone remain? Fu Sheng was old in years, and when Chao Cuo went to learn from him he got just over twenty chapters. Then Fu Sheng died, and so the twenty-nine chapters alone are seen and the seventy-one chapters slipped away. It is the seventy-one chapters that slipped away, and yet they say instead that the twenty-nine chapters slipped away.
或說《尚書》二十九篇者，法曰鬥〔四〕七宿也。四七二十八篇，其一曰鬥矣，故二十九。夫《尚書》滅絕於秦，其見在者二十九篇，安得法乎？宣帝之時，得佚《尚書》及《易》、《禮》各一篇，《禮》、《易》篇數亦始足，焉得有法？案百篇之序，闕遺者七十一篇，獨為二十九篇立法，如何？或說曰：「孔子更選二十九篇，二十九篇獨有法也。」蓋俗儒之說也，未必傳記之明也。二十九篇殘而不足，有傳之者，因不足之數，立取法之說，失聖人之意，違古今之實。夫經之有篇也，猶有章句〔也〕。有章句，猶有文字也。文字有意以立句，句有數以連章，章有體以成篇，篇則章句之大者也。謂篇有所法，是謂章句復有所法也。《詩經》舊時亦數千篇，孔子刪去複重，正而存三百篇，猶二十九篇也。謂二十九篇有法，是謂三百五篇復有法也。
Some explain the twenty-nine chapters of the Documents as patterned on the Dipper and the twenty-eight lodges. Four times seven is twenty-eight chapters, and one of them is the Dipper, so twenty-nine. Now the Documents was wiped out in Qin, and what remains is twenty-nine chapters. How could it take a pattern from anything? In the time of Emperor Xuan one lost chapter each of the Documents, the Yi and the Rites was found, and the number of chapters in the Rites and the Yi was only then made full. How could there be a pattern? Look at the preface to the hundred chapters, and seventy-one chapters are missing. What sort of thing is it to set up a pattern for the twenty-nine chapters alone? Some explain it and say, "Confucius chose the twenty-nine chapters over again, and the twenty-nine chapters alone have a pattern." This is the theory of vulgar scholars, and not necessarily the clear word of the records. The twenty-nine chapters are broken and not full, and there are those who hand them down and, on the ground of a number that is not full, set up the theory of a pattern taken. They lose the meaning of the sage and go against the truth of old and new. A classic has chapters as it has sections and phrases. It has sections and phrases as it has written words. Written words have meaning, and by that a phrase is set up. Phrases have number, and by that a section is joined. A section has a body, and by that a chapter is made. A chapter is the large form of sections and phrases. To say that a chapter has something it is patterned on is to say that sections and phrases have something they are patterned on too. The Odes in the old days also ran to some thousands of pieces, and Confucius cut away what was doubled, set them right, and kept three hundred pieces, just as with the twenty-nine chapters. To say that the twenty-nine chapters have a pattern is to say that the three hundred and five pieces have a pattern too.
或說《春秋》十二月也。《春秋》十二公，猶《尚書》之百篇。百篇無所法，十二公安得法？說《春秋》者曰：「二百四十二年，人道浹，王道備，善善惡惡，撥亂世，反諸正，莫近於《春秋》。」若此者，人道、王道適具足也。三軍六師萬二千人，足以陵敵伐寇，橫行天下，令行禁止，未必有所法也。孔子作《春秋》，紀魯十二公，猶三軍之有六師也；士眾萬二千，猶年有二百四十二也。六師萬二千人，足以成軍；十二公二百四十二年，足以立義。說事者好神道恢義，不肖以遭禍。是故經傳篇數，皆有所法。考實根本，論其文義，與彼賢者作書詩，無以異也。故聖人所經，賢者作書，義窮理竟，文辭備足，則為篇矣。其立篇也，種類相從，科條相附。殊種異類，論說不同，更別為篇。意異則文殊，事改則篇更。據事意作，安得法像之義乎？
Some explain the Chunqiu as the twelve months. The twelve dukes of the Chunqiu are like the hundred chapters of the Documents. If the hundred chapters have nothing they are patterned on, how do the twelve dukes come by a pattern? Those who explain the Chunqiu say, "In two hundred and forty-two years the way of man is complete and the way of the king is whole. It calls the good good and the evil evil, it sets a disordered age in order and turns it back to what is right, and nothing comes nearer to this than the Chunqiu." If it is so, then the way of man and the way of the king merely happen to be full and complete. Three armies, six divisions, twelve thousand men, are enough to overwhelm an enemy and strike down bandits, to range across the world, to make commands run and prohibitions hold, and they need not be patterned on anything. Confucius made the Chunqiu and recorded the twelve dukes of Lu, as three armies have six divisions. The twelve thousand soldiers are like the two hundred and forty-two years. Six divisions of twelve thousand men are enough to make an army, and twelve dukes and two hundred and forty-two years are enough to set up a meaning. Those who explain affairs love the way of spirits and a grand meaning, and being unworthy they meet with disaster. For this reason they say that the numbers of chapters in the classics and commentaries all have something they are patterned on. Look into the truth and the root of it, and discuss its writing and its meaning, and there is nothing to tell it apart from the books and poems that worthy men make. So when the sage makes a classic and the worthy man makes a book, then where the meaning is exhausted and the reasoning is finished and the words are full and complete, a chapter is made. In setting up the chapters, kinds follow one another and heads attach to one another. Where the kinds and classes differ and the discussion is not the same, a separate chapter is made again. When the meaning differs the writing differs. When the matter changes the chapter changes. They are made on the ground of the matter and the meaning. How can there be any sense of being patterned on something?
或說《春秋》二百四十二年者，上壽九十，中壽八十，下壽七十。孔子據中壽三世而作，三八二十四，故二百四十年也。又說為赤制之中數也。又說二百四十二年，人道浹，王道備。夫據三世，則浹備之說非；言浹備之說為是，則據三世之論誤。二者相伐，而立其義，聖人之意何定哉？凡紀事言年月日者，詳悉重之也。《洪範》五紀，歲、月、日、星。紀事之文，非法像之言也。紀十二公享國之年，凡有二百四十二，凡此以立三世之說矣。實孔子紀十二公者，以為十二公事，適足以見王義邪？據三世，三世之數，適得十二公而足也？如據十二公，則二百四十二年不為三世見也。如據三世，取三八之數，二百四十年而已，何必取二？說者又曰：「欲合隱公之元也，不敢二年。隱公元年，不載於經。」夫《春秋》自據三世之數而作，何用隱公元年之事為始？須隱公元年之事為始，是竟以備足為義，據三世之說不復用矣。說隱公享國五十年，將盡紀元年以來邪？中斷以備三八之數也？如盡紀元年以來，三八之數則中斷；如中斷以備三世之數，則隱公之元不合，何如？且年與月日，小大異耳，其所紀載，同一實也。二百四十二年謂之據三世，二百四十二年中之日月必有數矣。年據三世，月日多少何據哉？夫《春秋》之有年也，猶《尚書》之有章。章以首義，年以紀事。謂《春秋》之年有據，是謂《尚書》之章亦有據也。
Some explain the two hundred and forty-two years of the Chunqiu thus. The high span of life is ninety, the middle span eighty, the low span seventy. Confucius made it on the ground of three generations of the middle span, and three times eight is twenty-four, and so two hundred and forty years. Others explain it as the middle number of the red emperor's ordering. Others explain that in two hundred and forty-two years the way of man is complete and the way of the king is whole. Now if it rests on three generations, the theory of completeness is wrong, and if the theory of completeness is right, the argument from three generations is mistaken. The two strike at each other, and men set up their meaning on them. How is the mind of the sage to be settled? Whenever affairs are recorded, the naming of year and month and day is a matter of being full and exact and holding it weighty. Of the five markers in the Hong fan there are the year, the month, the day and the stars. These are writings that record affairs, not words about being patterned on something. He recorded the years the twelve dukes held their states, and there are two hundred and forty-two of them in all, and on this men set up the theory of three generations. In truth, when Confucius recorded the twelve dukes, was it because he held that the affairs of the twelve dukes just sufficed to show the meaning of a king? Or did he rest on three generations, and the number of three generations just happened to come out at twelve dukes and be enough? If he rested on the twelve dukes, then the two hundred and forty-two years were not shown for the sake of three generations. If he rested on three generations and took the number three times eight, it would be two hundred and forty years and no more. Why must he take the two? Those who explain it say again, "He wished to bring in the first year of Duke Yin, so he did not dare make it two years. The first year of Duke Yin is not set down in the classic." Now if the Chunqiu was made resting of itself on the number of three generations, why use the affairs of the first year of Duke Yin for its beginning? To need the affairs of the first year of Duke Yin for a beginning is in the end to take fullness for the meaning, and the theory resting on three generations is used no more. They explain that Duke Yin held his state fifty years. Will they record everything from the first year on? Or cut it off in the middle to fill out the number three times eight? If they record everything from the first year on, the number three times eight is cut off in the middle. If they cut it off in the middle to fill out the number of three generations, the first year of Duke Yin does not fit. What of it? Besides, the year and the month and the day differ only as large and small, and what they record is one and the same truth. If the two hundred and forty-two years are said to rest on three generations, then the days and months within those two hundred and forty-two years must have their number as well. If the years rest on three generations, what do the greater or lesser number of months and days rest on? The Chunqiu has its years as the Documents has its sections. A section takes a meaning for its head, and a year records affairs. To say that the years of the Chunqiu have a ground is to say that the sections of the Documents have a ground too.
說《易》者皆謂伏羲作八卦，文王演為六十四。夫聖王起，河出圖，洛出書。伏羲王，《河圖》從河水中出，《易》卦是也。禹之時，得《洛書》，書從洛水中出，《洪範》九章是也。故伏義以卦治天下，禹案《洪範》以治洪水。古者烈山氏之王得河圖，夏後因之曰《連山》；〔歸藏〕氏之王得河圖，殷人因之曰《歸藏》；伏羲氏之王得河圖，周人曰《周易》。其經卦皆六十四，文王、周公因彖十八章究六爻。世之傳說《易》者，言伏羲作八卦；不實其本，則謂伏羲真作八卦也。伏羲得八卦，非作之；文王得成六十四，非演之也。演作之言，生於俗傳。苟信一文，使夫真是幾滅不存。既不知《易》之為河圖，又不知存於俗何家《易》也，或時《連山》、《歸藏》，或時《周易》。案禮夏、殷、周三家相損益之製，較著不同。如以周家在後，論今為《周易》，則禮亦宜為周禮。六典不與今禮相應，今禮未必為周，則亦疑今《易》未必為周也。案左丘明之傳，引周家以卦，與今《易》相應，殆《周易》也。
Those who explain the Yi all say that Fuxi made the eight trigrams and that King Wen drew them out into sixty-four. Now when a sage king rises, the chart comes out of the He and the writing comes out of the Luo. When Fuxi was king the River chart came out of the waters of the He, and the hexagrams of the Yi are that chart. In the time of Yu the Luoshu was found, and the writing came out of the waters of the Luo, and the nine sections of the Hong fan are that writing. So Fuxi governed the world by the hexagrams, and Yu looked to the Hong fan and governed the flood. In old times the king of the Lieshan clan got the River chart, and the house of Xia followed it and called it the Lianshan. The king of the Guizang clan got the River chart, and the men of Yin followed it and called it the Guizang. The king of the Fuxi clan got the River chart, and the men of Zhou called it the Zhou yi. The hexagrams of these classics are sixty-four in every case, and King Wen and the Duke of Zhou, following the eighteen sections of the judgments, went to the bottom of the six lines. Those in the world who hand down and explain the Yi say that Fuxi made the eight trigrams. If a man does not make the root of it true, he says that Fuxi really made the eight trigrams. Fuxi got the eight trigrams. He did not make them. King Wen got the sixty-four already complete. He did not draw them out. The words about drawing out and making were born of vulgar report. To believe one writing carelessly is to let what is truly right come near to perishing and not remain. Men neither know that the Yi is the River chart, nor know whose house the Yi that remains among the vulgar belongs to. It may at times be the Lianshan or the Guizang, and at times the Zhou yi. Look at the Rites, and the systems of the three houses of Xia, Yin and Zhou, each taking away from and adding to the last, are plainly not the same. If, because the house of Zhou comes last, one argues that the Yi of today is the Zhou yi, then the Rites too ought to be the Zhou Rites. The six codes do not answer to the Rites of today. If the Rites of today are not necessarily those of Zhou, then it is doubtful as well that the Yi of today is that of Zhou. Look at the commentary of Zuo Qiuming, and it draws on the house of Zhou using the hexagrams, and this answers to the Yi of today, so it is very likely the Zhou yi.
說《禮》者，皆知禮也，禮〔為〕何家禮也？孔子曰：「殷因於夏禮，所損益可知也。周因於殷禮，所損益可知也。」由此言之，夏、殷、周各自有禮。方今周禮邪？夏、殷也？謂之周禮，《周禮》六典。案今《禮經》不見六典，或時殷禮未絕，而六典之禮不傳，世因謂此為周禮也？案周官之法不與今禮相應，然則《周禮》六典是也。其不傳，猶古文《尚書》、《春秋》，《左氏》不興矣。
Those who explain the Rites all know the rites, but whose house's rites are they? Confucius said, "Yin followed the rites of Xia, and what was taken away and added can be known. Zhou followed the rites of Yin, and what was taken away and added can be known." Speaking from this, Xia and Yin and Zhou each had rites of their own. Are the rites of today those of Zhou, or of Xia and Yin? If they are called the Zhou Rites, then the Zhou Rites are the six codes. Look at the Rites classic of today, and the six codes are not to be seen. May it be that the rites of Yin had not yet died out, and that the rites of the six codes were not handed down, and that the age has therefore called these the Zhou Rites? Look at it, and the law of the Zhou guan does not answer to the rites of today, and so the six codes are the Zhou Rites. That they were not handed down is like the old script Documents and the Chunqiu and the Zuo, which never came into use.
說《論》者，皆知說文解語而已，不知《論語》本幾何篇，但周以八寸為尺，不知《論語》所獨一尺之意。夫《論語》者，弟子共紀孔子之言行，敕記之時甚多，數十百篇，以八寸為尺，紀之約省，懷持之便也。以其遺非經，傳文紀識恐忘，故以但八寸尺，不二尺四寸也。漢興失亡，至武帝發取孔子壁中古文，得二十一篇，齊、魯二，河間九篇：三十篇。至昭帝女讀二十一篇。宣帝下太常博士，時尚稱書難曉，名之曰傳，後更隸寫以傳誦。初孔子孫孔安國以教魯人扶卿，官至荊州刺史，始曰《論語》。今時稱《論語》二十篇，又失齊、魯、河間九篇。本三十篇，分佈亡失，或二十一篇。目或多或少，文贊或是或誤。說《論語》者，但知以剝解之問，以纖微之難，不知存問本根篇數章目。溫故知新，可以為師；今不知古，稱師如何？
Those who explain the Lun all know how to explain the writing and unravel the words, and no more. They do not know how many chapters the Analects had at first. They know only that Zhou made eight inches a foot, and they do not know why the Analects alone used a foot of its own. Now the Analects is what the disciples together recorded of the words and deeds of Confucius. When they set it down with care it was very much, some tens and hundreds of chapters, and they made eight inches a foot so that the record would be brief and sparing and easy to carry about. Because what he left was not a classic, and they recorded it as a handed down writing for fear of forgetting, they used a foot of only eight inches and not one of two feet four inches. When Han rose it was lost, and by the time of Emperor Wu the old script inside the wall of Confucius was opened and taken out, and twenty-one chapters were got, and with the two of Qi and Lu and the nine chapters of Hejian there were thirty chapters. By the time of Emperor Zhao the twenty-one chapters were read. Emperor Xuan sent them down to the erudites of the Court of Ceremonies, and at that time men still said the writing was hard to make out, and they gave it the name of a commentary. Afterwards it was written out again in the clerkly script and so handed down and recited. At the first, Kong Anguo, the grandson of Confucius, taught it to Fu Qing, a man of Lu, whose office reached Inspector of Jingzhou, and he was the first to call it the Analects. Today men speak of the twenty chapters of the Analects, so the nine chapters of Qi, Lu and Hejian have been lost as well. There were thirty chapters at first, and they were scattered and lost, and in some accounts there are twenty-one. The list of chapters is now more and now fewer, and the text and the appraisals are now right and now wrong. Those who explain the Analects know only how to ask questions that pick it apart and raise difficulties over the finest points, and do not know how to look into and ask after its root, the number of its chapters and the list of its sections. He who warms up the old and knows the new can be a master. Now they do not know the old, and what sort of thing is it to be called a master?
孟子曰：「王者之跡熄而《詩》亡，《詩》亡然後《春秋》作。晉之《乘》，楚之《杌》，魯之《春秋》，一也。」若孟子之言，《春秋》者，魯史記之名，《乘》、《檮杌》同。孔子因舊故之名，以號《春秋》之經，未必有奇說異意，深美之據也。今俗儒說之：「春者歲之始，秋者其終也。《春秋》之經，可以奉始養終，故號為《春秋》。」《春秋》之經，何以異《尚書》？《尚書》者，以為上古帝王之書，或以為上所為下所書，授事相實而為名，不依違作意以見奇。說《尚書》者得經之實，說《春秋》者失聖之意矣。《春秋左氏傳》：「桓公十有七年冬十月朔，日有食之。不書日，官失之也。」謂官失之言，蓋其實也。史官記事，若今時縣官之書矣，其年月尚大難失，日者微小易忘也。蓋紀以善惡為實，不以日月為意。若夫公羊、穀梁之傳，日月不具，輒為意使。失平常之事，有怪異之說，徑直之文，有曲折之義，非孔子之心。夫春秋實言〔冬〕夏，不言者，亦與不書日月，同一實也。
Mencius said, "When the traces of the true king died out the Odes perished, and after the Odes perished the Chunqiu was made. The Sheng of Jin, the Taowu of Chu and the Chunqiu of Lu are one and the same." Going by Mencius's words, the Chunqiu is the name of the historical records of Lu, the same as the Sheng and the Taowu. Confucius took up the old name and by it called the classic the Chunqiu. There is not necessarily any strange theory or other meaning or deep and beautiful ground in it. Now the vulgar scholars explain it thus: "Spring is the beginning of the year and autumn is its end. The classic of the Chunqiu can honour the beginning and nourish the end, and so it is called the Chunqiu." How is the classic of the Chunqiu different from the Documents? As for the Documents, some hold it to be the writings of the emperors and kings of high antiquity, and some hold it to be what those above did and those below wrote down. Affairs were handed over and set down truly, and from that came the name. It does not lean one way and go against another and make up a meaning to look strange. Those who explain the Documents have got the truth of the classic. Those who explain the Chunqiu have lost the meaning of the sage. The Zuo commentary on the Chunqiu says, "In the seventeenth year of Duke Huan, in winter, on the first day of the tenth month, there was an eclipse of the sun. The day is not written because the officer lost it." What it says of the officer losing it is likely the truth of the matter. When the officers of records set down affairs it was like the documents of a county office today. The year and the month are larger and hard to lose, and the day is small and easy to forget. A record takes good and evil for its truth, and does not make the day and the month its concern. But the commentaries of Gongyang and Guliang, wherever the day and the month are not given, at once make them serve a meaning. They lose the ordinary run of affairs and have strange theories, and take plain straight writing and find a twisted sense in it. This is not the mind of Confucius. Now that the Chunqiu truly does not speak of winter and summer is one and the same truth as its not writing the day and the month.
唐、虞、夏、殷、周者，土地之名。堯以唐侯嗣位，舜從虞地得達，禹由夏而起，湯因殷而興，武王階周而伐，皆本所興昌之地，重本不忘始，故以為號，若人之有姓矣。說《尚書》謂之有天下之代號，唐、虞、夏、殷、周者，功德之名，盛隆之意也。故唐之為言蕩蕩也，虞者樂也，夏者大也，殷者中也，周者至也。堯則蕩蕩民無能名；舜則天下虞樂；禹承二帝之業，使道尚蕩蕩，民無能名；殷則道得中；周武則功德無不至。其立義美也，其褒五家大矣，然而違其正實，失其初意。唐、虞、夏、殷、周，猶秦之為秦，漢之為漢。秦起於秦，漢興於漢中，故曰猶秦、漢；猶王莽從新都侯起，故曰亡新。使秦、漢在經傳之上，說者將復為秦、漢作道德之說矣。
Tang, Yu, Xia, Yin and Zhou are names of lands. Yao succeeded to the throne as Marquis of Tang. Shun came through from the land of Yu. Yu rose out of Xia. Tang arose by way of Yin. King Wu stepped up from Zhou and struck. In every case it was the land where they first rose and flourished. They held the root heavy and did not forget the beginning, and so made it their title, as a man has a surname. Those who explain the Documents call these the titles of the ages that held the world, and say that Tang, Yu, Xia, Yin and Zhou are names of merit and virtue and carry a sense of fullness and height. So they say that Tang as a word means vast and wide, that Yu means joy, that Xia means great, that Yin means the middle, and that Zhou means utmost. Yao, they say, was so vast and wide that the people could not name him. Under Shun the world rejoiced. Yu carried on the work of the two emperors and made the way still vast and wide, so that the people could not name him. Under Yin the way hit the middle. King Wu of Zhou was such that his merit and virtue reached everywhere. Their way of setting up a meaning is beautiful, and their praise of the five houses is great, but they go against the right truth of it and lose the first meaning. Tang, Yu, Xia, Yin and Zhou are like Qin being Qin and Han being Han. Qin rose in Qin and Han rose in Hanzhong, and so they are called Qin and Han, as Wang Mang rose from being Marquis of Xindu and so it is called the fallen Xin. If Qin and Han stood above in the classics and commentaries, the explainers would go on to make theories of the way and virtue for Qin and Han as well.
堯老求禪，四岳舉舜。堯曰：「我其試哉！」說《尚書》曰：「試者，用也；我其用之為天子也。」文為天子也。文又曰：「女於時，觀厥刑於二女。」觀者，觀爾虞舜於天下，不謂堯自觀之也。若此者，高大堯、舜，以為聖人相見已審，不須觀試，精耀相照，曠然相信。又曰：「四門穆穆，入於大麓，烈風雷雨不迷。」言大麓，三公之位也。居一公之位，大總錄二公之事，眾多並吉，若疾風大雨。夫聖人才高，未必相知也。聖成事，舜難知佞，使皋陶陳知人之法。佞難知，聖亦難別。堯之才，猶舜之知也。舜知佞，堯知聖。堯聞舜賢，四岳舉之，心知其奇而未必知其能，故言「我其試〔哉〕！」試之於職，妻以二女，觀其夫婦之法，職治修而不廢，夫道正而不僻。復令人庶之野，而觀其聖，逢烈風疾雨，終不迷惑。堯乃知其聖，授以天下。夫文言「觀」「試」，觀試其才也。說家以為譬喻增飾，使事失正是，誠而不存；曲折失意，使偽說傳而不絕。造說之傳，失之久矣。後生精者，苟欲明經，不原實，而原之者亦校古隨舊，重是之文，以為說證。經之傳不可從，《五經》皆多失實之說。《尚書》、《春秋》，行事成文，較著可見，故頗獨論。
Yao grew old and sought one to yield the throne to, and the Four Peaks put forward Shun. Yao said, "I shall test him!" Those who explain the Documents say, "To test is to use. It means, I shall use him and make him Son of Heaven." So the writing is about making him Son of Heaven. The writing says again, "I shall give my daughters in marriage at this time, and see his law in my two daughters." They say that to see means to make you, Yu Shun, seen by the world, and that it does not mean that Yao saw him himself. This sort of thing raises Yao and Shun high and great, holding that when sages see one another they have already looked one another through and need not see and test, but that their fine light shines each on the other and they trust one another wide and clear. It says again, "The four gates were harmonious, and he went into the great forest, and in fierce wind and thunder and rain he did not go astray." They say that the great forest is the place of the three ducal ministers, and that being in the place of one duke he oversaw and gathered up the affairs of the other two, and that the many affairs were all favourable together, like a swift wind and a great rain. Now a sage's talent is high, but sages do not necessarily know one another. Among the sage's finished affairs, Shun found it hard to know a flatterer, and had Gao Yao set out the method of knowing men. A flatterer is hard to know, and a sage is hard to tell apart as well. Yao's talent was like Shun's knowledge. Shun knew a flatterer, and Yao knew a sage. Yao heard that Shun was worthy, and the Four Peaks put him forward. In his heart he knew Shun was remarkable, but he did not necessarily know what Shun could do, and so he said, "I shall test him!" He tested him in office and gave him his two daughters as wives, and saw the law of him as a husband. The rule of his office was kept up and not let go, and the way of husband and wife was upright and not crooked. Then he sent him again into the wilds among the multitude and saw his sageness, and Shun met a fierce wind and a driving rain and in the end did not go astray. Then Yao knew his sageness and handed him the world. Now where the writing says see and test, it is seeing and testing his talent. The explaining houses take it for figure and comparison and add ornament, and so make affairs lose what is upright and right, and the truth does not remain. They twist it and lose the meaning, and so false theories are handed down and never break off. The handing down of made up theories has gone wrong for a long time. Men of fine parts born later would gladly make the classics clear, but they do not trace the truth to its source, and even those who trace it examine the old and follow the old, and pile up the writings they hold right and take them for the proof of a theory. The commentaries on the classics cannot be followed, and in all the Five Classics there are many theories that have lost the truth. In the Documents and the Chunqiu the affairs done are made into writing and can plainly be seen, and so I have discussed these alone at some length.