CHAPTER I.
THREE DIFFERENTLiKING, OR RITUAL BOOKS, ACKNOWLEDGED IN CHINA. THE RECOVERY OF THE FIRST TWO, AND FORMATION OF THE THIRD, UNDER THE HAN DYNASTY.
How Confucius spoke of the Li
1. Confucius said, 'It is by the Odes that the mind is aroused; by the Rules of Propriety that the character is established; from Music that the finish is received[1].' On another occasion he said, 'Without the Rules of Propriety, respectfulness becomes laborious bustle; carefulness, timidity; boldness, insubordination; and straightforwardness, rudeness[1].'
These are two specimens of the manner in which Confucius expressed himself about the LI, the Rules of Propriety or Ceremonial Usages, recognised in his time. It is a natural inference from his language that there were Collections of such Rules which could be read and studied; but he does not expressly say so.
How Mencius spoke of them.
The language of Mencius was more definite. In at least two passages of his works we find the usual form of quotationLiYüeh, 'TheLisays[2],' which, according to the analogy of Shih Yüeh, 'The Shih King, or Book of Poetry, says,' might be rendered,
[1. Confucian Analects, Book VIII, 8 and 2.
2. Works of Mencius, II, Part ii, 2. 5; III, Part ii, 3. 3.]
'The LI. King says.' In another passage, he says to a Mr. King Khun, 'Have you not read the LI?' It does not appear that Mencius was always referring to one and the same collection of LI; but it is clear that in his time there were one or more such collections current and well known among his countrymen.
Now there are threeLiKing, or three Rituals.
There are now three Chinese classics into which the nameLienters:--the LI, the Kau LI, and theLiKing, frequently styled, both by the Chinese themselves and by sinologists, 'The Three Rituals[2].' The first two are books of the Kau dynasty (B.C. 1122-225). The third, of which a complete translation is given in the present work, may contain passages of an earlier date than either of the others; but as a collection in its present form, it does not go higher than the Han dynasty, and was not completed till our second century. It has, however, taken a higher position than those others, and is ranked with the Sh?, the Shih, the Y?, and the Khun Khi?, forming one of 'The Five King,' which are acknowledged as the books of greatest authority in China. Other considerations besides antiquity have given, we shall see, its eminence to theLiKing.
State of theLibooks at the rise of the Han an dynasty.
2. The monuments of the ancient literature, with the exception, perhaps, of the Yi King, were in a condition of disorder and incompleteness at the rise of the Han dynasty. (B.C. 206). This was the case especially with theLiand Kau LI. They had suffered, with the other books, from the fires and proscription of the short-lived dynasty of Khin, the founder of which was bent especially on their destruction[3]; and during the closing centuries of Kau, in all the period of 'The Warring Kingdoms,' they had been variously mutilated by the contending princess[4].
[1. Works of Mencius, III, ii, 2. 2.
2. See Wylie's Notes on Chinese Literature, p.4, and Mayers' Chinese Reader's Manual, p. 300.
3. Sze-ma Khien's Biographies, Book 61 (###), p. 5b. Other testimonies to the fact could be adduced.
4. Mencius V, ii, 2. 2. See also the note of Li? Hsin, appended to his catalogue ofLiworks, in the Imperial library of Han.]
Work of the ancient emperors of Han in recovering the books.
The sovereigns of Han undertook the task of gathering up and arranging the fragments of the ancient books, and executed it well.. In B.C. 213 Shih Hwang T? of Khin had promulgated his edict forbidding any one to hide and keep in his possession the old writings. This was repealed in B.C. 191 by the emperor Hui, so that it had been in existence only twenty-two years, during most of which, we may presume, it had been inoperative. Arrangements were also made to receive and preserve old tablets which might be presented[1], and to take down in writing what scholars might be able to repeat. In B.C. 164, the emperor Wan ordered 'the Great Scholars' of his court to compile 'the Royal Ordinances,' the fifth of the Books in ourLiKing[2].
Recovery of the LI.
i. Internal evidence shows that when this treatise was made, the LI, or portions of it at least, had been recovered; and with this agrees the testimony of Sze-ma Khien, who was born perhaps in that very year[3], and lived to between B.C. 90 and 80. In the 61st Book of his Biographies, referred to in a note above, Khien says, 'Many of the scholars repeated (parts of) the LI; but no other of them so much as Kao Thang of LI; and now we have only the Shih LI, which he was able to recite.' In harmony with this statement of the great historian, is the first entry in Li? Hsin's Catalogue ofLibooks in the Imperial library of Han:--'56 küan or sections ofLiin the old text, and 17 phien in the (current) text (of the time);' forming, as is universally believed, the present LI, for which the ShihLiof Khien is merely another name.
That Kao Thang should have been able to dictate so much of the work will not be thought wonderful by those who
[1. Such was the 'Stone-Conduit Gallery,' which Mayers (Manual, p. 18,5) describes as a building erected by Hsiao Ho at Khang-an for the reception of the records of the extinct Khin dynasty, about B.C. 200, adding that 'in B.C. 51, the emperor Hsüan appointed a commission of scholars to assemble in this building, and complete the revision of the classical writings.' But it had also been' intended from the first as a repository for those writings as they were recovered.
2. See the General Mirror of History under that year.
3. Mayers puts his birth 'about B.C. 163,' and his death 'about 86.']
are familiar with the power of memory displayed by many Chinese scholars even at the present day. The sections in the old text were found in the reign of the emperor W? (B.C. 140-87), and came into the possession of his brother, known as king Hsien of Ho-kien. We do not know how much this mass of tablets added to the LI, as we now have it, but they confirmed the genuineness of the portion obtained from Kao.
King Hsien of Ho-kien, and his recovery of the Kau LI.
ii. The recovery of the KauLicame not long after, and through the agency of the same king Hsien. No one did so much as he in the restoration of the ancient of literature. By name Teh, and one of the fourteen sons of the emperor King (B.C. 156-141), he was appointed by his father, in B.C. 155, king of Ho-kien, which is still the name of one of the departments of Kih-LI, and there he continued till his death, in 129, the patron of all literary men, and unceasingly pursuing his quest for old books dating from before the Khin dynasty. Multitudes came to him from all quarters, bringing to him the precious tablets which had been preserved in their families or found by them elsewhere. The originals he kept in his own library, and had a copy taken, which he gave to the donor with a valuable gift. We are indebted to him in this way for the preservation of the Tao Teh King, the works of Mencius, and other precious treasures; but I have only to notice here his services in connexion with theLibooks[1].
Some one [2] brought to him the tablets of the Kau LI, then called Kau Kwan, 'The Official Book of Kau,' and purporting to contain a complete account of the organised government of the dynasty of Kau in six sections. The sixth section, however, which should have supplied a list of the officers in the department of the minister of Works,
[1. See the account of king Hsien in the twenty-third chapter of the Biographies in the History of the first Han dynasty. Hsien was the king's posthumous title (###), denoting 'The Profound and Intelligent.'
2 The Catalogue of the Sui Dynasty's (A. D. 589-618) Imperial library says this was a scholar of the surnameLi(###). I have been unable to trace the authority for the statement farther back.]
with their functions, was wanting, and the king offered to pay 1000 pieces of gold to any one who should supply the missing tablets, but in vain[1]. He presented the tablets which he had obtained at the court of his half-brother, the emperor W?; but the treasure remained uncared for in one of the imperial repositories till the next century; when it came into the charge of Li? Hsin. Hsin replaced the missing portion from another old work, called Khao Kun King, which Wylie renders by 'The Artificers' Record.' This has ever since continued to appear as the sixth section of the whole work, for the charge of which Hsin obtained the appointment of a special board of scholars, such as had from the first been entrusted with the care of the LI. The KauLiis a constitutional and not a ritual work. The last entry in Hsin's Catalogue ofLiBooks is:--'The Kau Kwan in six sections; and a treatise on the Kau Kwan in four sections.' That is the proper name for it. It was not called the KauLitill the Thang dynasty[2].
Formation of theLiKing.
iii. We come to the formation of the text of theLiKing, in which we are more particularly interested. We cannot speak of its recovery, for though parts of it had been in existence during the Kau dynasty, many of its Books cannot claim a higher antiquity than the period of the Han. All that is known about the authorship of them all will be found in the notices which form the last chapter of this Introduction;
After the entry in Lia Hsin's Catalogue about the recovered
[1. This is related in the Catalogue of the Sui dynasty, It could not be in Khien's sixty-first chapter of Biographies, because the Kau Kwan was not known, or, at least, not made public, in Khien's time. The Sui writers, no doubt, took it from some biography of the Han, which has escaped me.
2. A complete translation of the KauLiappeared at Paris in 1851, the work of Edward Biot, who had died himself before its publication, before his fiftieth year. According to a note in Callery's 'Memorial des Rites' (p. 191), the labour of its preparation hastened Biot's death. There are some errors in the version, but they are few. I have had occasion to refer to hundreds of passages in it, and always with an increasing admiration of the author's general resources and knowledge of Chinese. His early death was the greatest loss which the cause of sinology has sustained. His labours, chiefly on Chinese subjects, had been incessant from 1835. The perusal of them has often brought to my memory the words of Newton, 'If Mr. Cotes had lived, we should have known something.' Is there no sinologist who will now undertake a complete translation of the LI?]
text of the LI, 'there follows--'131 phien of King,' that is, so many different records or treatises on the subject of LI. These had also been collected by king Hsien, and King Hs?'s note about them is that they were 'Treatises composed by the disciples of the seventy disciples,' meaning by 'the seventy disciples' those of Confucius' followers who had been most in his society and, profited most from his instructions. These 131 phien contained, no doubt, the germ of ourLiKing; but there they remained for about a century in the imperial repositories, undigested and uncared for, and constantly having other treatises of a similar nature added to them.
Council of B.C. 511.
At last, in B.C. 51, the emperor Hsüan (B.C. 71-47) convoked a large assembly of Great Scholars to meet in the Stone-Conduit Gallery, and discuss the text of the recovered classics[1]. A prominent member of this assembly, the president of it I suppose, was Li? Hsiang, himself a celebrated writer and a scion of the imperial house, who appears to have had the principal charge of all the repositories. Among the other members, and in special connexion with theLiworks, we find the name of Tai Shang, who will again come before us[2].
B.C. 26.
We do not know what the deliberations of the Great Scholars resulted in, but twenty-five years later the emperor Khang caused another search to be made throughout the empire for books that might hitherto have escaped notice; and, when it was completed, he ordered Hsiang to examine all the contents of the repositories, and collate the various copies of the classics. From this came the preparation of a catalogue; and Hsiang dying at the age of seventy-two, in B.C. 9, before it was completed, the work was delegated to his third and youngest son Hsin. His catalogue we happily possess. It mentions, in addition to theLiand
[1. See the Details in the General Mirror of History, under B.C. 51.
2. See the 58th Book of Biographies (###) in the History of the first Han, and the Catalogue of the Sui Library.]
Kau LI, 199 phien ofLitreatises. The résumé appended to theLibooks in the Catalogue of the Su i Dynasty, omitting works mentioned by Hsin, and inserting two others, says that Hsiang had in his hands altogether 214 phien. What was to be done with this mass of tablets, or the written copies made from them?
Hau Zhang and the two Tais
The most distinguished of theLischolars in the time of the emperors Hsüan and Khang was a Hau Zhang, the author of the compilation called in Hsin's Catalogue Khü Tai King; and two of his disciples, Tai Teh and Tai Shang, cousins[1], the name of the latter of whom has already been mentioned as a member of the council of B.C. 51, were also celebrated for their ability. Teh, the older of the two, and commonly called Ta Tai, or 'the Greater Tai,' while Hsiang was yet alive, digested the mass of phien, and in doing so reduced their number to 85. The younger, called Hsiao Tai, or 'the Lesser Tai,' doing the same for his cousin's work, reduced it to 46 treatises. This second condensation of theLidocuments met with general acceptance, and was styled theLiKing. Shang himself wrote a work in twelve chapters, called 'A Discussion of the Doubts of Scholars about theLiKing,' which, though now lost, was existing in the time of Sui.
Ma Yung and Kang Hsüan.
Through Khiao Zan and others, scholars of renown in their day, the redaction passed on to the well-known Ma Yung (A.D. 79-166), who added to Shang's books the Yüeh Ling, the Ming
[1. Sinologists, without exception I believe, have called Shang a 'nephew' of Teh, overlooking the way in which the relationship between them is expressed in Chinese. Shang is always Teh's ###, and not simply###. Foreign students have overlooked the force of the phrase and, more fully, ###. Teh and Shang's father had the same grand-father, and were themselves the sons of brothers. They were therefore what we call first cousins, and Teh and Shang were second cousins. The point is unimportant, but it is well to be correct even in small matters. Not unimportant, however, is the error of Callery (Introduction, p. 6), who says, 'Le neveu, homme dépravé, beaucoup plus adonné aux plaigirs, qu'à 1'étude, retrancha encore davantage et fixa le nombre des chapitres à 46.' No such stigma rests on the character of Ta? Shang, and I am sure translators have reason to be grateful to him for condensing, as he did, the result of his cousin's labours.]
Thang Wei, and the Yo King making their number in all forty-nine, though, according to the arrangement adopted in the present translation, they still amount only to forty-six. From Ma, again, it passed to his pupil Kang Hsüan (A.D. 127-200), in whom be was obliged to acknowledge a greater scholar than himself.
Thus theLiKing was formed. It is not necessary to pursue its history farther. Kang was the scholar of his age, and may be compared, in scholarship, with the later King Hs?. And he has been fortunate in the preservation of his works. He applied himself to all the three Rituals, and his labours on them all, the Kau LI, the LI, and theLiKing, remain. His commentaries on them are to be found in the great work of 'The Thirteen King' of the Thang dynasty. There they appear, followed by the glosses, illustrations, and paraphrases of Khung Ying-ta.
Zhai Yung and his manusculpt.
In A.D. 175, while Kang was yet alive, Zhai Yung, a scholar and officer of many gifts, superintended the work of engraving on stone the text of all the Confucian classics. Only fragments of that great manusculpt {sic} remain to the present day, but others of the same nature were subsequently made. We may feel assured that we have the text of theLiKing and other old Chinese books, as it was 1800 years ago, more correctly than any existing Manuscripts give us that of any works of the West, Semitic, or Greek, or Latin, of anything like equal antiquity.
LI of the Greater Tai.
3. A few sentences on theLiof the Greater Tai will fitly close this chapter. He handed down his voluminous compilation to a Hsü Liang of Lang Yeh in the present Shan-tung[1], and in his family it was transmitted; but if any commentaries on it were published, there is no trace of them in history. As the shorter work of his cousin obtained a wide circulation, his fell into neglect, and, as King-zun says, was simply put upon the shelf. Still there appears in the Sui Catalogue these two entries:--'TheLiKing of Ta Tai, in 13 Sections,' and 'The Hsia
[1. ###.]
Hsiao Kang, in 1 Section,' with a note by the editor that it was compiled by Ta Tai. This little tractate may, or may not, have been also included in one of the 13 Sections. There are entries also about Ta Tai's work in the catalogues of the Thang and Sung dynasties, which have given rise to many discussions. Some of the Sung scholars even regarded it as a 14th King. In the large collection of 'Books of Han and Wei,' a portion of theLiof Ta Tai is still current, 39 Book in 10 Sections, including the fragment of the Hsia dynasty, of which a version, along with the text, was published in 1882 by Professor Douglas of King's College, under the title of 'The Calendar of the Hsia Dynasty.' I have gone over all the portion in the Han and Wei Collection, and must pronounce it very inferior to the compilation of the Hsiao or Lesser Tai. This inferiority, and not the bulk, merely, was the reason why from the first it has been comparatively little attended to.
CHAPTER II.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHINESE CHARACTER CALLED LI. MEANING OF THE TITLELiKing. VALUE OF THE WORK.
LI is a symbol of religious import.
1. The Chinese characterLiadmits of a great variety of terms in translating a work where it abounds into any of our western languages. In order fully to apprehend its significance, we must try to get bold of the fundamental ideas which it was intended to convey. And these are two. First, when we consult the Shwo Wan, the oldest Chinese dictionary, we findLidefined as 'a step or act; that whereby we serve spiritual beings and obtain happiness.' The character was to the author, Hsü Shan, an ideagram of religious import; and we can see that he rightly interpreted the intention of its maker or makers. It consists of two elements, separately called khih and LI[1]. That on the left is the symbol,
[1. ###.]
determining the category of meaning to which the compound belongs. It was the earliest figure employed to indicate spiritual beings, and enters into characters denoting spirits, sacrifices, and prayer[1]. That on the right, called LI, is phonetic, but even it is the symbol for (a vessel used in performing rites;' and if, as the Khang-hs? dictionary seems to say, it was anciently used alone for the present compound, still the spiritual significance would attach to it, and the addition of the khih to complete the character, whensoever it was made, shows that the makers considered the rites in which the vessel was used to possess in the first place a religious import.
LI is a symbol for the feeling of propriety.
Next, the character is used, in moral and philosophical disquisitions, to designate one of the primary constituents of human nature. Those, as set forth by Mencius, are four; 'not fused into us from without,' not produced, that is, by any force of circumstances, but 'belonging naturally to us, as our four limbs do.' They are benevolence (zan), righteousness (?), propriety (LI), and understanding (Kingh). Our possession of the first is proved by the feeling of distress at the sight of suffering; of the second, by our feelings of shame and dislike; of the third, by our feelings of modesty and courtesy; of the fourth, by our consciousness of approving and disapproving[2].
Thus the character LI, in the concrete application of it, denotes the manifestations, and in its imperative use, the rules, of propriety. This twofold symbolism of it--the religious and the moral--must be kept in mind in the study of our classic. A life ordered in harmony with it would realise the highest Chinese ideal, and surely a very high ideal, of human character.
But never and, nowhere has it been possible for men to maintain this high standard of living. In China and elsewhere theLihave become, in the usages of society in. its various relationships, matters of course, forms without the
[1. E.g. ### (shan), ###, (King), ### (khi).
2. Mencius, II, i, 6; VI, i, 6. 7.]
spirit, and hence we cannot always translate the character by the same term. It would be easy to add to the number of words, more or less synonymous, in French or English or any other Aryan language, which Callery has heaped together in the following passage:--'Autant que possible, j'ai traduitLipar le mot Rite, dont le sens est susceptible à une grande étendue; mais il faut convenir que, suivant les circonstances où il est employé, il peut signifier--Cérémonial, Cérémonies, Pratiques cérémoniales, L'étiquette, Politesse, Urbanité, Courtoisie, Honnêteté, Bonnes manières, égards, Bonne éducation, Bienséance, Les formes, Les convenances, Savoir-vivre, Décorum, Décence, Dignité personnelle, Moralité de conduite, Ordre Social, Devoirs de Société, Lois Sociales, Devoirs, Droit, Morale, Lois hiérarchiques, Offrande, Usages, Coutumes[1].' I have made little use in my translation of the word Rite or Rites, which Callery says he had endeavoured to adhere to as much as possible, but I do not think I have allowed myself so much liberty in other terms in my English as he has done in his French. For the symbol in the title I have said 'Rules of Propriety or Ceremonial Usages.'
Translation of the title.
2. The meaning of the title--LI King-need not take us so long. There is no occasion to say more on the significance of LI; the other character, King, should have a plural force given to it. What unity belongs to the Books composing it arises from their being all, more or less, occupied with the subject of LI. Each one, or at least each group, is complete in itself. Each is a Ki; taken together, they are so many Kings. Only into the separate titles of seven of them, the 13th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 27th, and 29th, does the name of King enter. That character is the symbol for 'the recording of things one by one,' and is often exchanged for another King[2], in which the classifying element is sze, the symbol for 'a packet of cocoons,' the compound denoting the unwinding
[1. Introduction, p. 16.
2. The classifier of King in the title is ### (yen), the symbol of words; that of this this King (###) is ### (sze).]
and arrangement of the threads'. Wylie's 'Book of Rites' and Callery's 'Mémorial des Rites' always failed to give me a definite idea of the nature of our classic. Sze-ma Khien's work is called Sze King [2], or 'Historical Records,' andLiKing might in the same way be rendered 'Ceremonial Records,' but I have preferred to give for the title, 'A Collection of Treatises on the Rules of Propriety or Ceremonial Usages.'
The value of theLiKing.
3. The value of the work has been discussed fully by P. Callery in the sixth paragraph of the Introduction to his translation of an abbreviated edition of it, and with much of what he has said I am happy to feel myself in accord. I agree with him, for instance, that the book is 'the most exact and complete monography which the Chinese nation has been able to give of itself to the rest of the human race.' But this sentence occurs in a description of the Chinese spirit, which is little better than a caricature. 'Le cérémonial,' he says, 'résume l'esprit Chinois. . . . Ses affections, si elle en a, sont satisfaites par le cérémonial; ses devoirs, elle les remplit au moyen du cérémonial; la vertu et le vice, elle les reconnait au cérémonial; en un mot, pour elle le cérémonial c'est l'homme, l'homme moral, l'homme politique, l'homme religieux, Dans ses multiples rapports avec la famille, la société, l'état, la morale et la religion.'
To all this representation the first sentence of our classic is a sufficient reply:--'Always and in everything let there be reverence.' In hundreds of other passages the same thing is insisted on,--that ceremony without an inspiring reverence is nothing. I do not deny that there is much attention to forms in China with a forgetfulness of the spirit that should animate them. But where is the nation against whose people the same thing may not be charged? The treaties of western nations with China contain an article stipulating for the toleration of Chinese Christians on the ground that, 'The Christian religion, as professed by
[1. Structure of Chinese Characters, p. 132.
2. ###.]
Protestants or Roman Catholics, inculcates the practice of virtue, and teaches man to do as he would be done by[1].' Scores of Chinese, officers, scholars, and others, have, in conversations with myself, asked if such were indeed the nature of Christianity, appealing at the same time to certain things which they alleged that made them doubt it. All that can be said in the matter is this, that as the creeds Of men elsewhere are often better than their practice, so it is in China. Whether it be more so there or here is a point on which different conclusions will be come to, according to the knowledge and prejudices of the speculators.
More may be learned about the religion of the ancient Chinese from this classic than from all the others together. Where the writers got their information about the highest worship and sacrifices of the most ancient times, and about the schools of Shun, we do not know. They expressed the views, doubtless, that were current during the Han dynasty, derived partly from tradition, and partly from old books which were not gathered up, or, possibly, from both those sources. But let not readers expect to find in theLiKing anything like a theology. The want of dogmatic teaching of religion in the Confucian system may not be all a disadvantage and defect; but there is a certain amount of melancholy truth in the following observations of Callery:--'LeLiKing, celui de tous les King où les questions religieuses auraient d? être traitées tout naturellement, à propos des sacrifices au Ciel, aux Dieux tutélaires, et aux ancêtres, glisse légèment sur tout ce qui est de pure spéculation, et ne mentionne ces graves matières qu'avec une extrême indifférence. Selon moi ceci prouve deux choses: la première, que dans les temps anciens les plus grand génies de la Chine n'ont possédé sur le créateur, sur la nature et les destinées de l'ame, que des notions obscures, incertaines et souvent contradictoires; la seconde, que les Chinois possèdent à un trés faible degré le sentiment religieux, et qu'ils n'éprouvent pas, comme les races de
[1. From the eighth article in the Treaty with Great Britan, 1858.]
l'occident, le besoin impérieux de sonder les mystères du monde invisible.'
The number of the King that are devoted to the subject of the mourning rites shows how great was the regard of the people for the departed members of their families. The solidarity of the family, and even the solidarity of the race, is a sentiment which has always been very strong among them. The doctrine of filial piety has also the prominence in several Books which we might expect.
As to the philosophical and moral ideas which abound in the work, they are, as Callery says, 'in general, sound and profound.' The way in which they are presented is not unfrequently eccentric, and hedged about with absurd speculations on the course of material nature, but a prolonged study of the most difficult passages will generally bring to light what Chinese scholars call a tao-li, a ground of reason or analogy, which interests and satisfies the mind.
TheLiKing as one of the Five King.
4. The position that came gradually to be accorded to theLiKing as one of 'The Five King,' par excellence, was a tribute to its intrinsic merit. It did not, like the Kau LI, treat of matters peculiar to one dynasty, but of matters important in all time; nor like the LI, of usages belonging to one or more of the official classes, but of those that concerned all men. The category of 'Five King' was formed early, but the 'Three Rituals' were comprehended in it as of equal value, and formed one subdivision of it. So it was early in the Thang dynasty when the collection of 'The Thirteen King' was issued; but ere the close of that dynasty our classic had made good its eminence over the other two Rituals. In the 29th chapter of the Monographs of Thang, page 17, it is said, 'To the charge of each of the Five King two Great Scholars were appointed. The Y? of Kau, the Shang Sh?, the Shih of Mao, the Khun Khi?, and theLiKing are the Five King.'
CHAPTER III.
BRIEF NOTICES OF THE DIFFERENT BOOKS WHICH MAKE UP THE COLLECTION.
BOOK I. KHü LI.
This first Book in the collection is also the longest, and has been divided because of its length into two Books. In this translation, however, it appears only as one Book in two Sections, which again are subdivided, after the Khien-lung editors, into five Parts and three Parts respectively.
The name KhüLiis taken from the first two characters in the first paragraph, and the first sentence, 'The KhüLisays, 'extends over all that follows to the end of the Book. P. Callery, indeed, puts only the first paragraph within inverted commas, as if it alone were from the Khü LI, and the rest of the Book were by a different hand. He translates the title by 'Rites Divers,' and to his first sentence, 'Le Recueil des rites divers dit,' appends the following note :--'This work, that for a very long time has been lost, was, so far as appears, one of those collections of proverbs and maxims with which philosophy has commenced among nearly all peoples. Although the author does not say so, it is probable that this chapter and the next contain an analysis of that ancient collection, for the great unconnectedness which we find in it agrees well with the variety indicated by the title Khü LI.' My own inference from the text, however, is what I have stated above, that the Book is a transcript of the Khü LI, and not merely a condensation of its contents, or a redaction of them by a different author.
It is not easy to translate the title satisfactorily. According to Kang Hsüan (or Kang Khang-khang), the earliest of all the great commentators on theLiKing, 'The Book is named Khü LI, because it contains matters relating to all the five ceremonial categories. What is said in it about sacrifices belongs to the "auspicious ceremonies;" about the rites of mourning, and the loss or abandonment of one's state, to the "inauspicious;" about the payment of tributory dues and appearances at the royal court, to "the rites of hospitality;" about weapons, chariots, and banners, "to those of war;" and about serving elders, reverencing the aged, giving offerings or presents, and the marriage of daughters, to the "festive ceremonies."' On this view the title would mean 'Rules belonging to the different classes of ceremonies,' or, more concisely, the 'Rites Divers' of Callery; and Mr. Wylie has called the Book 'The Universal Ritual.'
But this rendering of the title does not suit the proper force of the character Khü, which is the symbol of 'being bent or crooked,' and is used, with substantival meaning, for what is small and appears irregularly. Mention is made in Book XXVIII, ii, 23, Of 'him who cultivates the shoots of goodness in his nature,' those 'shoots' being expressed by this character Khü; and in a note on the passage there I have quoted the words of the commentator Pai Lü:--'Put a stone on a bamboo shoot, or where the shoot would show itself, and it will travel round the stone, and come out crookedly at its side.' Thus Khü is employed for what is exhibited partially or in a small degree. Even Kang Hsüan on that passage explains it by 'very small matters;' and the two ablest in my opinion of all the Chinese critics and commentators., King Hs? and W? Khang (of the Yüan dynasty, A.D. 1249-1333), take our title to mean 'The minuter forms and smaller points of ceremony.' P. Zottoli is not to be blamed for following them, and styling the Book--'Minutiores Ritus.' Still even this does not satisfy my own mind. Great rites are mentioned in the treatise as well as small ones. Principles of ceremony are enunciated as well as details. The contents are marked indeed by the 'unconnectedness' which Callery mentions; but a translator cannot help that. The Book may not be as to method all that we could wish, but we must make the best we can of it as it stands; and I have ventured to call it 'A Summary of the Rules of Ceremony.' It occupies very properly the place at the beginning of the collection, and is a good introduction to the treatises that follow.
Among theLibooks in Lao Hsin's Catalogue of the Imperial Library of Han, is a Treatise in nine chapters (phien), compiled by Hau Zhang, and called Khü Thai Ki, or 'Record made in the Khü Tower.' The Khü Tower was the name of an educational building, where scholars met in the time of the emperor Hsüan to discuss, questions about ceremonies and other matters connected with the ancient literature, and Hau Zhang (mentioned in the preceding chapter) kept a record of their proceedings. I should like to think that our KhüLiis a portion of that Khü Thai King, and am sorry not to be able to adduce Chinese authorities who take the same view. It would relieve us of the -difficulty of accounting for the use of Khü in the title.
BOOK II. THAN KUNG
The name Than Kung given to this Book is taken from the first paragraph in it, where the gentleman so denominated appears attending the mourning rites for an officer of the state of LI. Nowhere else in the Treatise, however, is there any mention of him, or reference to him. There can be no reason but this, for calling it after him, that his surname and name occur at the commencement of it. He was a native, it is understood, of LI; but nothing more is known of him.
The Than Kung, like the Khü LI, is divided into two Books, which appear in this translation as two Sections of one Book. Each Section is subdivided into three Parts.
The whole is chiefly occupied with the observances of the mourning rites. It is valuable because of the information which it. gives about them, and the views prevailing at the time on the subject of death. It contains also many historical incidents about Confucius and others, which we are glad to possess. Some of the commentators, and especially the Khien-lung editors, reject many of them as legendary and fabulous. The whole Book is reduced to very small compass in the expurgated editions of theLiKing. We are glad, however, to have the incidents such as they are. Who would not be sorry to want the account of Confucius' death, which is given in I, ii, 20? We seem, moreover, to understand him better from accounts which the Book contains of his intercourse with his disciples, and of their mourning for him.
Dze-y?[1], an eminent member of his school, appears in the first paragraph much to his credit, and similarly afterwards on several occasions; and this has made the Khien-lung editors throw out the suggestion that the Book was compiled by his disciples. It may have been so.
BOOK III. WANG KIH.
According toLiKih (died A.D. 192)[2], the Wang Kih, or 'Royal Regulations,' was made by the Great Scholars of the time of the emperor Wan (B.C. 179-157), on the requisition of that sovereign[3]. It professes to give the regulations of the early kings on the classes of the feudal nobles and officers and their emoluments, on their sacrifices, and their care for the aged. The emperor ordered it to be compiled after the death of Kia, a Great scholar and highly esteemed by the sovereign, which event must have taken place about B.C. 170, when Kih was only thirty-three. The Book is said to have contained, when it first appeared, an account of the royal progresses and of the altars and ceremonies of investiture, of which we do not now find any trace. Parts of it are taken from Mencius, from the Sh?, and from the Commentaries of Kung-yang and Zo on the Khun Khi?; other parts again are not easily reconciled with those authorities.
[1. ###.
2. See the 54th Book of the Biographies in the History of the Second Han Dynasty.
3. In B.C. 164. See the Mirror of History on that year.]
The Khien-lung editors deliver their judgment on it to the following effect: When it was made, theLimust have appeared, but not the Kau LI. Hence the Banquet and Missions appear among the 'Six Subjects of Teaching,' and no mention is made of the minister of Religion, as one of the six great ministers, nor is anything said of the minister of War's management of the army. On a general view of it, many subjects are evidently based on Mencius, and whole paragraphs are borrowed from him. Nothing is said of the peculiar position of the son of Heaven, because in the Han dynasty, succeeding immediately to that of Khin, the emperor was to be distinguished from, and not named along with, the feudal princes. In what is said about the reports of the Income and fixing the Expenditure, only the Grand ministers of Instruction, War, and Works are mentioned, because these were the three ducal ministers of the Han dynasty, and the ancient arrangements were represented so as to suit what had come into existence. That nothing is said about altars and investitures arose from Wan's having disregarded in that matter the advice of Hsin-yüan Phing[1]. It only shows how much the information of the compilers exceeded that of Sh?-sun Thung[2] and Sze-ma Hsiang-z?[3]. The Book was received into the collection of theLiKing, because it was made at no great distance from antiquity. It is foolish in later scholars to weigh and measure every paragraph of it by its agreement or disagreement with Mencius and the Kau LI.
This account of the Wang Kih must commend itself to unprejudiced readers. To myself, the most interesting thing in the Book is the information to be gathered from it about the existence of schools in the earliest times. We see at the very commencement of history in China a
[1. ### A Taoistic charlatan, honoured and followed for a few years by the emperor Wan; put to death in B.C. 163.
2. ### A scholar of Khin; was a counsellor afterwards of the first and second emperors of Han.
3 ### An officer and author. Died B.C. 126.]
rudimentary education, out of which has come by gradual development the system of examinations of the present day.
BOOK IV. YüEH LING.
The Yüeh Ling, or 'Proceedings of Government in the different Months,' appears in the Khien-lung edition of theLiKing in six Sections; but it has seemed to me more in, harmony with the nature of the Book and more useful for the student to arrange it in four Sections, and each Section in three Parts, a Section thus comprehending a season of the year, and every month having a part to itself. There is also a short supplementary Section in the middle of the year, at the end of the sixth month, rendered necessary by the Taoist lines on which the different portions are put together.
Zhai Yung (A. D. 133-192)[1] and Wang S?[2], somewhat later (in our third century), held that the Book was the work of the duke of Kau, and must be assigned to the eleventh or twelfth century B.C. But this view of its antiquity may be said to be universally given up. Even King Hsüan saw in the second century that it was a compilation from the Khun Khi? of Lü P?-Wei[3], still foolishly said by many Chinese writers to have been the real father of the founder of the Khin dynasty, and who died in B.C. 237.LiTeh-ming[4], writing in our seventh century, said, 'The Yüeh Ling was originally part of Lü's Khun Khi?, from which some one subsequently compiled this Memoir. The Khien-lung editors unhesitatingly affirm this origin of the Yüeh Ling; as indeed no one, who has compared it with-thc work ascribed to Lü, can have any doubts on the matter. Of that work, Mayers says that 'it is a collection of quasi-historical notices, and, although nominally Lü's production, really compiled under his direction by an assemblage of scholars.' Mayers adds, that on the completion of the work, Lü P?-wei suspended 1000 pieces of gold at the gate of his palace, which he offered as a reward to any one who could suggest an improvement of it by adding or expunging a single character[1].
Such was the origin of the Yüeh Ling. We do not know who compiled it from the Khun Khiu of Lü, but it was first received into theLiKing by Ma Yung. It can be explained only by noting the Khin peculiarities in the names of titles and other things. It is in itself full of interest, throwing light on the ancient ways and religious views, and showing how the latter more especially came to be corrupted by the intrusion among them of Taoistic elements.
The Book has sometimes been called 'A Calendar of the Months of Kau.' Callery translates the name Yüeh Ling by 'Attributs des Mois.' My own translation of it is after King Hsüan, who says, 'The Book is called, Yüeh Ling, because it records the proceedings of Government in the twelve months of the year.'
BOOK V. ZANG-DZE WAN.
This Book is named from the first three characters in it, meaning 'The Questions of Zang-dze.' Most of the different paragraphs or chapters in the two Sections of it commence in the same way. It is not found at all in the expurgated editions of the classic.
Zang-dze, or Mr. Zang[2], about fifty years younger than Confucius, was one of the chief disciples of his school, perhaps the ablest among them. He was distinguished for his filial piety, and straightforward, honest simplicity.
[1. Mayers 'Chinese Reader's Manual, p. 145. The 1000 pieces of gold suspended at Lü's gate are probably only a variation of what has been related in the preceding chapter of what was done by king Hsien of Ho-kien towards the recovery of the missing Book of the Kau Kwan.
2. ###; his name was (Shan, ###), and that which he received in his maturity, Dze-yü (###).]
There is an interesting account of his death in Book II, i, Part i, 18. In the department of Li? Hsin's Catalogue, which contains 'Works of the Literati' there are entered '18 Treatises (phien) of Zang-dze,' but without any further specification of them. Ten of those treatises, or fragments of them, are found in theLiof the Greater Tai, but this Book is not among them, nor have I seen it anywhere ascribed to him as the writer of it. It must have been compiled, however, from memoranda left by him or some of his intimate disciples. The names of only two other disciples of the Master occur in it-those of Dze-y? and Dze-hsia[1]. The reference to the disciples of the former in Section ii, 19, must be a note by the final compiler. The mention of Lao-dze or Lao Tan, and his views also, in Section ii, 22, 24, 28, strikes us as remarkable.
If it were necessary to devise a name for the Book, I should propose--'Questions of Casuistry on the subject of Ceremonial Rites.' Zang-dze propounds difficulties that have struck him on various points of ceremony, especially in connexion with the rites of mourning; and Confucius replies to them ingeniously and with much fertility. Some of the questions and answers, however, are but so much trifling. Khung Ying-ta says that only Zang-dze could have proposed the questions, and only Confucius have furnished the answers. He applies to the Book the description of the Y? in the third of the Appendixes to that classic, i, 40, as 'Speaking of the most complex phenomena under the sky, and having nothing in it to awaken dislike, and of the subtlest movements under the sky, and having nothing in it to produce confusion.'
