Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1457 they agreed and differed, and decided between their interpretations by reference to the general scope of the five (great) King. In compendious style, but with extensive examination of the subject, we have made the meaning of the classic clear.’ The emperor says nothing himself about the differences between the ancient and modern texts, though we know that that subject was vehemently agitated among the scholars of his court. The text as commented on by him is in eighteen chapters, which do not include the chapter to which I have referred on p. 455 as having been in the copy of Kang-sun in the first century B.c. It is said, and on sufficient authority, that this chapter was excluded through the influence of the scholar and minister Sze-ma Kan. To each of his chapters the emperor prefixed a brief heading or argument, which I have retained in the translation. These headings, probably, were selected by him from a variety proposed by the scholars about the court. The text employed in this imperial commentary might now be considered as sufficiently secured. It was engraved, in less than a century after, on the stone tablets of Thang, which were completed in the year 837, and set up in Hsi-an, the Thang capital, where they remain, very little damaged, to this day’. And not only so. The emperor was so pleased with the commentary which he had made, that he caused the whole of it to be engraved on four large tablets or pillars of stone in 745. They are still to be seen at Hsi-an, in front of the Confucian College. 4 These tablets are commonly said to contain the thirteen classics (Shih-san King). They, contained, however, only twelve different works,—the Yi, the ShQ, the Shih, the Kau Lt, the { Li, the Lt Kt, and the amplifications of the Khun Khiu,—by 30 Khiti-ming, by Kung-yang. and by K(-liang. These form ‘the nine King.’ In addition to these there were the Lun Yii, the Hsido King, and the R Ya. According to Ki Yen-wf (1613-1682), the characters on the tablets were in all 650,252, Mr.T.W. Rhys Davids (Buddhism, p. 19) estimates that our English Bible contains between go0,000 and 950,000 words. The first Psalm, in what is called the Delegates’ version, very good and concise, contains 100 Chinese characters, and in our English version 130 words. The classics of the Thang tablets, if the translator were a master of both languages, might be rendered in English so as to form a volume not quite so large as our Bible. 458 THE HSIAO KING. It is hardly necessary to say more on the preservation The work of Of the Hsi4o King. In A.D. 996 the second Hsing Ping. emperor of the Sung dynasty gave orders for an annotated edition of it to be prepared. This was finally completed in 1001, under the superintendence of Hsing Ping (932-1010), with a large critical apparatus, and a lengthened exposition, both of the text and of Hsiian 3ung’s explanation. This work has ever since been current in China. CHAPTER III. CRITICISM OF THE HsIAO SINCE THE THANG DYNASTY.
2This work has ever since been current in China. CHAPTER III. CRITICISM OF THE HsIAO SINCE THE THANG DYNASTY. 1. Notwithstanding the difficulty about one chapter which has been pointed out on p. 455, Hsiian 3ung’s text was generally accepted as the representative of that in modern characters, recovered in the second century B.C. There were still those, however, who continued to advo- Works on the Cate the claims of ‘the old text.’ Sze-ma Poe A Kwong Kwang, a distinguished minister and scholar and Fan Of the Sung dynasty (1009-1086), presented 8a-yi. to the court in 1054 his ‘ Explanations of the Hsiéo King according to the Old Text,’ arguing, in his preface and in various memorials, for the correctness of that text, as recovered by Lid Hsiian in the sixth century. Fan 3f-yii (1041-1098), a scholar of the same century, and in other things a collaborateur of Kwang, produced, towards the end of his life, an ‘ Exposition of the Hsi4o King according to the Old Text.’ He says in his preface :— ‘Though the agreement between the ancient and modern texts is great, and the difference small, yet the ancient deserves to be preferred, and my labour upon it may not be without some little value!’ 1 In the Hsifio King, as now frequently published in China, either separately by itself, or bound up with KO Hst’s Hsiao Hsio, ‘the Teaching for the Young,’ we find the old text, without distinction of chapters. The commentaries of Hsiian 3ung and Sze-m4 Kwang, and the exposition of Fan 3{-yii, however, follow one another at the end of the several clauses and paragraphs. INTRODUCTION. 459 2. But our classic had still to pass the ordeal of the scep- Sceptical criti- tical criticism that set in during the Sung cism. Views dynasty. The most notable result of this ofkd Hs. was ‘the Hsido King Expurgated? published by KO Hst in 1186. He tells us that when he first saw a statement by HQ Hung (a minister in the reign of K4o 3ung, 1127-1162), that the quotations from the Book of Poetry in the Hsiao were probably of later introduction into the text, he was terror-struck. Prolonged examination, however, satisfied him that there were good grounds for Hd’s statement, and that other portions of the text were also open to suspicion. He found, moreover, that another earlier writer, Wang Ying-#/an, in the reign of Hsiao 3ung (1163-1189), had come to the conclusion that much of the Hsido had been fabricated or interpolated in the Han dynasty. The way was open for him to give expression to his convictions, without incurring the charge of being the first to impugn the accepted ‘text.
3The way was open for him to give expression to his convictions, without incurring the charge of being the first to impugn the accepted ‘text. The fact was, as pointed out by the editors of the Catalogue Raisonné ofthe Imperial Library of the present dynasty, that A had long entertained the views which he indicated in his expurgated edition of the Hsiao, and his references to Hd and Wang were simply to shield his own boldness. He divided the treatise into one chapter of classical text, and fourteen chapters of illustration and commentary. But both parts were freely expurgated. His classical text embraces the first six chapters in my translation, and is supposed by him to form one continuous discourse by Confucius. The rest of the treatise should not be attributed to the sage at all. The bulk of it may have come from ang-;ze, or from members of his school, but large interpolations were made by the Han scholars. Adopting the old text, KG discarded from it altogether 223 characters. Attention will be called, under the several chapters, to Some portions also are in a different order from the arrangement of Hsiian 3ung and Hsing Ping, which I have followed in my translation. As has been already said, the difference between its text and that of the Thang emperor is slight,—hardly greater than the variations in the different recensions of our Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. 460 THE HSIAO KING.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1457 they agreed and differed, and decided between their interpretations by reference to the general scope of the five (great) King. In compendious style, but with extensive examination of the subject, we have made the meaning of the classic clear.’ The emperor says nothing himself about the differences between the ancient and modern texts, though we know that that subject was vehemently agitated among the scholars of his court. The text as commented on by him is in eighteen chapters, which do not include the chapter to which I have referred on p. 455 as having been in the copy of Kang-sun in the first century B.c. It is said, and on sufficient authority, that this chapter was excluded through the influence of the scholar and minister Sze-ma Kan. To each of his chapters the emperor prefixed a brief heading or argument, which I have retained in the translation. These headings, probably, were selected by him from a variety proposed by the scholars about the court. The text employed in this imperial commentary might now be considered as sufficiently secured. It was engraved, in less than a century after, on the stone tablets of Thang, which were completed in the year 837, and set up in Hsi-an, the Thang capital, where they remain, very little damaged, to this day’. And not only so. The emperor was so pleased with the commentary which he had made, that he caused the whole of it to be engraved on four large tablets or pillars of stone in 745. They are still to be seen at Hsi-an, in front of the Confucian College. 4 These tablets are commonly said to contain the thirteen classics (Shih-san King). They, contained, however, only twelve different works,—the Yi, the ShQ, the Shih, the Kau Lt, the { Li, the Lt Kt, and the amplifications of the Khun Khiu,—by 30 Khiti-ming, by Kung-yang. and by K(-liang. These form ‘the nine King.’ In addition to these there were the Lun Yii, the Hsido King, and the R Ya. According to Ki Yen-wf (1613-1682), the characters on the tablets were in all 650,252, Mr.T.W. Rhys Davids (Buddhism, p. 19) estimates that our English Bible contains between go0,000 and 950,000 words. The first Psalm, in what is called the Delegates’ version, very good and concise, contains 100 Chinese characters, and in our English version 130 words. The classics of the Thang tablets, if the translator were a master of both languages, might be rendered in English so as to form a volume not quite so large as our Bible. 458 THE HSIAO KING. It is hardly necessary to say more on the preservation The work of Of the Hsi4o King. In A.D. 996 the second Hsing Ping. emperor of the Sung dynasty gave orders for an annotated edition of it to be prepared. This was finally completed in 1001, under the superintendence of Hsing Ping (932-1010), with a large critical apparatus, and a lengthened exposition, both of the text and of Hsiian 3ung’s explanation. This work has ever since been current in China. CHAPTER III. CRITICISM OF THE HsIAO SINCE THE THANG DYNASTY.
2This work has ever since been current in China. CHAPTER III. CRITICISM OF THE HsIAO SINCE THE THANG DYNASTY. 1. Notwithstanding the difficulty about one chapter which has been pointed out on p. 455, Hsiian 3ung’s text was generally accepted as the representative of that in modern characters, recovered in the second century B.C. There were still those, however, who continued to advo- Works on the Cate the claims of ‘the old text.’ Sze-ma Poe A Kwong Kwang, a distinguished minister and scholar and Fan Of the Sung dynasty (1009-1086), presented 8a-yi. to the court in 1054 his ‘ Explanations of the Hsiéo King according to the Old Text,’ arguing, in his preface and in various memorials, for the correctness of that text, as recovered by Lid Hsiian in the sixth century. Fan 3f-yii (1041-1098), a scholar of the same century, and in other things a collaborateur of Kwang, produced, towards the end of his life, an ‘ Exposition of the Hsi4o King according to the Old Text.’ He says in his preface :— ‘Though the agreement between the ancient and modern texts is great, and the difference small, yet the ancient deserves to be preferred, and my labour upon it may not be without some little value!’ 1 In the Hsifio King, as now frequently published in China, either separately by itself, or bound up with KO Hst’s Hsiao Hsio, ‘the Teaching for the Young,’ we find the old text, without distinction of chapters. The commentaries of Hsiian 3ung and Sze-m4 Kwang, and the exposition of Fan 3{-yii, however, follow one another at the end of the several clauses and paragraphs. INTRODUCTION. 459 2. But our classic had still to pass the ordeal of the scep- Sceptical criti- tical criticism that set in during the Sung cism. Views dynasty. The most notable result of this ofkd Hs. was ‘the Hsido King Expurgated? published by KO Hst in 1186. He tells us that when he first saw a statement by HQ Hung (a minister in the reign of K4o 3ung, 1127-1162), that the quotations from the Book of Poetry in the Hsiao were probably of later introduction into the text, he was terror-struck. Prolonged examination, however, satisfied him that there were good grounds for Hd’s statement, and that other portions of the text were also open to suspicion. He found, moreover, that another earlier writer, Wang Ying-#/an, in the reign of Hsiao 3ung (1163-1189), had come to the conclusion that much of the Hsido had been fabricated or interpolated in the Han dynasty. The way was open for him to give expression to his convictions, without incurring the charge of being the first to impugn the accepted ‘text.
3The way was open for him to give expression to his convictions, without incurring the charge of being the first to impugn the accepted ‘text. The fact was, as pointed out by the editors of the Catalogue Raisonné ofthe Imperial Library of the present dynasty, that A had long entertained the views which he indicated in his expurgated edition of the Hsiao, and his references to Hd and Wang were simply to shield his own boldness. He divided the treatise into one chapter of classical text, and fourteen chapters of illustration and commentary. But both parts were freely expurgated. His classical text embraces the first six chapters in my translation, and is supposed by him to form one continuous discourse by Confucius. The rest of the treatise should not be attributed to the sage at all. The bulk of it may have come from ang-;ze, or from members of his school, but large interpolations were made by the Han scholars. Adopting the old text, KG discarded from it altogether 223 characters. Attention will be called, under the several chapters, to Some portions also are in a different order from the arrangement of Hsiian 3ung and Hsing Ping, which I have followed in my translation. As has been already said, the difference between its text and that of the Thang emperor is slight,—hardly greater than the variations in the different recensions of our Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. 460 THE HSIAO KING.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.