Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1As 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. some of the passages which he suppressed, and to the reasons, generally satisfactory, which he advanced for his procedure. Evidently he was influenced considerably by the way in which KAaing f (1033-1107), whom he called ‘his master,’ had dealt with the old text of ‘the Great Learning ;’ but he made his innovations with a bolder pencil and on a more extensive plan, not merely altering the arrangement of paragraphs, and supplementing what was plainly defective, but challenging the genuineness of large portions of the treatise, and removing them without scruple. Under the Yiian dynasty, WO KAang (1249-1333), the Viewsof greatest of its scholars, followed in the wake Wa Khang. of AKO Hsi, yet with the independence characteristic of himself. As AQ had preferred the old text, WO decided—and, I believe, more correctly—in favour of the modern, arguing that the copy of Khung An-kwo’s text and commentary, said to have been recovered and published in the sixth century by Lid Hsiian, was a fabrication. He adopted, therefore, Hsiian 3ung’s text as the basis of his revision, which appeared with the title of ‘the Hsiao King, in paragraphs and sentences.” He adopted X(’s division of the treatise into classical text and commentary. The chapter of classical text is the same as K(’s; the chapters of commentary are only twelve. He discarded, of course, the chapter peculiar to the old text, which has been referred to more than once, united Hsiian 3ung’s eleventh chapter with another, and arranged the other chapters differently from AQ. His revision altogether had 246 characters fewer than the old text. 3. Ko f-tsun gives the titles of nearly 120 works on our classic that appeared after the volume of Wd Kang, Later works bringing its literary history down to the end on the Hsifo. of the Ming dynasty. The scholars of the present dynasty have not been less abundant in their labours on it than their predecessors. Among the col- } The title of this work in the Catalogue of the Imperial Libraries is ‘ Settlement of the Text of the Hsiao King.’ INTRODUCTION. 461 lected works of Mao KAi-ling (1623-1713) is one called ‘Questions about the Hsiao King,’ in which, with his usual ability, and, it must be added, his usual acrimony, he defends the received text. He asserts—and in this he is correct—that there is no difference of any importance between the ancient and modern texts; when he asserts further that there never was any such difference, what he affirms is incapable of proof. He pours scorn on X( Hsi and Wa Kang ; but he is not so successful in defending the integrity of the Hsiao as I have allowed him to be in vindicating the portions of the Shd that we owe to Khung An-kwo.
2He pours scorn on X( Hsi and Wa Kang ; but he is not so successful in defending the integrity of the Hsiao as I have allowed him to be in vindicating the portions of the Shd that we owe to Khung An-kwo. The Hsiao King has always been a favourite with the emperors of China. Before Hsiian 3ung took it in hand, the first and eighth emperors of the eastern Kin dynasty (317-419), the first and third of the Liang (502-556), and the ninth of the northern Wei (386-534) had published their labours upon it. The Manchdu rulers of the present dynasty have signalised themselves in this department. In 1656 the first emperor produced in one chapter his ‘ Imperial Commentary on the Hsiao King,’ and in 1728 the third published a ‘ Collection of Comments’ on it. Between them was the long reign known to us as the Khang-hsi period (1662— 1722), during which there appeared under the direction of the second emperor, the most distinguished of his line, his ‘Extensive Explanation of the Hsiao King,’ in 100 chapters. The only portion of the text which it gives in full is KO Hsi’s chapter of Confucian text; but most of the topics touched on in ’s supplementary chapters, added, as he supposed, by some later hand, are dealt with in the course of the work, the whole of which will amply repay a careful study. 4. It will have been seen that the two great scholars, Kd Conclusion Hst and Wa Aang, who have taken the regarding the preatest liberties with the text of our classic, genuineness . ° os and integrity allow that there is a Confucian element in it, of the Hsido. and that more than a fifth part of the whole, containing, even as expurgated by Kj, about 400 characters, may be correctly ascribed to the sage. I agree with them 462 THE HSIAO KING. in this. All the rest of the treatise, to whomsoever it may be ascribed, from 3ang-3ze, the immediate disciple of Confucius, down to Lid Hsiang (B.C. 80-9), took its present form in the first century before our Christian era. The reader will fail to see in it a close connexion between the different chapters, and think that the author or authors try to make more of Filial Piety than can be made of it. The whole, however, is a valuable monument of antiquity, and an exhibition of the virtue which Chinese moralists and rulers, from the most ancient times, have delighted to celebrate as the fundamental principle of human yirtue, the great source of social happiness, and the bond of national strength and stability. NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION. In preparing the translation of the Hsiao King for the present work, I have made frequent reference to four earlier translations. Two of them were made by myself ;—the one about thirty years ago, simply as an exercise for my own improvement in Chinese; the other four years ago, when I was anxious to understand fully the Confucian teaching on the subject of Filial Piety, but without reference to my earlier version.
3Two of them were made by myself ;—the one about thirty years ago, simply as an exercise for my own improvement in Chinese; the other four years ago, when I was anxious to understand fully the Confucian teaching on the subject of Filial Piety, but without reference to my earlier version. The third is a translation in the fourth volume of the Chinese Repository, pp. 345-353 (1835), for the accuracy of which much cannot be said. Very few notes are appended to it. The fourth is in the ‘Mémoires concernant les Chinois’ (Paris, 1779), being part of a long treatise on the ‘Ancient and Modern-Doctrine of the Chinese about Filial Piety,” by P. Cibot. In a preliminary notice to his version of our classic, he says :—‘ P. Noél formerly translated the Hsiao King into Latin. Our translation will necessarily be different from his. He laboured on the old text, and we on the new, which the scholars of the Imperial College have adopted. Besides this, he has INTRODUCTION. 463 launched out into paraphrase, and we have made it our business to present the text in French such as it is in Chinese.’ I have not been able to refer to P. Noél’s translation in preparing that now given to the public; but I had his work before me when writing out my earliest version. The difference between the old and modern texts is too slight to affect the character of translations of them, but P. Noél’s version is decidedly periphrastic. The title of his work is: —‘SINENSIS IMPERII LIBRI CLASSICI SEx, nimirum Adultorum Schola, Immutabile Medium, Liber sententiarum, Mencius, Filialis Observantia, Parvulorum Schola, e Sinico idiomate in Latinum traducti a P. Fr, Noél, S.J. (Prague, 1711).’ The present version, I believe, gives the text in English, such as it is in Chinese, more accurately and closely than P. Cibot’s does in French, Digitized by G oogle THE HSIAO KING. Cuapter I. Tue Scope AND MEANING OF THE TREATISE. (OncE), when Aung-nt' was unoccupied, and his disciple 34ng? was sitting by in attendance on him, the Master said, ‘Shan, the ancient kings had a perfect virtue and all-embracing rule of conduct, through which they were in accord with all under heaven. By the practice of it the people were brought to live in peace and harmony, and there was no ill-will between superiors and inferiors. Do you know what it was’?’ 3ang rose from his mat, and said, ‘ How ’ Kung-nt was the designation or marriage-name of Confucius. We find it twice in the Doctrine of the Mean (chh. 2 and 30), applied to the sage by 3ze-sze, his grandson, the reputed author of that treatise. By his designation, it is said, a grandson might speak of his grandfather, and therefore some scholars contend that the Classic of Filial Piety should also be ascribed to 3ze-sze ; but such a canon cannot be considered as sufficiently established. On the authorship of the Classic, see the Introduction, p. 451.
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.
1As 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. some of the passages which he suppressed, and to the reasons, generally satisfactory, which he advanced for his procedure. Evidently he was influenced considerably by the way in which KAaing f (1033-1107), whom he called ‘his master,’ had dealt with the old text of ‘the Great Learning ;’ but he made his innovations with a bolder pencil and on a more extensive plan, not merely altering the arrangement of paragraphs, and supplementing what was plainly defective, but challenging the genuineness of large portions of the treatise, and removing them without scruple. Under the Yiian dynasty, WO KAang (1249-1333), the Viewsof greatest of its scholars, followed in the wake Wa Khang. of AKO Hsi, yet with the independence characteristic of himself. As AQ had preferred the old text, WO decided—and, I believe, more correctly—in favour of the modern, arguing that the copy of Khung An-kwo’s text and commentary, said to have been recovered and published in the sixth century by Lid Hsiian, was a fabrication. He adopted, therefore, Hsiian 3ung’s text as the basis of his revision, which appeared with the title of ‘the Hsiao King, in paragraphs and sentences.” He adopted X(’s division of the treatise into classical text and commentary. The chapter of classical text is the same as K(’s; the chapters of commentary are only twelve. He discarded, of course, the chapter peculiar to the old text, which has been referred to more than once, united Hsiian 3ung’s eleventh chapter with another, and arranged the other chapters differently from AQ. His revision altogether had 246 characters fewer than the old text. 3. Ko f-tsun gives the titles of nearly 120 works on our classic that appeared after the volume of Wd Kang, Later works bringing its literary history down to the end on the Hsifo. of the Ming dynasty. The scholars of the present dynasty have not been less abundant in their labours on it than their predecessors. Among the col- } The title of this work in the Catalogue of the Imperial Libraries is ‘ Settlement of the Text of the Hsiao King.’ INTRODUCTION. 461 lected works of Mao KAi-ling (1623-1713) is one called ‘Questions about the Hsiao King,’ in which, with his usual ability, and, it must be added, his usual acrimony, he defends the received text. He asserts—and in this he is correct—that there is no difference of any importance between the ancient and modern texts; when he asserts further that there never was any such difference, what he affirms is incapable of proof. He pours scorn on X( Hsi and Wa Kang ; but he is not so successful in defending the integrity of the Hsiao as I have allowed him to be in vindicating the portions of the Shd that we owe to Khung An-kwo.
2He pours scorn on X( Hsi and Wa Kang ; but he is not so successful in defending the integrity of the Hsiao as I have allowed him to be in vindicating the portions of the Shd that we owe to Khung An-kwo. The Hsiao King has always been a favourite with the emperors of China. Before Hsiian 3ung took it in hand, the first and eighth emperors of the eastern Kin dynasty (317-419), the first and third of the Liang (502-556), and the ninth of the northern Wei (386-534) had published their labours upon it. The Manchdu rulers of the present dynasty have signalised themselves in this department. In 1656 the first emperor produced in one chapter his ‘ Imperial Commentary on the Hsiao King,’ and in 1728 the third published a ‘ Collection of Comments’ on it. Between them was the long reign known to us as the Khang-hsi period (1662— 1722), during which there appeared under the direction of the second emperor, the most distinguished of his line, his ‘Extensive Explanation of the Hsiao King,’ in 100 chapters. The only portion of the text which it gives in full is KO Hsi’s chapter of Confucian text; but most of the topics touched on in ’s supplementary chapters, added, as he supposed, by some later hand, are dealt with in the course of the work, the whole of which will amply repay a careful study. 4. It will have been seen that the two great scholars, Kd Conclusion Hst and Wa Aang, who have taken the regarding the preatest liberties with the text of our classic, genuineness . ° os and integrity allow that there is a Confucian element in it, of the Hsido. and that more than a fifth part of the whole, containing, even as expurgated by Kj, about 400 characters, may be correctly ascribed to the sage. I agree with them 462 THE HSIAO KING. in this. All the rest of the treatise, to whomsoever it may be ascribed, from 3ang-3ze, the immediate disciple of Confucius, down to Lid Hsiang (B.C. 80-9), took its present form in the first century before our Christian era. The reader will fail to see in it a close connexion between the different chapters, and think that the author or authors try to make more of Filial Piety than can be made of it. The whole, however, is a valuable monument of antiquity, and an exhibition of the virtue which Chinese moralists and rulers, from the most ancient times, have delighted to celebrate as the fundamental principle of human yirtue, the great source of social happiness, and the bond of national strength and stability. NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION. In preparing the translation of the Hsiao King for the present work, I have made frequent reference to four earlier translations. Two of them were made by myself ;—the one about thirty years ago, simply as an exercise for my own improvement in Chinese; the other four years ago, when I was anxious to understand fully the Confucian teaching on the subject of Filial Piety, but without reference to my earlier version.
3Two of them were made by myself ;—the one about thirty years ago, simply as an exercise for my own improvement in Chinese; the other four years ago, when I was anxious to understand fully the Confucian teaching on the subject of Filial Piety, but without reference to my earlier version. The third is a translation in the fourth volume of the Chinese Repository, pp. 345-353 (1835), for the accuracy of which much cannot be said. Very few notes are appended to it. The fourth is in the ‘Mémoires concernant les Chinois’ (Paris, 1779), being part of a long treatise on the ‘Ancient and Modern-Doctrine of the Chinese about Filial Piety,” by P. Cibot. In a preliminary notice to his version of our classic, he says :—‘ P. Noél formerly translated the Hsiao King into Latin. Our translation will necessarily be different from his. He laboured on the old text, and we on the new, which the scholars of the Imperial College have adopted. Besides this, he has INTRODUCTION. 463 launched out into paraphrase, and we have made it our business to present the text in French such as it is in Chinese.’ I have not been able to refer to P. Noél’s translation in preparing that now given to the public; but I had his work before me when writing out my earliest version. The difference between the old and modern texts is too slight to affect the character of translations of them, but P. Noél’s version is decidedly periphrastic. The title of his work is: —‘SINENSIS IMPERII LIBRI CLASSICI SEx, nimirum Adultorum Schola, Immutabile Medium, Liber sententiarum, Mencius, Filialis Observantia, Parvulorum Schola, e Sinico idiomate in Latinum traducti a P. Fr, Noél, S.J. (Prague, 1711).’ The present version, I believe, gives the text in English, such as it is in Chinese, more accurately and closely than P. Cibot’s does in French, Digitized by G oogle THE HSIAO KING. Cuapter I. Tue Scope AND MEANING OF THE TREATISE. (OncE), when Aung-nt' was unoccupied, and his disciple 34ng? was sitting by in attendance on him, the Master said, ‘Shan, the ancient kings had a perfect virtue and all-embracing rule of conduct, through which they were in accord with all under heaven. By the practice of it the people were brought to live in peace and harmony, and there was no ill-will between superiors and inferiors. Do you know what it was’?’ 3ang rose from his mat, and said, ‘ How ’ Kung-nt was the designation or marriage-name of Confucius. We find it twice in the Doctrine of the Mean (chh. 2 and 30), applied to the sage by 3ze-sze, his grandson, the reputed author of that treatise. By his designation, it is said, a grandson might speak of his grandfather, and therefore some scholars contend that the Classic of Filial Piety should also be ascribed to 3ze-sze ; but such a canon cannot be considered as sufficiently established. On the authorship of the Classic, see the Introduction, p. 451.
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.