第39章

BOOK XXVII. THE PRINCE OF LEU UPON PUNISHMENTS.

BOOK XXVII. THE PRINCE OF LEU UPON PUNISHMENTS.

1. In reference to the charge to the prince of Leu:—When the king had enjoyed the throne till he was the age of a hundred years, he gave great consideration to the appointment of punishments, in order to restrain the people of all quarters.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE. The two last Books,there was reason to believe, were to be referred to the commencement of king Muh＇s reign; this, we learn from the book itself, was the work of its close, when the king was not less than a century old. During the half century that he occupied the throne, the House of Chow went on to decline. Acc to Sze-ma Ts＇een, the king would engage in hostilities with the wild tribes round about, contrary to the counsel of his advisers,losing consequently the former reverence with which they had regarded the sovereigns of Chow, and the good-will also of many of the princes. As to the character of his enactments about punishments, which were the work of his hundredth year, opinions are greatly divided, some critics condemning it so much that they cannot understand why Confucius gave the Book a place in the Shoo. I will reserve the expression of a judgment in the case till we have considered its different parts in detail.

THE NAME OF THE BOOK.—呂刑, ＇The princeof Leu upon Punishments,＇ or ＇The Punishments ofthe prince of Leu.＇ The Prefatory note says that ＇Leu received the orders of king Muh to set forth the lessons of Hea on the redemption of punishments, and there was made LEU ON PUNISHMENTS＇ (see page.13., n.64). We can hardly say that any of this appears in the Book, for Leu, or the prince of Leu, is mentioned only once. The king is the speaker throughout. Nothing is said of Hea. We may accept the tradition, however,that Leu was Muh＇s minister of Crime, and that the regulations which the king announces had in the first place been digested by him.

呂 is to be taken as=呂侯, ＇The prince of Leu,＇ being itself the name of a principality, the place of which cannot be clearly ascertained. The Book is quoted in the Le Ke several times, and in other works, by the name of 甫刑, ＇The Punishments of the prince of Foo.＇ Indeed this was the prevailing name of it during the Han dynasty. The truth seems to be, that the descendants of the prince of Leu were appointed to the principality of Foo, and their territorial title was transferred to him and to this Book. The Houses of Ts＇e (齊), Shih (申), Heu (許), and Foo (甫), all traced their descent to Yaou＇s president of the Four Eminences, surnamed Keang (姜꿻). He or his son was to the great Yu ＇a minister who served the purpose of his heart and backbone＇ (뀞呂之臣). In this way the surname of 呂 arose among his descendants, and was retained by the princes of Ts＇e, the most distinguished family of them. Possibly the prince of Leu, with whom we have here to do, may have had the same title from his importance to king Muh. However this may be, 呂刑 was the older and the proper title of this Book. Mih Teih quotes it by that name. It was found in both the texts.

CONTENTS. I confine myself for the present to the account of these given in the ＇Complete Digest.＇—＇Par.1 is the historiographer＇s account of the circumstances in which these lessons on punishments were made.Parr. 2—12 relate the lessons of antiquity for the information of the judges and princes, being a historical resume which it was important for them to be acquainted with. Par. 13 is addressed specially to the princes, admonishing them of the diligence and carefulness to be employed in the use of punishments.Parr 14—20 tell them how they should proceed in that use so as to make punishments a blessing. Par. 2l insists again on the reverence with which punishments should be employed. The last par. is addressed to future generations, and directs them to the ancient models, that punishments may never be but a blessing to the empire. Throughout the Book, "virtue" and "exact adaptation" are the terms which carry the weight of the meaning. Virtue must underlie the use of punishments, and exact adaptation will be the manifestation of it＇ (通篇以德與中為主, 德其本也, 中其用也).

It will be seen that I have divided the king＇s address into six chapters, each of which commences with the words—＇The king said.＇ This differs only in one trifling point from the arrangement of the ＇Complete Digest＇.

Ch. I. P. 1. INTRODUCTION:—The TTME AND OBJECT FOR WHICH THE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT PUNISHMENTS WAS MADE. 惟呂命,—this clause has no syntactical connection with the rest of the par. Ts＇ae says that the characters are used in the same way as 惟說命 in ＇The Charge to Yuĕ,＇ Pt. ii,. P. l; but the student will perceive that the cases are not at all analogous. 惟說命 is an integral part of the par. where it stands, and supplies the nominative to thefirst verb in the par. which follows. We may suppose that the prince of Leu had received charge to digest the subject of punishments in acc. with his own views and those of king Muh; that he had done so; and that the king published the result as is subsequently narrated. In this way we may give 惟呂命 the meaning which appears in the translation.

It is not certain how the rest of the par. ought to be pointed. Should 耄 and 荒 be joined together and stand intermediately between what precedes and what follows, qualifying more especially what follows? or should we put a stop at 耄, joining it to 享國百年, and make 荒 an adv., qualifying 度? Gan-kwŏ took the former method, in which he is followed by Ts＇ae, who says that 耄 is the designation of one who is old, with the weakness and mental disorders of age (老而亂之稱). 荒 he defines, after Gan-kwŏ by 忽, ＇sudden＇,＇neglectful＇, and subjoins Mencius＇ account of it,—從獸無厭謂之荒, ＇Pursuing the chase without satiety is what I call being wild;＇—see Men. I., Pt. II., iv. 7.On this construction, the two characters are strongly condemnatory of the king＇s character, and would go to show that the enactments about punishment which the Book relates were stigmatised by the historiographer as made by him in his dotage, and the licentiousness of his reign. Leu Tsoo-hëen and Ch＇in Leih, whose opinions are appended in Yung-ching＇s Shoo,construing 耄 and 荒 together like Ts＇ae, yet endeavour to make them have a difft. bearing on the statement 度作刑 which follows;—but unsuccessfully.

Soo Shih adopted the second method of pointing which I have indicated. He put a stop at 耄, and joined荒 to the verb 度 as an adv., signifying ＇greatly;＇—referring, in support both of the construction and of that meaning of 荒, to the words of Yu in the ＇Yih and Tseih.,＇ p. 8, 惟荒度꺱녌, ＇I kept planning with all my might my labour on the land.＇ I have followed this view in the translation. Ts＇ae admits that it is ingenious and admissible (亦通), saying, however, that ＇the character 耄 alone is one of condemnation＇ (耄亦貶之之辭). But in this latter criticism he is incorrect. We have the character used by Shun of himself in ＇The Counsels of Yu,＇ p. 9, where it simply expresses the fact of his great age, and I do not think that we are to seek for any other meaning for it in the text.

The general rhythm of the par. also satisfies me that Shih＇s construction is to be preferred, unless indeed we should introduce a 詳 before 刑, as Këang Shing does, but on insufficient authority. Thus taken, the historiogaprher in this par. indicates neither censure nor approbation of king Muh＇s labours on the subject of punishments; and this is a recommendation of the view.

It still remains to direct attention to the peculiarity of the language—享國百年氅, which, on the analogy of Bk. XV., p. 4, et al., and most naturally too, would be understood as saying that king Muh occupied the throne for a houndred years. Such a view has its supporters. Wang Ch＇ung, for instance, maintains it, in his 論衡卷一, 氣壽篇, adding that Muh lived altogether to the age of about 140. This cannot be admitted. Szema Ts＇een says he was 50 when he succeeded to the throne, and that he reigned 55 years. 詰 has a meaning here intermediate between that in Bk. XX. P. p. 22,and that in XX., p. 14,=禁.

2. The king said, "According to the teachings of ancient times, Ch＇e-yew was the first to produce disorder, which spread among the common people,till all became robbers and murderers, owllike in their conduct, traitors and villains, snatching and filching,dissemblers and oppressors.

Ch, II. Pp. 2—11. THE FIRST PART OF THE KING＇S ADDRESS;—INTRODUCTORY. THE FIRST RISE OF DISORDER IN THE EMPIRE;THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE OF MEAOU; HOW SHUN DEALT WITH THEM; AND HOW HE WENT ON TO LABOUR BY HIS MINISTERS FOR THE PEOPLE, ENDING WITH THE SUBJECT OF PUNISHMENTS. 2. Ch＇e-yew, the first author of disorder in the empire. 若古有訓,—this clause is equivalent to the 曰若稽古, with which the Canons of Yaou and Shun commence. 若 may be taken with Woo Ch＇ing, as ＇an introductory particle＇. Then 古有訓=＇From of old there are the lessons＇. Gaubil translates—＇Selon les anciens documents＇. But that is more than the text says. He adds in a note,—＇These ancient documents are without doubt some books of history which subsisted in the time of king Muh.＇ Possibly so;but then we know nothing about them, their author, or their authority. There has been no allusion hitherto in the Shoo, if we except the words of Shun in the ＇Yih and Tseih＇, p. 4, to anything anterior to the time of Yaou; and here all at once king Muh carries us, as will be seen, three centuries farther back, even to before the year l of the calendared history of the empire. 始作亂,—＇first produced disorder＇. 亂 indicates that the＇disorder＇ was ＇rebellion＇, resistance to the powers that were of the time. 平民= ＇the quiet orderly people＇. 寇賊姦宄—see the ＇Can. of Shun,＇ p. 20. 䲭義,—the䲭 (probably the owl) watches its opportunity＇, says Ch＇ing, ＇to dart on its prey. So vividly are the ways of those robbers and murderers represented.＇ 矯=詐,＇dissemblers＇. 虔 has several meanings in the dict., one or two of which would suit the connection here while others are of an antagonistic meaning. Ts＇ae and Woo Ch＇ing accept that of 劉=殺, ＇murderers＇, which I have modified to distinguish it from 賊.

Ch＇e-yew, to whom the bad eminence of being thefirst rebel is here assigned, can hardly be considered a historical personage. The two characters of the name may be translated—＇The Stupid and Extraordinary.＇According to Sze-ma Ts＇een, when the power of the descendants of Shin-nung, the second of the five Tes, with whom he commences his history, was declining, great confusion prevailed, and the princes all turned their arms against one another. Then the star of Hwang-te began to rise, and the well inclined gathered around him as their leader. Of all the princes Ch＇e-yew was the most violent and oppressive. He attempted to seize the imperial power, when Hwang-te took the field against him, and put him to death after three engagements, and himself superseded the House of Shin-nung. Many fables about dragons, mists, and the invention of thee compass, have been mixed up by subsequent writers with the struggle between Hwang-te and Ch＇e-yew.

One tradition, indeed, makes Ch＇e-yew later than Hwang-te. Gan-kwŏ says he was ＇the ruler of Kew-le＇ (九黎之君); and in the 國語, 楚語, 下, we read that＇Kew-le became disorderly and vicious during the decay of Shaou-haou＇ (꼐少皞꿻之衰也, 九黎亂德).Now Shaou-haou was the son of Hwang-te. It is true that Gan-kwŏ says, on the next par., that ＇Ch＇e-yew was destroyed by Hwang-te;＇ but the impression which we get from the 國語 is that the speaker conceived of the first interruption of good order and virtue as having taken place in the time of Shaou-haou.

The authority of Confucius again is pleaded for making Ch＇e-yew a common man, and the greediest of all men (蚩꾨庶人之貪者). See Wang Ming-shing, inloc.

See also the 16th chapter of Premare＇s preliminary discourse, prefixed to Gaubil＇s Shoo-king, where he

has given all the information that Lo Peih (羅泌) has collected about Ch＇e-yew in his 路史.

I pass on from this par. to the next with two remarks.—First, it is not clear for what purpose king Muh commences his discourse of punishments with this mention of Ch＇e-yew.

3. "Among the people of Meaou, they did not use the power of good, but the restraint of punishments. They made the five punishments engines of oppressions,calling them the laws. They slaughtered the innocent,and were the first also to go to excess in cutting off the nose, cutting off the ears, castration, and branding. All who became liable to those punishments were dealt with without distinction, no difference being made in favour of those who could offer some excuse.

Perhaps he meant to indicate, as the ＇Daily Explanation＇ says, that it was this rebel who first gave occasion for the use of punishment at all. (言古人制刑之由). Second, it is plain that at the commencement of human history Chinese tradition placed a period of innocence, a season when order and virtue ruled in men＇s affairs.

Pp. 3, 4. The wickedness of the people of Meaou; and the excessive use of punishments among them. The king appears to pass over a period of three or four hundred years; and from the time of Ch＇e-yew, anterior, acc. to the prevailing accounts, to the invention of the cycle by Hwang-te, be comes down to the time of Shun. So, it will be seen, we must understand these and the following paragraphs. —苗民,I do not see how we can take these characters otherwise than in the translation. K＇ang-shing that they mean ＇the ruler of Kew-le＇. ＇The prince so denominated,＇ he says, ＇giving trouble in the days of Shaou-haou, was dealt with by Chüen-heuh (顓頊),—afterwards the successor to the throne,—who put Kew-le to death, and removed a portion of his family to the outskirts of the empire on the west. There they reappeared as the chiefs of San-mëaou, and in the reign of his successor Kaou-sin (高辛꿻) or the emperor Kuh (帝嚳), B.C. 2431, displayed their hereditary wickedness, when it devolved finally on Yaou to take them in hand. (苗民謂九黎之君也, 九黎之君, 於少昊꿻衰, 而棄善道, 上效蚩꾨重刑, 必孌九黎言苗民者, 有苗, 九黎之後, 顓頊代少昊誅九黎, 分流其子孫, 居於西裔者為三苗, 至高辛之衰, 又復九黎之惡,堯興又誅之). This pedigree of the chiefs of the Meaou is ingenious, but I can only regard it as a fancy of thelearned scholar. Equally fanciful is his explanation of the character 民 as applied to the ruler of the Meaou, that it is indicative of contempt, and stigmatizes him as no better than one of the common herd. Gan-kwŏ,who is followed by Woo Ch＇ing, for 苗民 gives 三苗之君, ＇the ruler of San-meaou＇. As I said above, I do not see how this can be allowed. Of course it is the ruler or rulers who are spoken of, and this can be indicated, as I have done, by using the indefinite they as the subject of 用. 弗用靈, 制以刑,—the meaning of this seems to be that given by Gan-kwŏ,—不用善化民, 而制以重刑, ＇they did not use what was good to transform the people, but restrained them by heavy punishments＇.惟作五虐之刑—we cannot be surprised that of the critics should argue from this that the invention of the five punishments, is here attributed to the chiefs of the Meaou. But the conclusion is not warranted by the language, nor by history. ＇The five punishments＇—cutting off the nose, and the ear, castration, branding,and death—are all recognised by Shun (Can. of Shun,p. 11). They used those same punishments in Meaou,but excessively and more barbarously. The use of 虐and 淫 sufficiently show this to be all that is taught in this par. See the remarks of Ch＇in Leih in the 集說.

曰法=名之日法; or, as Woo Ch＇ing gives it, 非法而為之法也. 殺戮 (＇they killed and slaughtered＇) 無辜,一this was the way in which they abused the heaviest punishment, that of death.

4. The mass of the people were gradually affected by this state of things, and became dark and disorderly.Their hearts were no more set on good faith, but they violated their oaths and covenants. The multitudes who suffered from the oppressive terrors, and were indanger of being murdered, declared their innocence to Heaven. God surveyed the people, and there was no fragrance of virtue arising from them, but the rank odour of their cruel punishments.

5. "The great emperor compassionated the innocent multitudes who were in danger of being murdered,and made the oppressors feel the terrors of his majesty.

椓=去陰之刑, ＇castration＇. The char. was originally written 歜. 越茲, 云云,—this was the way in which they abused the four punishments just mentioned. K＇ang-shing takes 麗 here=施,—於此施刑並制; but I prefer to retain the meaning of 附, as in the translation.民興胥漸—on the extent of 民 here, see on the next par. 漸 (read tsëen, lst tone)=漸染, ＇were soaked and dyed＇. The 胥,=相, shows how the influence was communicated from one to another. =泯泯昏. 棼棼(Shing edits 紛紛)=亂. 罔中於信=中 is here=뀞, ＇the heart＇; the centre of the man. Ch＇in King says:—罔中於信, 無中뀞出於誠信者, 信不由中也. 以覆詛盟,—覆, ＇to turn upside down,＇ governs 詛 and 盟. I hardly know how to construe Ts＇ae＇s 相與꿯覆詛盟而已. Shingquotes, in illustration of the sentiment, from the 左傳,隱三年, these words,—信不由中, 質無益也. 虐威庶戮=其被虐威而陷於刑戮之眾. 罔有, 云云,—Comp. Bk. X.,p. 11. On the meaning of 馨, see XXI., p. 3.

刑發聞惟腥—＇what the punishments sent forth to be smelt was only a rank odour＇. Ts＇ee says:—而刑戮發聞,莫井腥穢.

[For the first part of par. 8, we find in Mih＇s尚同中—呂刑之道日, 苗民否用練折則刑, 惟作五殺之刑曰法. The critics say that 練 and 靈, 弗 and 否, 折 and 制were all sounded like each other. Even if we shouldadmit this, how do we have 則 for 以, and 殺 for 虐?

The same pass. appears in the Le Ke, Bk. 緇衣, p. 3, in a form which is somewhat different still:—甫刑日,苗民匪用命, 制以刑, 惟作五虐之刑, 曰法.]

Pp. 5—11. How the Meaouites were dealt with; the evils produced by them remedied; and the system of punishments in the empire put into a satisfactory state. 5. The important question in connection with this paragraph is as to the emperor whom we are to understand by 皇帝. K＇ang-shing, followed of course by Këang Shing and Wang Ming-shing thought that in this par, and the next it was Chuen-heuh who was the subject, after which the discourse turn to Yaou.

He restrained and finally extinguished the people of Meaou, so that they should not continue to future generations.

6. Then he commissioned Ch＇ung and Le to make an end of the communications between earth and heaven, and the descents of spirits ceased. From the princes down to the inferior officers, all helped with clear intelligence the spread of the regular principles of duty, and the solitary and widows were no more disregarded.

7. The great emperor with an unprejudiced mind carried his inquiries low down among the people,and the solitary and widows laid before him their complaints against the Meaou. He sought to awe thepeople by his virtue, and all were filled with dread; he proceeded also to enlighten them by his virtue, and all were enlightened.

Gan-kwŏ, who is foll by Woo Ch＇ing, makes the emperor to be Yaou all through. Neither view is admissible. The things spoken of in parr. 8, 9, can only be ascribed to Shun. 乃命 at the beginning of p. 8, connects it so closely with p. 7, that we can only understand Shun to be the 皇帝. And as there is no intimation of that 皇帝 being difft. from the person indicated by the same title in par. 5, we must believe that Shun who is the principal subject in all the rest of this chapter is there intended. This is the view of Ts＇ae, after Lin Che-k＇e.

We get from what is said of the Meaou in these parr. a higher idea of then and their prince than is commonly entertained. From king Muh＇s language I judge that Shun had in him a powerful rival, and that the struggle which lasted through the reigns of Yaou, Shun, and Yu was of a dynastic nature. The chief of San-meaou was more than the head of a barbarous horde. He was a dangerous rival for the throne. The＇people＇ mentioned in p. 4, were probably the people of the empire generally. 皇帝至不辜,—we must take庶戮 here as in the last par. —遏絕, 云云,the measures referred to in the ＇Can. of Shun,＇ pp. 12 and 27, are thus described. The ＇Daily Explanation＇ gives:—竄其君於三危, 分圯其黨以遏絕有苗之民, 而不使其繼世在下國, 以貽百姓之害焉.

6. 乃命至降格,—this par. seems to interpose a difficulty in the way of the view which I have adopted above, that it is Shun who is to be understood as ＇the emperor＇ in all this chapter. We read nothing in the Shoo of his appointing any ministers to do the work here spoken of. No Ch＇ung and Le were officers of his. Nor do they appear among the ministers of Yaou, though it is attempted to identify Ch＇ung with He (羲) and Le with Ho (和).

The passage formed the subject of a conversation in the lifetime of Confucius, between king Ch＇aou (昭王; B.C.5l4—488) of Tsoo and one of his ministers,called Kwan Yih-foo (觀射父). ＇What is meant,＇ asked the king, ＇ by what is said in one of the Books of Chow about Ch＇ung and Le, that they really brought it about that there was no intercourse between heaven and earth? If they had not done so, would people have been able to ascend to heaven?＇ (周書所謂, 重黎實使天地不通者何也, 若無然, 民將能登天늂). The minister replied that there was not the meaning of thelanguage at all, and he proceeded to give his own view of it at great length, and to the following effect:—Anciently, the people attended to the discharge of their duties to one another, and left the worship of spiritual beings— seeking intercourse with them, and invoking and effecting their descent on earth—to the officers who were appointed for that purpose. In this way things proceeded with great regularity. The people minded their own affairs, and the spirits minded theirs. Tranquillity and prosperity were the consequence. But in the time of Shaou-haou, through the lawlessness of Kew-le, a change took place. The people intruded into the functions of the regulators of the spirits and their worhip. They left their duties to their fellowmen, and tried to bring down spirits from above. The spirits themselves, no longer kept in check and subjected to rule, made their appearance all irregularly and disastrously. All was confusion and calamity, when Chuen-heuh took the case in hand. He appointed Ch＇ung, the minister of the South, to the superintendency of heavenly things, to prescribe the rules for the spirits, and Le, the minister of Fire (or of the North), to the superintendency of earthly things, to prescribe the rules for the people. (命南正重司天以麗神, 命火正 (=北正) 黎司地以麗民). In this way both spirits and people were brought back to theirformer regular courses, and there was no unhallowed interference of the one with the other. This was the work described in the text,—＇the bringing to an end the communication between earth and heaven.＇Subsequently, the chief of San-meaou showed himself a Kew-le redivivus, till Yaou called forth the descendants of Ch＇ung and Le who had not forgotten the virtue and function of their fathers, and made them take the case in hand again.

From the details of this strange passage of which I have given a summary, it would appear that the speaker considered that the Ch＇ung and Le of the text were ministers of Yaou, descended from those of Chuen-heuh; and this has given rise to the opinion which I have alluded to on p. 3. of ＇The Canon of Yaou,＇ that this was the ancestry of the minister He and Ho who are mentioned there.

That opinion is without a tittle of satisfactory evidence. Acc. to Yih-foo＇s statements, Ch＇ung＇s function was that of the minister of Religion, and Le＇s that of the minister of Instruction, while He and Ho were simply ministers of astronomy, and their descendants continue to appear as such in the reign of Chung-kang, the grandson of Yu, long after we know that men of other families were appointed to the two important ministries in question. Gaubil＇s speculations about the employment of the astronomer in the time of Yaou, not only to calculate and observe the motions of the heavenly bodies, but also to do away with conjurors, false worship, &c., fall to the ground;—see ＇Le Chou-king,＇ p. 292, n. 1. He says also, that as Chung and Le are the same as He and Ho,it we suppose that Shun is the emperor spoken of here,we must assume that he gave those officers a new commission. But if we were to allow that it is Yaou who is spoken of which I have shown on the last par.to be inadmissible, we should have the same difficulty with the statement of which I began this note. Ch＇ung and Le are nowhere in the previous of the Shoo, or in any other reliable documents of history, mentioned as officer of his, any more than of Shun, I do not see that any light can be thrown on the passage. The statement of Kwan Yih-foo in the 國語 are entitled to little or no consideration.

羣后之逮在下,—I have translated this and the rest of the par. after Ts＇ae. The ＇Daily Explanation＇ gives for it:—當其時有꺱之諸侯, 꼐在下之百官, 皆精白其뀞, 輔助常道, 民之順是道者, 則嘉與之, 悖是道者則匡正之,以慶賞刑威之典, 為輔助常道之具, 其時好惡明, 賞罰當, 雖鰥寡之無告, 為善則必蒙福, 亦未有蔽而不得伸者.The meaning is, that through the reforms introducedby Ch＇ung and Le, a general reformation among all the higher classes was produced. Princes and inferior officers co-operated with those ministers, and the way was opened for the poorest and most helpless of the people to make their complaints and distresses known to the emperor. A foundation is thus laid for the 皇帝清問下民, with which the next par. commences. It will be observed how all this agrees with the view of little less than a dynastic struggle between Shun and the Meaou.

[Këang Shing follows 罔有降格 with 皇帝清問, and edits to the end of p.8 on a very unsatisfactory authority, that of Mih Teih, in whose 尚賢, 中, we read;—呂刑道之日, 皇帝清問下民, 有辭有苗, 曰羣后之肆在下, 明明不常, 鰥寡不蓋, 德威維威, 德明維明, 乃名三后, 恤녌於民, 伯夷降典, 哲民維刑, 禹平水꺱, 主名山川, 稷隆播穜, 農殖嘉穀, 三后늅녌, 維假於民.]

P. 7. How Shun proceeded to remedy and remove the evils inflicted by the Meaou. 清뀞,—＇with a clear mind.＇ Ts＇ae gives 虛뀞 for it,—＇with an unprejudiced mind＇. 辭 is here=訟辭, ＇pleas＇, ＇accusations＇.

8. And he charged the three chiefs to labour with compassionate anxiety in the people＇s behalf. The baron E delivered the statutes of ceremony, to prevent the people from rendering themselves obnoxious to punishment. Yu reduced to order the water and the land, distinguishing by name the hills and rivers. Tseih spread abroad a knowledge of husbandry, so that thepeople could largely cultivate the admirable grains.When the three chiefs had accomplished their work, it was abundantly well with the people.

德威, 云云,—this is understood to be a description of Shun＇s method of governing the people, in opposition to the wicked ways of the Meaou. Ts＇ae says:—苗以虐為威以察為明, 帝꿯其道, 以德威而天下無不畏, 以德明而天下無不明. These clauses are quoted in the Le Ke,Bk.表記, p. 34, where it is added 非虞帝其孰能如此늂.Ch＇in Sze-k＇ae remarks that this is a clear testimony that Shun is the emperor spoken of. It certainly shows that that opinion has the表記on its side, whatever weight may be attached to it.

P.8. How Shun proceeded in the work of government by means of his own ministers. The ＇three 后＇, princes or chiefs, are those immediately mentioned. 恤녌於民=致憂民之녌, ＇to carry out their merits in painful anxiety for the people＇. This is Ts＇ae＇s explanation of the phrase, and is better than Woo Ch＇ing＇s, who says:—恤녌, 以民事為憂也. 伯夷至惟刑,—伯夷,see ＇The Can. of Shun＇ p. 23. The ＇statutes＇ which E delivered were of course those of what are there called＇the three ceremonies,＇—all the canons of religious worship. I am not able to construe 折民惟刑. Gan-kwŏ defines 折 by 斷, ＇to decide＇, and gives for the whole:—伯夷下典體教民, 而斷以法, understanding 刑to mean ＇the laws＇ of propriety or ceremony. But such a meaning of 刑 maybe at once rejected in this place. Soo Shih, Wang Kang-chin (王綱振), and a host of critics, go about in vain to defend it by trying to show that rules of propriety and penal laws are essentially the same thing;—see the 集傳 and the 集說. Ma Yung and K＇ang Shing seem to have read 悊 (=哲) ＇wise＇,＇knowing＇. Taking that term here as a verb, we get the meaning—＇and made the people wise on the subject of punishments;＇ in which interpretation few will acquiesce. Wang Ming-shing, defending this reading, says:—智民者, 民愚無知, 今道之以禮, 是智其民. Buthe thus avoids saying anything on 惟刑. Ts＇ae gives for the clause—＇以折民之邪妄, to cut off the perversity of the people,＇ in the same way eschewing the most perplexing characters. The ＇Daily Explanation＇, however, after extending his words just quoted, adds—使不入늂刑辟. Woo Ch＇ing comes nearest to an admissible construction of the passage:—伯夷教民以禮, 民入於禮而不入於刑, 折絕斯民入刑之路, ＇The baron E taught the people the rules of ceremony, sothat they were observers of propriety, and did not pursue punishable ways, thus shutting up the path by which the people, entering on it, would have been led to punishment.＇ The translation follows this interpretation. 主名山川,—＇superintended the naming of the mountains and rivers＇. Këang Shing gives a more specific meaning to 主, making it=立山川之主,＇he appointed the spirits who should preside over the mountains and rivers, and arranged their sacrifices.＇

9. The minister of Crime exercised among the people the restraint of punishments, in exact adaptation to each offence, to teach them to reverence virtue.

10. The greatest gravity and harmony in the sovereign, and the greatest intelligence in those below him, thus shining forth to all quarters of the empire,all were rendered diligent in cultivating their virtue.Hence, if anything more were wanted, the clear adjudication of punishments effected the regulation of the people, and helped them to observe the regular duties of life.

This is not necessary. Ying-tă observes that the hills and rivers being as old as heaven and earth themselves, they ought to have had names before this;but Yu＇s regulation of the waters constituted a new era.old things were passed away, and the names of those objects were perhaps lost, so that Yu named them anew! Certainly, the oldest names of the mountains and streams of a country are those given by the first inhabitants; as the Chinese believe that their hills and rivers got their names from Yu, this is to us a strong evidence that the country was first peopled,or began to be occupied, in his time. On the work of Tseih, see ＇Can. of Shun,＇ p.18. His appointment there has precedence of that of the baron E, and so has that of Kaou-yaou as the minister of crime. This is a not unimportant point of difference between the more ancient document and these statements of king Muh.·降,一＇sent down＇; here= ＇taught the knowledge of＇.

農 is taken=厚, as in ＇The Great Plan＇.

殖=눃. 惟殷於民,—殷=盛, ＇affluent＇, ＇abundant,＇or, as a noun, ＇affluence＇, ＇prosperity＇. The ＇DailyExplanation＇ says:—殷, 富庶之意也.

P. 9. The appointment of the minister of Crime, and the object of it. The minister of Crime was Kaou-yaou. In the ＇Can. of Shun,＇ p. 20, as here, he is simply called士. [Under the Han dynasty, however, the passage appears with 爰 instead of 士.] 制百姓於刑之中一,＇restrained—regulated—the people in the midst of punishments;＇ i.e., surrounded them with punishments. This was done, however, not with the design of punishing them, but, as is subjoined, ＇to teach them to reverence virtue,＇ so that punishments should be unnecessary. Këang Shing edits 衷; and he and others make the word emphatic, meaning ＇punishments exactly adapted to the degree of the offence＇ (不輕不重之謂, 輕重適中之誼). This is refining; but it may be admitted.

From king Muh＇s thus separating Kaou-yaou from＇the three princes＇ in the last par., both emperors and people have at difft. times been led to place the minister of Crime on a lower level than the other great ministers of State. Kaou-yaou was certainly no inferior man with Shun. Nor was he so in the estimation of Muh. He is mentioned by him last, as it was his object to make all his previous statements converge to the subject of punishments.

P. 10. The happy results of this govt. of Shun.

穆穆在上 is descriptive of Shun; 明明在下, of his ministers. These two clauses are the subjects of the next—灼於눁方; and the effects on all the people are told in 罔不惟德之勤. Notwithstanding all this happy influences on the people, there was yet room for the warning use of punishments, as intimated in 故乃明, 云云. This is the common interpretation of the paragraph. The 刑之中 here is more favourable to the pregnant meaning of the 中, on which I have spoken in the last par. The only critic of note who takes a difft. view of the several clauses is Woo Ch＇ing.

11. In examining criminal cases, the officers executed the law not only against the powerful, but also against the wealthy. They were all reverence and caution. They had no occasion to make noise of words in reference to their conduct. The virtue of Heaven was attained to by them; from them was the determination of so great a matter as the lives of men.In their low sphere they yet corresponded to Heaven,and enjoyed its favour."

He takes them all after 明明在下, as descriptive of the ministers and princes:—눁方諸侯皆惟德之勤, 故能明於皋陶制刑之中, 導民為善, 禁民為惡, 民之棐彝者, 皆順法而刑不用. This is ingenious; but the ordinary view is to be preferred.

P. 11. The impartiality of the administration of justice under Shun. 典獄=典獄之官, ＇the officers presiding over criminal causes,＇ under Kaou-yaou. 非訖 (=盡) 於威, 惟訖於富=非惟得盡法於權勢之家, 亦惟得盡法於賄賂之人, 言不為威屈, 不為利誘, ＇they not only carried out the law against the powerful,but also against those who offered bribes, i.e., they were neither bent by terrors nor seduced by gain.＇This seems to be the meaning, tho＇ language has been variously interpreted. Lin Che-k＇e, for instance,makes it an indignant expression of contempt against minions of justice, especially among the Meaou, who gratified their own spleen and pride by the terrors with which their office invested them, or sought to enrich themselves by taking bribes.—凡典獄之吏, 非欲誅殺以立威, 則欲納賄以致富, 若苗民之臣, 所謂庶威者, 訖於威也, 所謂奪貨者訖於貨也, 威者貨者, 此皆獄吏之常態也.

罔有擇言在身=在躬無一不녦以告人, 有不必擇而後言者, ＇in their persons—conduct—there was nothing which they could not tell, nothing about which it wasnecessary first to make choice of words, and then to speak.＇

惟克, 云云,—it would seem necessary to explain these clauses of the officers in criminal causes. Gankwŏ did so, and expounds: 一凡明於刑之中, 無擇言在身, 必是 (it will be seen he does not interpret the par.historically) 惟能天德, 自為大命, 配享天意在於天下.This is not very perspicuous, but by the help of Ying-tă＇s paraphrase and glosses we can see that the pass was supposed to say ＇that all judges, with the reverence and caution mentioned, being just and impartial like Heaven, made for themselves a great decree, securing long life and other prosperity, responding to (享=當) the mind of Heaven, throughout the empire.＇ This is very vague and unsatisfactory. Ts＇ae interprets of the典獄之官, after Gan-kwŏ, but confines himself, as is too much his wont, to vague and general phrases, so that we cannot tell what he understood by 大命, and 配享在下. I have translated after the ＇Daily Explanation＇,which may be supposed to give the more definite expression of Ts＇ae＇s views. Its language is:—夫天德無私, 能制人死눃之大命, 令典獄者亦無私, 則為能克天德,而死눃人之大命, 乃不在天而在我矣, 德自我克, 命自我作, 則雖在下, 而豈不녦配享於天哉. Wang Ch＇ung-yun has called this interpretation in question, and insteadof referring the clauses to 典獄, would refer them to Shun as the emperor who appointed Kaou-yaou, and whose careful provision for the administration of justice, was to be rewarded by the possession of the empire long continued, and the favour of Heaven.

12. The king said, "Ah! You who surprised the government and preside over criminal cases throughout the empire, are you not constituted the shepherds of Heaven? Whom ought you now to survey as your model? Is it not Pih-e, spreading among the people his lessons to avert punishments? And from whom ought you now to take warning? Is it not from the people of Meaou, who would not examine into the circumstances of criminal cases, and did not make choice of good officers who should see to the right apportioning of the five punishments, but chose the violent and bribe-snatchers, who determined and administered them so as to oppress the innocent, until God could not hold them guiltless, and sent down calamity on Meaou, when the people had no plea to urge in mitigation of punishment, and their name was cut off from the world?"

He supports his explanation of 元命 as=國, by 厥惟廢元命, in Bk. XIV. P. 5, and that of 配享在下 by 克配上帝in ＇The T＇ae-këă＇, Pt. iii., p. 3, and by 配天其澤 in Bk, XIV, P.8. The editors of Yung-ching＇s Shoo mention his view with approbation, but do not positively decile in favour of it. His interpretation of元命 is better supported than that in the translation;but I cannot bring myself to admit that king Muh turns here to speak, either historically or by way of admonition, of sovereigns generally.

Ch. III. P. 12. THE KING ADDRESSES THE PRINCES AND OFFICERS OF JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF THE STATEMENT WHICH HE HAS MADE, AND URGES THEM TO TAKE THE BARON E AS THEIR MODEL, AND TO LOOK TO THE MEAOU AS A BEACON. 눁方司政典獄,—from Gan-kwŏ downwards, the critics all take this as a designation of the 諸侯, or ＇princes＇, so that the king is addressing not them and their officers of justice, but them only. The view is to my mind very questionable.It is grounded on the appellation of ＇shepherds of Heaven＇, which follows. That is often given, no doubt, to the princes who rule,—to the sovereign par eminence, and to all who hold appointments under him; but why may we not suppose that it is here extended to judges also, whose decisions should always be according to the truth,—according to the mind of God. 監=監法, ＇to consider and imitate＇. This determines the meaning of 懲, which is in opposition to it, as=＇懲戒, to condemn and beware of＇, ＇to take as a warning＇. 非時 (=是) 伯夷播刑之迪,—

there is here the same diddiculty which we found in trying to explain the 折民惟刑 of par. 8. Perhaps the 迪,in the sense of ＇leadings＇ (開導), is appropriate to thefunctions of E, whose rules of ceremony and propriety might be considered as designed to avert men from punishments and punishments from them. So, it will be seen, I have translated 刑之迪. This is putting some stress on the characters, but it gives a more satisfactory explanation of the text than any of the constructions proposed by the critics. Gan-kwŏ takes迪=道, and gives for the whole:—言當視是伯夷布刑之道而法之.So, Këang Shing:—＇非是伯夷施刑之道늂. The Daily Explanation＇ seems to get, by a round-about process, to the same conclusion with myself:—惟時伯夷制為典禮, 折民之入於刑, 而開導之者無不至, 是所謂播刑之迪者, 此克作天牧, 爾之所當監也. 惟時 (=是) 苗民—I have translated interrogatively here, in response to theprevious question.

13. The king said, "Oh! Lay it to heart. My senior uncles, and all ye my brethren and cousins, my sons and my grandsons, listen all of you to my words, in which, it may be, you will receive a most important charge. You will tread the path of satisfaction only by being daily diligent;—do not have occasion to beware of the want of diligence. Heaven, in its wish to regulate the people, allows us for a day to make use of punishments.