廣弘明集 11.53

11.53

一答。秦仲已下三十五世六百餘年者。對曰。史記云。自殷已前。諸侯不可得而譜。為多失次第年代難知。故尚書但以甲子為次第。而無年月者。良以史闕不記也。邪見乃始於秦仲迄于二世。有六百餘年者。一往似長。出何的證。案春秋已前。秦本未有。春秋已來始有秦伯。當春秋時秦仲時漸霸。但是周之小邑。孝王之世。令非子放馬於汧渭之間。不承天命。未有正朔。曾孫秦仲。宣王之世。始受車馬侍御之臣。仲孫襄公以送平王東遷。進爵為伯。文公已下始見史記。自茲訖滅。不過二百餘年。史記竹書及陶公年紀。皆云。秦無曆數周世陪臣。故隱居列之在諸國之下。何因得有年紀。續至胡亥。史記但從厲公列之。一百一年。終于二世。縱有年代。皆附春秋自無別紀。𧹞王之末。秦昭襄王因周微弱。始滅周國僭號稱王。諸史相承。秦惟五世四十九年。齊祕書揚玠史目云。秦自始封至滅。凡三十五世六百餘年者。蓋取始封秦號經六百餘年。非霸統中國經多年也。邪見乃延秦短祚冐上長年。一何虛妄哉。

To the response regarding [the claim that] from Qin Zhong downward there were thirty-five generations and more than six hundred years, we reply: The Shiji states that prior to the Yin dynasty, genealogies of the feudal lords cannot be obtained, because the sequence was largely lost and the years are difficult to know. Therefore, the Shangshu merely uses the sexagenary cycle for succession, without years and months; this is precisely because the historical records are deficient and did not record them. The deviant views claim that starting from Qin Zhong down to the Second Emperor, there were more than six hundred years. At first glance it seems long, but from what definitive evidence does it derive? Examining the period before the Spring and Autumn era, the Qin originally did not exist; only since the Spring and Autumn era was there first an Earl of Qin. In the Spring and Autumn period, at the time of Qin Zhong, they gradually attained hegemony, yet they were merely a minor settlement of the Zhou. In the time of King Xiao, Feizi was ordered to pasture horses between the Qian and Wei rivers; he did not receive the Mandate of Heaven and had no official calendar. His great-grandson Qin Zhong, in the time of King Xuan, first received the rank of minister of chariots and escort. Zhong's grandson Duke Xiang escorted King Ping's eastward move and was advanced in rank to earl. Only from Duke Wen downward does Qin first appear in the Shiji. From then until its demise was no more than two hundred-odd years. The Shiji, the Zhushu [jinian], and Master Tao's Nianji all say that Qin lacked the astrological mandate and was a retainer minister during the Zhou era; hence Master Yinju listed it below the various states. How could there be an era chronicle continuously reaching Hu Hai? The Shiji only lists them starting from Duke Li: one hundred and one years, ending with the Second Emperor. Even if there were dates, they are all appended to the Spring and Autumn annals and have no separate chronicle. At the end of King Nan, King Zhaoxiang of Qin, taking advantage of the Zhou's decline, first destroyed the state of Zhou and usurped the title of king. Transmitted by various histories, the Qin reigned for only five generations and forty-nine years. The Shimu by Secretarial Court Official Yang Jie of Qi says that from Qin's first enfeoffment to its demise, there were thirty-five generations and more than six hundred years in all; this merely takes the more than six hundred years that elapsed under the title of Qin since its initial enfeoffment, not that it held hegemony and ruled China for so many years. The deviant views have prolonged Qin's brief lifespan and falsely appropriated long years from earlier times. How utterly absurd!