鐔津文集 15.14

15.14

韓子為獲麟解曰。麟之出必有聖人在乎位。麟為聖人出也。聖人者必知麟。麟之果不為不祥。此謂麟為孔子出。孔子知麟。麟為祥。以解夫魯人昔謂麟為不祥者也。韓子之所謂何其未識經也。麟所以興春秋。苟不能發明孔子作春秋之意何用解麟。夫麟學者亦能辯之也。孔子聖人。豈止能知麟爾。言麟謂孔子出者。苟取雜家妄說無經據謬論也。韓子為知聖人稱麟。非徒為其出不出也。昔孔子因麟而作春秋者。蓋以麟鳳四靈大率係於王政。故禮運曰。聖人作則四靈以為畜。孔子之時。周室積衰王道已絕。有麟而無政。聖人感此遂以度吾將存乎王法也。故其書起於平王而絕筆獲麟。而杜預注獲麟。其說漫漶不決。既曰。麟為聖王之嘉瑞。又曰。時無明王。感嘉瑞而無應。既無明王。何以感其出耶。此蓋杜氏不能考其出不出之意也。禮運孔子謂。聖王之政大順。故鳳皇麒麟皆在郊棷。龜龍在宮沼。郊謂其逼王城也。棷謂其樵薪之淺叢也。謂大順所感。則麟鳳如其所畜養也。此言處乎近郊樵薪之間耳。其謂麟之出也如此。左氏曰。西狩大野獲麟。大野者蓋魯之大澤也。其荒遠險絕。視楚之雲夢吳之具區。皆天下所謂十藪者也。然深山大澤固異物之所隱伏也。麟不幸為魯搜而致之豈感而自出耶。吾故曰。麟未始出必謂此為麟之出也。則禮運孔子之言為謬矣。聖人豈謬乎哉。經曰。西狩獲麟。麟不自然而出可知也。聖人筆此。非善之之謂也。春秋凡稱獲者。不單訓於得。蓋兵戈勍勁得勝之謂也。經曰。獲晉侯之例是也。今曰西狩者。蓋惡其非時而暴物也。獲麟乃有譏耳。異義者曰。孔子修春秋。立言為素王之法。麟乃應之。或曰。興者為瑞亡者為災。謂麟為後代受命者之符瑞。此皆經傳所不見載。苟以臆裁殊不足取之。謂孔子為素王。其誣聖人之甚也。

In his 'Explanation of Capturing the Qilin' (Huo lin jie), Master Han says: 'When the qilin appears, there must be a sage on the throne; the qilin appears for the sage. A sage is sure to recognize the qilin, and indeed the qilin does not bring ill omen.' This means that the qilin appeared for Confucius, Confucius recognized the qilin, and the qilin was an auspicious omen, thereby resolving the view of the men of Lu in the past who regarded the qilin as an ill omen. How poorly Master Han's statements understand the Classics! The qilin is that by which the Spring and Autumn Annals was initiated. If one cannot elucidate Confucius's intention in composing the Spring and Autumn Annals, what is the use of explaining the qilin? Ordinary scholars can also identify a qilin. Confucius was a sage—could his ability be limited merely to recognizing a qilin? Saying that the qilin appeared for Confucius relies arbitrarily on the wild statements of the eclectic masters and groundless, erroneous arguments not found in the Classics. Master Han knew only that the sage praised the qilin, not that it was more than a matter of its appearance or non-appearance. Formerly, when Confucius composed the Spring and Autumn Annals on the occasion of the qilin, it was because the four numinous beasts, such as the qilin and phoenix, generally correlate with royal governance. Therefore, the 'Evolution of Rites' (Liyun) says: 'When the sage arises, the four numinous beasts are kept as domestic animals.' In Confucius's time, the Zhou royal house had steadily declined and the kingly way was already cut off; there was a qilin, but no proper governance. The sage, moved by this, consequently considered how to preserve the kingly laws. Therefore, his book begins with King Ping and puts down the brush at the capture of the qilin. But Du Yu's commentary on 'the capture of the qilin' is vague and indecisive. He says both that 'the qilin is an auspicious omen of a sage-king' and that 'at that time there was no enlightened king, so it was moved to bring an auspicious omen but found no resonance.' Since there was no enlightened king, how could it be moved to appear? This is because Mr. Du failed to examine the meaning of its appearance or non-appearance. In the 'Evolution of Rites,' Confucius said that when the sage-king's governance is in great accord, the fenghuang and qilin are in the suburbs and groves, while turtles and dragons are in the palace ponds. 'Suburbs' means close to the royal city; 'groves' means shallow thickets where firewood is gathered. This means that, moved by great accord, the qilin and phoenix are as though domesticated. This merely speaks of their staying in nearby suburbs and among firewood thickets; this is what is meant by the appearance of the qilin. Zuo's Commentary says: 'A hunt in the west in Daye captured a qilin.' Daye was the great marsh of Lu; its desolate, distant, steep, and remote nature made it comparable to Chu's Yunmeng and Wu's Juqu, all being what the world calls the ten great marshes. Deep mountains and vast marshes are indeed where extraordinary creatures hide. The qilin was unfortunately flushed out and taken by Lu; how could it have been moved to come out on its own? Hence I say: the qilin never came forth at all. If one must assert that this was the 'appearance' of the qilin, then Confucius's words in the 'Evolution of Rites' would be erroneous. But could the sage be in error? The Classic says: 'Hunting in the west, they captured a qilin.' From this it can be known that the qilin did not come forth naturally. The sage recorded this with his brush, but not to praise it. In the Spring and Autumn Annals, wherever 'captured' (huo) is stated, it does not merely mean 'obtained'; it signifies being victorious through the strength of weapons. This is exemplified by the Classic's phrase 'captured the Marquis of Jin.' Now, saying 'hunted in the west' expresses detestation for hunting out of season and doing violence to creatures; 'captured the qilin' is indeed a criticism. Dissenting commentators say: 'Confucius compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals, establishing words as laws for an uncrowned king (suwang), and the qilin resonated with this.' Others say: 'What rises is an auspicious omen; what perishes is a calamity,' regarding the qilin as a talismanic omen for one who would receive the mandate in a later generation. These are not recorded in the Classics or Commentaries; they are arbitrary fabrications completely unworthy of acceptance. Calling Confucius an 'uncrowned king' slanders the sage most severely.