鐔津文集 15.18

15.18

韓子為對禹問。謂禹雖以天下傳之子。而其賢非不及乎堯舜傳賢之賢也。予少時著評讓。初亦取韓子所謂禹傳子之說。其後審思之。即考虞夏之書。竟不復見禹傳賢傳子之說。唯孟子曰。禹薦益於天。七年禹崩。三年之喪畢。益避禹之子於箕山之陰。朝覲獄訟者。不之益而之啟曰。吾君之子也。謳歌者。不謳歌益而謳歌啟曰。吾君之子也。及證之史。夏本紀太史公亦謂。禹以天下授益。益讓啟。天下遂奉啟以為君。此始明禹未嘗自以其天下與之子也。荀卿楊雄雖皆言傳授之事。亦未始稱禹自與其子之天下也。因怪韓子疎謬不討詳經史。輒為此言。假謂韓子苟取百家雜說。謂禹與子天下。其賢不減於堯舜也。又與禮運之言不類。禮運謂大道之行。天下為公者以其時為大同。謂大道既隱。天下為家者以其時為小康。而鄭氏解曰。天下為公者。禪讓之謂也。天下為家者。謂傳位於子也。夫禪讓既為大同。而家傳之時乃為小康。而禹苟果以天下與之子。其為賢也。安得不劣於堯舜耶。韓子雖欲賢禹。而反更致禹之不賢。然韓子揣堯舜禹所以傳授。而乃為其言曰。堯舜之傳賢也。欲天下之得所也。禹之傳子也。憂天下爭之之亂也。又曰。堯以傳舜。為憂後世。禹以傳子。為慮後世。何其文字散漫不曉分而如此也。然得所即不爭。爭即不得所也。憂猶慮也。慮猶憂也。其為義訓亦何以異乎。大凡爭鬪其必起於私與不平也。既謂禹欲使後世不爭。乃當不與其子。於事理為得也。既與之子。安得制其不爭之亂耶。禹之後及其子孫方二世。而羿遂奪其天下而有之。與寒浞輩紊絕夏政幾二百年。少康立乃稍復夏政繼禹之道也。所謂不爭安在耶。夫禹聖人也。豈聖人而不識其起爭之由耶。韓子雖苟為此說。而不累及夫禹乎。語曰。巍巍舜禹之有天下也。而不與焉。孔氏之注。迃疎固不足發明乎聖人之意。此乃謂舜禹雖有天下。不我私而有之。皆謂常有所讓也。不幸禹之禪讓。其事不果。遂乃與其子。相承而有天下。孔子以其世數。姑列禹於三代之端。故禮運曰。禹湯文武成王周公由此其選也。然而堯舜禹其則未始異也。夫天下者天下之天下也。與賢與子而聖人豈苟專之而為計乎。苟當其時天下之人欲以天下與之賢。而堯舜雖欲傳子不可得也。當其時天下之人欲以天下與之子。禹雖欲傳賢亦不可得也。故時當與賢則聖人必與之賢。時當與子則聖人不能不與之子。聖人之傳天下也。正謂順乎時數人事而已矣。豈謂憂之慮之為後世強計。而與其天下異也。堯謂舜曰。天之曆數在爾躬。舜亦以此命禹。禮曰。堯授舜。舜授禹。湯放桀。武王伐紂時也。是故易曰。天下隨時之義大矣哉。韓子之說無稽。何嘗稍得舜禹傳授之意歟。嗚呼謬哉。

Master Han wrote the 'Dui Yu wen' (Dialogue on Yu), asserting that although Yu transmitted the realm to his son, his virtue was no less than that of Yao and Shun transmitting to the worthy. In my youth, when writing my Ping rang (Critique of Abdication), I initially also adopted Master Han's theory that Yu transmitted to his son. Later, reflecting on it carefully, I investigated the books of Yu and Xia, and ultimately found no further mention of Yu transmitting to the worthy versus transmitting to his son. Mencius alone said: 'Yu presented Yi to Heaven. Seven years later, Yu died. When the three years of mourning were completed, Yi withdrew from Yu's son to the south of Mount Ji. Those who went to court and those who had lawsuits did not go to Yi, but went to Qi, saying: "He is our lord's son." Those who sang songs of praise did not sing of Yi, but sang of Qi, saying: "He is our lord's son."' And when corroborating this with the histories, the Grand Astrologer in the 'Xia benji' (Basic Annals of Xia) likewise stated that Yu entrusted the realm to Yi, but Yi abdicated in favour of Qi, whereupon the realm upheld Qi as ruler. Only here does it become clear that Yu never personally gave his realm to his son. Although Xun Qing and Yang Xiong both spoke of matters of transmission, neither ever claimed that Yu personally gave the realm to his son. I was therefore astonished at Master Han's carelessness and error in not thoroughly examining the classics and histories, rashly uttering such words. Even supposing that Master Han carelessly borrowed from the diverse theories of the various philosophical schools, asserting that Yu gave the realm to his son and yet his worth was no less than that of Yao and Shun, this again does not accord with the words of the 'Liyun' (Conveyance of Rites). The 'Liyun' says that when the Great Way was practiced, the realm was for the public good, which made that era the Great Unity; and that once the Great Way receded into obscurity, the realm was treated as a family estate, which made that era the Modest Prosperity. Zheng [Xuan]'s commentary explains: 'The realm being for the public good refers to abdication; the realm treated as a family estate refers to transmitting the throne to a son.' Now, since abdication constituted the Great Unity, whereas hereditary family transmission was merely Modest Prosperity, if Yu had indeed given the realm to his son, how could his worth not be inferior to that of Yao and Shun? Although Master Han wished to esteem Yu as worthy, he instead caused Yu to appear unworthy. Furthermore, Master Han conjectured the reasons for the transmissions of Yao, Shun, and Yu, and thus made his assertion: 'Yao and Shun's transmitting to the worthy was because they wanted the realm to find its proper place; Yu's transmitting to his son was out of anxiety over the chaos of strife in the realm.' He also said: 'Yao's transmitting to Shun was out of sorrow for later generations; Yu's transmitting to his son was out of concern for later generations.' Why are his writings so diffuse and undiscerning of distinctions to such an extent? Yet finding its proper place means there is no strife, and strife means not finding its proper place. Anxiety is synonymous with concern, and concern is synonymous with anxiety; how do their semantic glosses differ? Generally, contention and conflict must arise from selfishness and inequality. Having claimed that Yu wished to keep later generations from strife, it would have been proper and in accord with the principles of affairs not to give it to his son. Once he gave it to his son, how could he curb the chaos of strife? After Yu, reaching only the second generation of his sons and grandsons, Houyi seized the realm and possessed it, and together with the likes of Han Zhuo, they threw the governance of Xia into turmoil and cut it off for nearly two hundred years; only when Shaokang was established was the governance of Xia gradually restored and the way of Yu continued. Where was the so-called 'absence of strife'? Now, Yu was a sage; could a sage fail to know the cause of strife? Even if Master Han fabricated this theory haphazardly, does it not incriminate Yu? The Analects say: 'How majestic were Shun and Yu in holding the realm, yet not taking part in it!' Kong [Anguo]'s commentary is far-fetched and careless, inherently insufficient to illuminate the sage's intention. This passage actually means that although Shun and Yu possessed the realm, they did not treat it as their personal possession, all meaning that they always yielded it. Unhappily, Yu's abdication did not come to pass in the event, and so it was given to his son, inheriting it in succession to possess the realm. Confucius, in view of the count of eras, provisionally ranked Yu at the head of the Three Dynasties; hence the 'Liyun' says: 'Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, King Cheng, and the Duke of Zhou were chosen from this.' Nevertheless, the norms of Yao, Shun, and Yu were never different. The realm belongs to the realm; would a sage ever make arbitrary, proprietary calculations about whether to give it to a worthy person or to a son? If at that time the people of the realm wished to give the realm to a worthy person, then even if Yao and Shun had wished to transmit it to their sons, it would have been impossible. If at that time the people of the realm wished to give the realm to a son, then even if Yu had wished to transmit it to a worthy person, it would likewise have been impossible. Therefore, when the times called for giving it to a worthy person, the sage inevitably gave it to a worthy person; when the times called for giving it to a son, the sage could not help but give it to a son. The sage's transmission of the realm was merely following the times, destiny, and human affairs. How could it be said that out of anxiety or concern, he forcibly devised schemes for later generations and differed in his transmission of the realm? Yao said to Shun: 'The calendaric calculations of Heaven rest upon your person.' Shun likewise enjoined Yu with this. The Rites say: 'Yao conferred it on Shun, Shun conferred it on Yu, Tang banished Jie, and King Wu attacked Zhou—these were matters of timeliness.' Therefore the Book of Changes says: 'Great indeed is the timeliness of the meaning of Following!' Master Han's theory lacks foundation; how did it ever grasp the slightest intention behind the transmissions of Shun and Yu? Alas, how erroneous!