鐔津文集 15.20

15.20

韓子既謫潮州。乃奏書謝天子。因諷其天子封禪。謂己文章可以振錫功德編乎詩書而不讓古人。吾竊笑韓子所發輕率而事不稽。古封禪乃國家大典。帝王之盛事。臣子平時猶不可使人主遽為。況乎在其斥逐齟齬而輒言之。韓子豈善自宜之耶。如陸贄以宰相黜忠州十年。杜門絕人事。不復為私書。贄不唯能慎。蓋亦知其自不當預朝廷之事也。陸公可謂識大體矣。若夫封禪者非二帝三王之事也。其始於秦之始皇。而甚乎漢之孝武。其事勢雄侈貲費。蓋百巨萬。禮度與古所謂類上帝望山川豈等耶。當時儒者雖引舜典至於岱宗柴望秩於山川之義。以傳會其說。似是而非。殊不得實。復援管夷吾對齊桓公封禪之言。是亦非出二帝三王之書也。漢書稱倪寬議封禪曰。然其薦享之義不著于經。誠然也。昔太史公雖以之為書。蓋避其當時依違。不敢灼然是非。弟曰余從巡祭天地諸神名山而封禪焉。退而論次自古以來用事於鬼神者。具見其表裏。後有君子得以覽焉。至于班固議論郊祀至封禪。或可或否。亦不灼然是之非之。但推谷永之奏為正。後世宜有卓識賢者毅然推二帝三王之制度。折中夫秦漢舊事。以俟乎後世之為封禪者可也。吾嘗慨先儒如楊子雲之徒。徒善著書是非今古。萬世而卒不及此。文中子雖稍辯之欲警隋之封禪者。而其說甚略於穆。後世如有功德不充符瑞未至輒以其法而苟為之者。其何以質之耶。韓子平生自負。謂能專二帝三王之道。而善斥百家古今之謬妄。安得一朝稍黜乃自衰謬反以秦皇漢武之雄侈夸誕者以事其君乎。韓子其所守如何哉。就令其君稍有功德可封禪也。猶宜斟酌比較太宗之時而然後舉之。唐之文皇帝。平數百年之積亂獨振王道。其功德崇盛宜比乎禹湯文武。雖漢之文景。尚恐其不足預其所有如此太宗猶不敢議封禪。故曰。如朕本心但使天下太平。雖缺封禪亦可比德堯舜。如百姓不足。雖修封禪亦何異桀紂。昔秦始皇登封岱宗奢侈自矜。漢文竟不登封。躬行儉約。今皆謂始皇為暴虐之主。而漢文為有德之君。由此而言。無假封禪。唐太宗可謂聖賢有道之君者也。而章武之時。其治道功德符瑞。其勝於太宗乎。不直不勝。亦恐不及正觀之風遠矣。而韓子乃欲其封禪。何其不思之甚也。然則秦漢文封禪者。豈專告其成功於天地耶。乃慕神仙求長生永壽而為之者也。是故其書曰。封禪即不死黃帝是也。又曰。上封則能僊登天矣。元和之末。天子方惑神仙長生之說。引方士柳泌服餌其金丹而為患殊甚。況又推秦皇漢武欲其重之。韓子舉事其見幾乎。豈其遭斥逐窮窘欲媚人主以自苟解免歟。中庸曰。君子素其位而行。不願乎其外。素富貴行乎富貴。素貧賤行乎貧賤。素夷狄行乎夷狄。素患難行乎患難。君子無入而不自得焉。斯謂所向苟不失其理。皆可安之而無以寵辱禍福亂其志也明夫君子能以中庸而異於小人也。昔孫叔敖相楚。三進三黜而無喜慍之色。白居易斥潯陽。不以遷謫介其意。二子如此。蓋亦以中庸而自處也。韓子既勇於言事。方降為郡吏。乃舉動躁妄矜夸嗟咨。不能少安。不及孫子白樂天也遠矣。

After Master Han was exiled to Chaozhou, he presented a memorial thanking the Son of Heaven, in which he subtly urged the Son of Heaven to perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices, claiming that his own writings could extol achievements and virtues and be compiled alongside the Odes and Documents without yielding to the ancients. I privately laugh at Master Han's rashness and how his actions lacked foundation. In antiquity, the Feng and Shan sacrifices were great state ceremonies and majestic undertakings of emperors and kings. Even in ordinary times, ministers and subjects could not lightly prompt the sovereign to perform them; how much less should one speak of them while being banished and out of favor! Could Master Han be said to know how to comport himself fittingly? For instance, when Lu Zhi was demoted from grand councilor to Zhongzhou for ten years, he shut his doors, cut off human affairs, and wrote no more private letters. Lu was not only able to be prudent, but also knew that he ought not to meddle in court affairs. Duke Lu can truly be said to have understood the larger picture. As for the Feng and Shan sacrifices, they were not the affair of the Two Emperors and Three Kings. They began with the First Emperor of Qin and were carried to excess by Emperor Wu of the Han. Their ostentation, extravagance, and costs amounted to hundreds of millions. How could their ritual norms ever be compared to what antiquity termed 'presenting a sacrifice to the Sovereign on High' and 'gazing in sacrifice upon the mountains and rivers'? Although the Confucians of that time cited the chapter 'Canon of Shun', where it says 'he went to Mount Tai, made a burnt offering, and gazed in sacrifice in proper order upon the mountains and rivers', in order to stretch their theories to fit, this was merely specious and completely missed the reality. They further cited Guan Yiwu's words on the Feng and Shan sacrifices in response to Duke Huan of Qi, which also did not originate from the books of the Two Emperors and Three Kings. The Book of Han states, concerning Ni Kuan's deliberation on the Feng and Shan sacrifices: 'Yet the meaning of its offerings and sacrifices is not recorded in the classics.' This is indeed so. In the past, although the Grand Astrologer wrote a treatise on it, he merely avoided the ambiguities of his day, not daring to declare explicitly what was right and wrong; he only said: 'I followed the imperial progress, offering sacrifices to Heaven, Earth, the various spirits, and the famous mountains, and performing the Feng and Shan sacrifices. Retiring, I discussed and arranged in sequence those who had made offerings to ghosts and spirits since antiquity, presenting both the inside and outside of the matter, so that future gentlemen may peruse it.' As for Ban Gu's discussion of suburban sacrifices up to the Feng and Shan, vacillating on whether they were permissible or not, he likewise did not explicitly deem them right or wrong, but merely took Gu Yong's memorial as correct. Later generations should have had an eminent and worthy person of penetrating insight who would resolutely promote the system of the Two Emperors and Three Kings, strike a balance with the precedents of Qin and Han, and thereby await future rulers who would perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices. I have often lamented that former Confucians, such as the likes of Yang Ziyun, merely excelled at writing books to pronounce upon past and present, yet over ten thousand generations ultimately never addressed this. Although Wenzhongzi somewhat disputed it, wishing to warn against the Sui dynasty's Feng and Shan sacrifices, his statements were extremely brief and unelaborated. If in later generations there were those whose merit and virtue were deficient and auspicious portents had not arrived, yet they rashly followed that method and performed them carelessly, with what could they be corrected? Master Han took pride in himself throughout his life, claiming to be devoted exclusively to the Way of the Two Emperors and Three Kings and adept at repudiating the absurdities of the hundred schools throughout history; how could it be that, upon being demoted for a time, he degenerated into such error, conversely using the extravagant and boastful ways of the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of the Han to serve his sovereign? What kind of principles did Master Han maintain? Even granting that his sovereign possessed some merit and virtue that warranted the Feng and Shan sacrifices, he should still have weighed and compared them with the era of Taizong before proposing them. Emperor Wen of the Tang quelled the accumulated turmoil of several centuries and single-handedly revitalized the Kingly Way; his merit and virtue were so lofty and magnificent that they deserved comparison to Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu, and even Emperors Wen and Jing of the Han were feared to fall short of what he attained—yet even so, Taizong did not dare discuss the Feng and Shan sacrifices. Thus he said: 'According to my original intent, if the realm is only made peaceful, even without the Feng and Shan sacrifices my virtue can be compared to Yao and Shun. If the common people lack sufficiency, even if we perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices, how would it differ from Jie and Zhou? In the past, the First Emperor of Qin ascended and performed the Feng sacrifice on Mount Tai, full of luxury and boastfulness, whereas Emperor Wen of the Han ultimately did not ascend to perform the sacrifice, personally practicing frugality. Today all regard the First Emperor as a tyrannical ruler and Emperor Wen as a virtuous sovereign. Judging from this, there is no need for the Feng and Shan sacrifices.' Tang Taizong can truly be called a sage, worthy, and principled sovereign! Now during the Zhangwu era (Emperor Xianzong), were his statecraft, merit, virtue, and auspicious portents superior to those of Taizong? Not only were they not superior, but it is also feared they fell far short of the ethos of the Zhenguan reign. Yet Master Han wished him to perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices; how utterly unthinking he was! Furthermore, when the emperors of Qin and Han performed the Feng and Shan sacrifices, did they do so solely to report their success to Heaven and Earth? It was actually because they admired immortals and sought longevity and everlasting life that they performed them. Therefore, their books say: 'Those who perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices do not die; the Yellow Emperor was one such.' They also say: 'Ascending to perform the Feng sacrifice enables one to become an immortal and ascend to heaven.' Toward the end of the Yuanhe era, the Son of Heaven was infatuated with theories of immortals and longevity, bringing in the occultist Liu Mi and consuming his golden elixir, which caused extreme harm. How much worse, then, to invoke the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of the Han, wishing him to place weight on this! When Master Han raised this matter, did he perceive the subtle signs of things? Could it be that, having met with banishment and distress, he wished to flatter the sovereign in order to secure his own pardon? The Doctrine of the Mean says: 'The gentleman acts in accordance with his station, and does not wish for what is outside it. In wealth and honor, he acts as becomes wealth and honor; in poverty and low station, he acts as becomes poverty and low station; among barbarian tribes, he acts as becomes barbarian tribes; in sorrow and difficulty, he acts as becomes sorrow and difficulty. There is no situation into which the gentleman enters where he does not find self-possession.' This means that as long as what he pursues does not depart from principle, he can rest content with all things, without letting favor, disgrace, misfortune, or fortune disturb his mind. It makes clear that the gentleman is able, through the Mean, to differ from the petty man. Formerly, Sunshu Ao served as chancellor of Chu; he was promoted three times and dismissed three times without showing any signs of joy or anger. Bai Juyi was banished to Xunyang, yet did not let his exile trouble his mind. These two gentlemen acted thus because they conducted themselves in accordance with the Mean. Master Han, having been bold in remonstrating on state affairs, as soon as he was demoted to a prefectural official, acted rashly and recklessly, boasting and lamenting, unable to remain calm for even a moment. He falls far short of Master Sun and Bai Letian!