鐔津文集 16.18

16.18

唐人余知古與歐陽生論文書。謂近世韓子作原道。則崔豹答牛享書。作諱辯則張昭論舊名。作毛頴傳。則袁淑大蘭王九錫。作送窮文。則楊雄逐貧賦。作論佛骨表則劉晝諍齊王疏。雖依倚若此愚未功過。然余生論不足校其是否。其送窮文謂窮有鬼。窮鬼蓋委巷無稽自諛。韓子為文。此縱然如其鬼相睹何其怪乎。韓遂託斯以自諭。何取諭之不祥也。若韓子之智知學文（知或之字）與其文乃資鬼而為之。韓子豈自謂誠明人乎。君子之言法言也。謂可以教人而君子乃言也。不可以教人君子不言也。故孔子曰。大人不倡游言。韓子如此何以教人耶。語曰。君子固窮。小人窮斯濫矣。韓子果窮尤宜以君子固守。烏可輒取陋巷鄙語文以為戲耳。

The Tang dynasty author Yu Zhigu, in a letter discussing literature with Master Ouyang, stated that when Master Han of recent times wrote *Yuandao*, he modeled it on Cui Bao's letter answering Niu Xiang; when he wrote *Huiban* (Debate on Taboo Names), it was Zhang Zhao's treatise on old names; when he wrote the *Biography of Mao Ying*, it was Yuan Shu's *Nine Bestowals of Prince Dalan*; when he wrote the *Essay on Sending Away Poverty*, it was Yang Xiong's *Rhapsody on Driving Away Poverty*; when he wrote the *Memorial on the Buddha Relic*, it was Liu Zhou's remonstrance to the King of Qi. Although he relied on earlier texts like this, I have not yet evaluated their merits and faults. However, Yu's discussion is not worth examining for its correctness. The *Essay on Sending Away Poverty* claims that poverty has a ghost; the ghost of poverty was merely an unverified colloquial fabrication of the back alleys. When Master Han composed literature, even if one took it as actually witnessing such a ghostly form, how strange it is! Han thereupon relied on this to express himself; what an ominous thing to draw an analogy from! If Master Han's wisdom and literary learning relied on ghosts for their composition, could Master Han have considered himself a sincere and illuminated man? The words of a gentleman are standard words; only if they can instruct people will a gentleman speak them. If they cannot instruct people, a gentleman does not speak them. Therefore Confucius said: 'A great man does not initiate idle words.' Being like this, how could Master Han instruct people? The *Analects* says: 'The gentleman stands firm in poverty; the petty man, when impoverished, gives way to excess.' If Han was indeed impoverished, he should especially have held firm as a gentleman; how could he casually seize upon the vulgar banter of humble alleys and make literature of it for amusement?