鐔津文集 16.32

16.32

韓子答崔立之書曰。僕見險不能止。動不得時顛頓狼狽。失其所操持。困不知變。以辱於再三君子小人之所憫笑。以至云若都不可得。猶將耕於寬閑之野。釣於寂寞之濱。求國家之遺事。考賢人哲士之終始。作唐之一經。垂之於無窮。誅姦諛於既死。發潛德之幽光。吁韓子所謂作唐之一經過也。古之立書立言者。雖一辭一句必始後世學者資以為法。其言不中則誤其學者。周書。武成出於孔子之筆序而定之。其曰。血流漂杵。孟軻猶不取而非之。謂其不當言而言之過也。夫孔子作春秋六藝之文。尚不自謂為之經。稱經特後儒尊先聖之所作云爾。昔楊雄作太玄經。以準易故也。而漢諸儒非之。比之吳楚僭號稱王者也。今韓子輒言作經。何其易也。使韓子德如仲尼而果成其書。猶宜待他輩。或後世尊之為經。安得預自稱之。雖其未成比之楊雄。亦以過僭矣。其曰誅姦諛於既死發潛德之幽光者。此乃善善惡惡褒貶之意。蓋韓子銳志欲為之史耳。及視其外集答劉秀才論史書。乃反怯而不敢為而曰。夫為史者。不有人禍必有天刑。乃引孔子聖人作春秋辱於魯衛陳宋齊楚。卒不遇而死。齊太史兄弟幾盡。左丘明紀春秋時事以失明。司馬遷作史刑誅。班固瘦死。陳壽起又廢卒亦無所至。王隱謗退死於家。習鑿齒無一足。崔浩范曄亦族誅。魏收天絕。宋孝王誅死。足下所稱吳競亦不聞身貴而後有聞也（一本止略引司馬遷范曄左丘明等三人）然以此為尤。韓子何其勇於空言而怯於果作可笑也。誠前所謂顛頓狼狽失其所操持。而發斯狂妄耶。

In his reply to Cui Lizhi, Master Han said: 'I see danger and cannot stop; when I act, I miss the opportune time and stumble in disarray, losing hold of what I grasped. Entrapped, I do not know how to adapt, suffering humiliation repeatedly, pitied and mocked by gentlemen and petty men alike.' He even went so far as to say: 'If nothing can be attained at all, I shall yet plow in the broad and idle wilderness, fish along lonely shores, seek the neglected records of the state, examine the beginnings and ends of worthy men and wise scholars, and compose a single classic for the Tang dynasty, handing it down for limitless generations to come, condemning the treacherous and flattering after their deaths, and revealing the hidden brilliance of latent virtue.' Alas! Master Han’s remark about composing 'a single classic for the Tang' went too far. When the ancients founded writings and established doctrines, every single word and phrase had to serve as a model for later scholars to rely on; if their words did not hit the mark, they led those scholars astray. In the Book of Zhou, 'The Successful Completion of the War' was edited and established by Confucius’s brush, yet because it says 'the blood flowed till it floated the pestles,' Meng Ke still rejected and censured it, saying that it spoke what should not have been spoken and went to excess. When Confucius composed the texts of the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Six Arts, he still did not refer to them himself as 'classics' (jing); they were called 'classics' only when later Confucians revered what the ancient sage had created. Formerly, Yang Xiong composed the Classic of the Great Mystery (Taixuan jing) to model it after the Classic of Changes, yet the Confucians of the Han criticized him, comparing him to the rulers of Wu and Chu who usurped titles and claimed to be kings. Now Master Han rashly speaks of composing a classic—how light-minded he is! Even if Master Han’s virtue had equaled Confucius's and he had actually completed his book, he should still have waited for his peers or later generations to honor it as a classic; how could he have arrogated the title to himself beforehand? Even though it was not finished, to compare him to Yang Xiong would still find him guilty of excessive usurpation. When he says 'condemning the treacherous and flattering after their deaths, and revealing the hidden brilliance of latent virtue,' this expresses the intent of praising good and censuring evil, evaluating and judging; it was merely that Master Han harbored an ardent ambition to compile a history. Yet when one looks at the letter discussing historical writing in reply to Licentiate Liu in his Outer Collection, he was on the contrary fearful and dared not undertake it, saying: 'Those who write history, if they do not meet human calamities, will surely suffer heavenly punishment.' He then cited Confucius, the sage who composed the Spring and Autumn Annals, suffering humiliation in Lu, Wei, Chen, Song, Qi, and Chu, and dying without meeting his time; the grand historians of Qi, whose brothers were almost wiped out; Zuo Qiuming, who chronicled the events of the Spring and Autumn period and lost his sight; Sima Qian, who wrote history and was subjected to castration; Ban Gu, who died emaciated in prison; Chen Shou, who rose and fell and ended up achieving nothing; Wang Yin, who was slandered, dismissed, and died at home; Xi Zuochi, who lost a foot; Cui Hao and Fan Ye, whose clans were exterminated; Wei Shou, whose line heaven cut off; Song Xiaowang, who was executed; and Wu Jing, whom you mention, who likewise is not known to have had lasting fame after personal eminence (one edition merely cites three figures: Sima Qian, Fan Ye, and Zuo Qiuming). Considering this as justification for fault, how laughable that Master Han was so bold in empty words yet so cowardly when it came to actual deeds! Was it truly, as he said before, that 'stumbling in disarray, losing hold of what I grasped,' he uttered this madness?