鐔津文集 7.16

7.16

唐史以房杜方蕭曹。然房杜文雅有餘。蕭曹王佐不足。德則房杜至之矣。觀房則半才。視杜則純道。君子曰。杜益賢也。姚崇宋璟其不逮丙魏乎。姚宋道不勝才而魏則厭兵。丙則知相。燕公文過始興。而公正不及大將軍光不若狄梁公之終無私也。袁安之寬厚則婁相近之正與仁則異施房琯顏真卿方之李固陳蕃。其世道雖異。而守忠持正一也。汾陽王省武而尚信。仁人也。叚大尉忠勇相顧。義人也。晉公終始不伐仁人也。荀子之言近辨也。盡善而未盡美。當性惡禪讓。過其言也。楊子之言能言也。自謂窮理而盡性。洎其遇亂而投閣。則與乎子路曾子之所處死異矣哉。太史公言雖博。而道有歸。班氏則未至也。宜乎世所謂固不如遷之良史也。賈傅抗王制而正漢法。美夫。宜無有加者焉。三表五餌之術。班固論其疎矣誠疎也。董膠西之對策。美哉得正而合極。所謂王者之佐。非為過也。繁露之言。則有可取也。有可舍也。相如之文麗。義寡而詞繁。詞人之文也。王充之言。立異也。桓寬之言。趨公也。韓吏部之文。文之傑也。其為原鬼讀墨何為也。柳子厚之文。文之豪也。剔其繁則至矣。正符詩尤至也。李習之之文平考。其復命之說。宜有所疑也（疑有作發）。陳子昂之文。不若李華。華之文。不若梁肅。肅之文。君子或有所取也。李元賓之文。詞人之文也。皇甫湜之文。文詞之間者也（或無詞上文字）。郭泰黃憲之為人也。賢人也。訥言而敏行。顏子之徒歟。徐穉之為人。哲人也。識時變而慎動靜焉。袁奉高之遁世也。不忘孝。不傷和。中庸之士也。論曰。引其器所以稽其範之工拙。辨其人所以示其道之至否。然範工資世之所用。道至正世之所師。所師得則聖賢之事隆。而異端之說息也。是故君子區之別之是之非之。俟有所補也。豈徒爾哉。記曰。文理密察。（或作察察）足以有別也。孟子曰。是非之心智之端也。斯亦辨道之謂也。

The Tang histories compare Fang [Xuanling] and Du [Ruhui] to Xiao [He] and Cao [Shen]. Yet Fang and Du had refinement and elegance in abundance, while Xiao and Cao lacked the caliber of royal advisors. In terms of virtue, Fang and Du reached its pinnacle. Viewing Fang, he was half talent; looking at Du, he was pure Dao. The noble person says: Du was even worthier. Did Yao Chong and Song Jing not fall short of Bing [Ji] and Wei [Xiang]? Yao and Song's Dao did not surpass their talent, whereas Wei detested warfare and Bing understood how to be a prime minister. The Duke of Yan's literary works surpassed Shixing's, yet his public justice did not equal Generalissimo Huo Guang, who was not like Duke Liang of Di in remaining completely without selfish partiality to the very end. As for Yuan An's generosity and magnanimity, Minister Lou approached it; yet in their rectitude and benevolence, they applied them differently. Comparing Fang Guan and Yan Zhenqing to Li Gu and Chen Fan, although their times were different, their adherence to loyalty and maintenance of rectitude were identical. King Fenyang restrained military force and esteemed trustworthiness—he was a person of benevolence. Grand Commandant Duan took mutual regard of loyalty and courage—he was a person of righteousness. The Duke of Jin never boasted from beginning to end—he was a person of benevolence. Xunzi's words approach disputation; they are completely good, yet not completely beautiful. When it came to human nature being evil and to abdication, his words went too far. Yangzi's words were capable discourse; he claimed to have probed principle to the utmost and fully realized his nature, yet when he encountered chaos and threw himself from the pavilion, his handling of death differed indeed from Zilu and Zengzi! Although the Grand Historian's words were broad, his Dao had its home; the Ban clan had not yet reached this. Truly does the world say that Gu was not as good a fine historian as Qian. Grand Tutor Jia stood up for the royal system and rectified the Han laws—how fine! Truly, none could surpass him. As for the methods of the 'three signs and five baits,' Ban Gu criticized them as lacking thoroughness, and they were indeed crude. Dong [Zhongshu] of Jiaoxi's policy responses—how fine, obtaining rectitude and according with the Supreme Polarity! That he is called an advisor to kings is no exaggeration. In the words of the Fanlu, there is what may be accepted and what may be cast aside. Xiangru's writings were ornate, but sparse in principle and redundant in diction; they were the writings of a mere man of letters. Wang Chong's words established eccentricity. Huan Kuan's words inclined toward the public interest. The writings of Han [Yu] of the Ministry of Personnel were the champions among writings; yet why did he write 'Tracing the Origin of Ghosts' and 'Reading Mozi'? The writings of Liu Zihou were heroic among writings; if one strips away their redundancies, they reach the highest peak; his 'Poems of the Upright Tally' are especially consummate. Li Xizhi's writings were balanced and examined; his discourse on 'Returning to Mandate' must have its doubtful points. Chen Zi'ang's writings were not as good as Li Hua's; Hua's writings were not as good as Liang Su's; from Su's writings, the noble person may find something to draw upon. Li Yuanbin's writings were the writings of a mere man of letters. Huangfu Shi's writings stood between literature and rhetoric. As persons, Guo Tai and Huang Xian were worthy men; slow in speech and prompt in action, were they not of Yanzi's company? As a person, Xu Zhi was a wise man; he understood the shifts of the times and was prudent in activity and stillness. Yuan Fenggao's withdrawal from the world never forgot filial piety and never harmed harmony; he was a scholar of the Golden Mean. The appraisal says: Citing their vessels is the means to examine the craftsmanship or clumsiness of their molds; distinguishing people is the means to reveal whether their Dao is consummate or not. However, skilled molds provide what the world uses; consummate Dao rectifies what the world takes as its teacher. When that which is taken as teacher is attained, the undertakings of the sages and worthies flourish, and heterodox doctrines cease. Therefore, the noble person distinguishes them, differentiates them, affirms them, and negates them, hoping that this may provide some aid. How could it be in vain? The Record says: 'Discernment of literary patterns is meticulous and sharp, sufficient to make distinctions.' Mencius said: 'The heart of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom.' This also refers to distinguishing the Dao.