鐔津文集 7.24

7.24

問曰。史謂易與春秋天道也。然則春秋易尤至於詩書禮經乎。予欲尊而專之。子謂之何如。曰豈然乎。五經皆至也。奚止乎易春秋邪。夫五經之治。猶五行之成陰陽也。苟一失則乾坤之道繆矣。乃今尊二經而舍乎詩書禮。則治道不亦缺如。禮者皇極之形容也。詩者教化之效也。書者事業之存也。易者天人之極也。春秋者賞罰之衡也。故善言春秋者必根乎賞罰。善言易者必本乎天人。善言書者必稽乎事業。善言詩者必推於教化。善言禮者必宗其皇極。夫知皇極可與舉帝王之制度也。知教化可與語移風易俗。知事業可與議聖賢之所為。知天人可與畢萬物之始終。知賞罰可與辨善惡之故也。是故君子舍禮則偏。舍詩則淫。舍書則妄。舍易則惑。舍春秋則亂。五者之於君子之如此也。詩書禮其可遺乎。孟子言。春秋之所以作。見作之之權也。文中子言。春秋之所以起。見作之之心也。范寧折中於聖人。睹春秋之理也。文中子見易之所存。故振之也。楊子雲見易之所設。故廣之也。王輔嗣言天而不淫於神。言人而必正於事。其見作易者之心乎。子夏序關睢之詩。知詩之政（或無政字）為教也。孟子之言詩。見詩之所為意也。毛萇之言詩。詩之深也鄭玄之言詩。詩之淺也。說詩不若從毛公之為簡也。五行傳作。書道之始亂也。皇極義行。書道之將正也。孔安國釋訓而已矣。聖賢之事業則無所發焉。戴氏於禮未得禮之實者也（實或作真）鄭氏釋禮。又不若子大叔之知禮也。問者再拜曰。若發朦爾。忻然而退。

Someone asked: 'The histories state that the Changes and the Spring and Autumn Annals pertain to the Way of Heaven. If so, are the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Changes far more consummate than the Odes, Documents, and Ritual Classics? I wish to honor and focus exclusively on them; what do you say to this?' I said: 'How could that be so? All Five Classics are consummate. Why should it be restricted to the Changes and Spring and Autumn Annals? The governance of the Five Classics is like the Five Elements forming yin and yang. If even one is lost, the Dao of Qian and Kun is thrown into error. If you now honor these two classics and discard the Odes, Documents, and Ritual, would not the Dao of governance be deficient? Ritual is the embodiment of the Supreme Polarity; the Odes are the efficacy of moral transformation; the Documents are the preservation of undertakings; the Changes are the culmination of Heaven and humanity; the Spring and Autumn Annals are the balance beam of rewards and punishments. Therefore, one who speaks well of the Spring and Autumn Annals must take root in rewards and punishments; one who speaks well of the Changes must take basis in Heaven and humanity; one who speaks well of the Documents must examine undertakings; one who speaks well of the Odes must trace them to moral transformation; one who speaks well of Ritual must take the Supreme Polarity as ancestor. If one knows the Supreme Polarity, one can establish the institutions of emperors and kings with him; if one knows moral transformation, one can speak with him of transforming mores and altering customs; if one knows undertakings, one can discuss with him what sages and worthies did; if one knows Heaven and humanity, one can encompass with him the beginning and end of the ten thousand things; if one knows rewards and punishments, one can distinguish with him the causes of good and evil. For this reason, if the noble person abandons Ritual, he becomes biased; if he abandons the Odes, he becomes licentious; if he abandons the Documents, he becomes reckless; if he abandons the Changes, he becomes confused; if he abandons the Spring and Autumn Annals, he falls into disorder. Such is the relation of these five to the noble person. Can the Odes, Documents, and Ritual be omitted? Mencius spoke of why the Spring and Autumn Annals was composed, perceiving the expedient power of its composition. Wenzhongzi spoke of why the Spring and Autumn Annals arose, perceiving the mind behind its composition. Fan Ning compromised and synthesized according to the sage, observing the principles of the Spring and Autumn Annals. Wenzhongzi saw what was preserved in the Changes, and therefore revitalized it. Yang Ziyun saw what was established in the Changes, and therefore expanded upon it. Wang Fusi spoke of Heaven without drifting into spiritual beings, and spoke of humanity while insisting on rectitude in affairs; did he not see the mind of the one who composed the Changes? Zixia prefaced the poem 'Guanju', understanding that the governance of the Odes lies in moral instruction. Mencius's discourse on the Odes perceived the purpose for which the Odes were created. Mao Chang's discourse on the Odes represents the depth of the Odes; Zheng Xuan's discourse on the Odes represents the shallowness of the Odes. In explaining the Odes, it is better to follow Duke Mao for brevity and simplicity. When the 'Treatise on the Five Elements' was composed, the Dao of the Documents began to fall into disorder. When the meaning of the Supreme Polarity was practiced, the Dao of the Documents was about to be rectified. Kong Anguo merely provided semantic glosses; regarding the undertakings of the sages and worthies, he revealed nothing. Master Dai, concerning Ritual, did not grasp its reality. Master Zheng's interpretation of Ritual was not as good as Zi Taishu's understanding of Ritual.' The questioner bowed twice and said: 'It is as though you have removed my blindness.' He withdrew in delight.