辯偽錄 2.7

2.7

辯曰。夫文字之聿興爰從上古。伏犧氏之王天下也。始畫八卦。造書契以代結繩之政。由是籍籍生焉。故有青丘紫府三皇刻石之文。綠檢黃繩六甲靈蜚之字。後有蒼頡因而增制。大篆起於史籀。小篆興於李斯。飛白創於蔡邕。隷書變於程邈。秦書八體。漢字六形。瘦金堆金垂雲垂露。蔡葉龍爪顏體坡書。皆循古以增成。近代而改制。豈假真氣而結。何關老子傳來。掩竊他能衒賣己德。放舒白眼不恥清流。上云。龍漢起於初氣。何有老子而生。既言紫筆書林。乃在蒙恬之後。牽今引古欺我賢人。孔安國云。伏犧神農黃帝之書。謂之三墳。言大道也。少昊顓頊高辛唐虞之書。謂之五典。言常道也。易則三聖方定。詩則群英之言。春秋孔子所修。禮則周公所定。爾雅周公所纂。國語丘明所述。劉熙釋名。許慎說文。埤蒼廣雅。桂苑珠叢。顧野王之玉篇。陸法言之切韻。各有源系。非干老聃而言。墳典自我而出。經籍自我而生。荒唐謬談侮弄明哲。亦由相如上林說盧橘夏熟。楊雄甘泉賦。玉樹冬蒨。聽其言則洋洋美耳。究其事則杳杳空傅。矧乎國名虛設。妄採他書。大福堂改大堂而取名。東浮黎彷扶桑而立號。南禪黎革重黎而標字。西衛羅竊於迦維羅衛。北方全收欝單越名。十洲所不收。神異所不攝。地理無所紀。括地絕形名。空闡五車了無一實。偷鐘掩耳。斯之謂歟。

The refutation states: The emergence of script indeed dates back to high antiquity. When Fuxi ruled all under heaven, he first drew the eight trigrams and created tally-writing to replace the governance of knotted cords; from this, written records came forth. Thus there were the stone carvings of the Three Sovereigns on Qingqiu and Zifu, and the texts of the Six Jia and Lingfei on green slips and yellow cords. Later, Cangjie augmented and regulated them. The large seal script arose with Shi Zhou; the small seal script flourished with Li Si; flying white was created by Cai Yong; clerical script was modified by Cheng Miao. The Qin script had eight styles; the Han script had six forms. Slender gold, piled gold, hanging clouds, and hanging dew; the Cai leaf, dragon claws, the Yan style, and the Po script—all followed antiquity by augmenting and perfecting, and were reformed in recent ages. How could they have congealed through genuine qi? What connection do they have to Laozi's transmission? They conceal and steal the talents of others while hawking their own virtue; rolling their eyes insolently, they feel no shame before the untainted. It was said above that the Longhan [era] arose from the primal qi—how then could Laozi have been born? Having said that he wrote on the grove with a purple brush, that was after Meng Tian! Pulling in the present to drag in the past, they deceive our worthy men. Kong Anguo said: 'The books of Fuxi, Shennong, and the Yellow Emperor are called the Three Fen, which speak of the Great Way. The books of Shaohao, Zhuanxu, Gaoxin, Tang, and Yu are called the Five Dian, which speak of the Constant Way.' The Changes was only finalized by three sages; the Odes are the words of a host of heroes; the Spring and Autumn Annals was revised by Confucius; the Rites was established by the Duke of Zhou; the Erya was compiled by the Duke of Zhou; the Guoyu was expounded by Zuo Qiuming; Liu Xi's Shiming; Xu Shen's Shuowen; the Picang and Guangya; the Guiyuan and Zhucong; Gu Yewang's Yupian; Lu Fayan's Qieyun—each has its own lineage and origin, and has nothing to do with Lao Dan. Yet they claim: 'The Fen and Dian issued from me; the classics and records were born from me.' Such wild, absurd talk ridicules and insults the clear-sighted! It is just like Sima Xiangru in his 'Shanglin Fu' stating that loquats ripen in summer, or Yang Xiong's 'Ganquan Fu' having jade trees flourish in winter: listening to their words, they are grand and pleasing to the ear, but examining their facts, they are distant, empty fabrications. Furthermore, their names of countries are falsely invented, recklessly culled from other books. 'Dafutang' was named by altering Datang; 'Dongfuli' was established by imitating Fusang; 'Nanzhanli' was labelled by adapting Chongli; 'Xiweiduo' was stolen from Kapilavastu; and the northern region completely adopted the name of Uttarakuru. They are not included in the Ten Continents; they are not encompassed by the Shenyi jing; the Dilizhi contains no record of them; and the Kuodi zhi has no such shapes or names. Empty talk expounding five cartloads without a single fact—is this not what is meant by 'stealing a bell while plugging one's ears'?