Volume 1

“楚莊王殺陳夏徵舒，春秋貶其文，不予專討也；靈王殺齊慶封，而直稱楚子，何也？”曰：“莊王之行賢，而徵舒之罪重，以賢君討重罪，其於人心善，若不貶，庸知其非正經，春秋常於其嫌得者，見其不得也。是故齊桓不予專地而封，晉文不予致王而朝，楚莊弗予專殺而討，三者不得，則諸侯之得，殆此矣，此楚靈之所以稱子而討也。春秋之辭多所況，是文約而法明也。”問者曰：“不予諸侯之專封，復見於陳蔡之滅；不予諸侯之專討，獨不復見慶封之殺，何也？”曰：“春秋之用辭，已明者去之，未明者著之。今諸侯之不得專討，固已明矣，而慶封之罪，未有所見也，故稱楚子，以伯討之，著其罪之宜死，以為天下大禁，曰：人臣之行，貶主之位，亂國之臣，雖不篡殺，其罪皆宜死。比於此，其云爾也。”“春秋曰：‘晉伐鮮虞。’奚惡乎晉，而同夷狄也？”曰：“春秋尊禮而重信，信重於地，禮尊於身。何以知其然也？宋伯姬疑禮而死於火，齊桓公疑信而虧其地，春秋賢而舉之，以為天下法。曰禮而信，禮無不答，施無不報，天之數也。今我君臣同姓適女，女無良心，禮以不答，有恐畏我，何其不夷狄也！公子慶父之亂，魯危殆亡，而齊桓安之，於彼無親，尚來憂我，如何與同姓而殘賊遇我。詩云：‘宛彼鳴鳩，翰飛戾天。我心憂傷，念彼先人。明發不昧，有懷二人。’人皆有此心也。今晉不以同姓憂我，而強大厭我，我心望焉，故言之不好，謂之晉而已，婉辭也。”問者曰：“晉惡而不可親，公往而不敢至，乃人情耳，君子何恥，而稱公有疾也？”曰：“惡無故自來，君子不恥，內省不疚，何憂於志是已矣。今春秋恥之者，昭公有以取之也。臣陵其君，始於文而甚於昭，公受亂陵夷，而無懼惕之心，囂囂然輕計妄討，犯大禮而取同姓，接不義而重自輕也。

"King Zhuang of Chu killed Xia Zhengshu of Chen, and the Spring and Autumn Annals disparages the wording, not granting him the title of one who punishes on his own authority; yet when King Ling killed Qing Feng of Qi, it directly calls him the Viscount of Chu. Why?" The answer: "King Zhuang's conduct was worthy and Zhengshu's crime was grave; using a worthy ruler to punish a grave crime is good in people's hearts. If it did not disparage him, how would one know that this was not the proper way? The Spring and Autumn often shows the impropriety in the very places where something seems proper. Thus it did not grant Duke Huan of Qi the title of enfeoffing on his own authority, did not grant Duke Wen of Jin the title of summoning the Son of Heaven to court, and did not grant Zhuang of Chu the title of killing and punishing on his own authority. If these three are denied, then what the lords may rightly do probably ends there. This is why it calls King Ling of Chu 'Viscount' and records him as punishing." The wording of the Spring and Autumn uses many comparisons, so the text is concise and the rule clear. The questioner said, "The refusal to grant lords the title of enfeoffing on their own authority is also seen in the destruction of Chen and Cai; but the refusal to grant lords the title of punishing on their own authority does not appear again in the killing of Qing Feng. Why?" The answer: "In its wording the Spring and Autumn removes what is already clear and brings out what is not yet clear. Now that lords cannot punish on their own authority was already clear, but Qing Feng's crime had not yet appeared, so it calls him the Viscount of Chu, punishing as a hegemon, to bring out that his crime deserved death, as a great prohibition for the world, saying: the conduct of a minister who disparages the ruler's position and throws the state into disorder deserves death even if he does not usurp or murder. Comparing to this, that is all." "The Spring and Autumn says: 'Jin attacked Xianyu.' Why does it hate Jin and treat it as barbarian?" The answer: "The Spring and Autumn honors ritual and values good faith. Good faith is weightier than land, and ritual is more honorable than one's own person. How do we know? Bo Ji of Song hesitated over ritual and died in a fire; Duke Huan of Qi hesitated over good faith and lost land. The Spring and Autumn praises and cites them as a rule for the world. Speaking of ritual and good faith: with ritual there is nothing that goes unanswered, and with a favor there is nothing that goes unrepaid; this is the number of Heaven. Now my ruler and ministers came to you as people of the same surname, and you have no conscience, do not answer ritual with ritual, and moreover fear me; how are you not barbarian! Prince Qingfu made disorder, and Lu was in danger and almost destroyed, but Duke Huan of Qi pacified it; he had no kinship there yet still worried about me. How can one who shares my surname treat me with cruelty? The Book of Songs says: 'Fluttering is that cooing dove, soaring on its wings to the sky. My heart is sad and wounded, thinking of those who went before. Awake till dawn without sleeping, I think of the two.' All people have this feeling. Now Jin does not worry about me because of our shared surname but oppresses me by its strength. In my heart I resent it, so I do not speak kindly and merely call it 'Jin'; this is veiled wording." The questioner said, "Jin was bad and unapproachable, and when the duke set out but did not dare to arrive, that was merely human feeling; what is shameful in that for a gentleman, that it says the duke was ill?" The answer: "If evil comes of itself without cause, the gentleman is not ashamed; if on self-examination there is no fault, what is there to worry about in that? That is how it is. Now that the Spring and Autumn treats it as shameful, it is because Duke Zhao himself had ways of drawing it on. Ministers have been overriding rulers since Duke Wen and it was worse under Duke Zhao; the duke received disorder and decline without any fear or caution, loudly and carelessly deliberating and rashly attacking, offending against great ritual by marrying one of the same surname, associating with the unrighteous and thereby making himself even more contemptible."

人之言曰：‘國家治則四鄰賀，國家亂則四鄰散。’是故季孫專其位，而大國莫之正，出走八年，死乃得歸，身亡子危，困之至也。君子不恥其困，而恥其所以窮。昭公雖逢此時，苟不取同姓，詎至於是；雖取同姓，能用孔子自輔，亦不至如是。時難而治簡，行枉而無救，是其所以窮也。”

A saying of the people goes: "When a state is well governed, the four neighbors congratulate it; when a state is in disorder, the four neighbors scatter." Therefore Ji Sun held the position on his own, no great state came to set it right, and the duke fled for eight years and returned only in death, his body dead and his son in danger, an extreme of distress. The gentleman is not ashamed of hardship but of the reasons for his poverty. Even if Duke Zhao had met this time, if he had not married one of the same surname, how would it have come to this; even if he had married one of the same surname, if he had used Confucius to assist him, it would not have been like this. The times were hard and his governing was careless, his conduct crooked and without rescue; this is why he ended in poverty.

春秋分十二世以為三等：有見、有聞、有傳聞。有見三世，有聞四世，有傳聞五世。故哀、定、昭，君子之所見也，襄、成、文、宣，君子之所聞也，僖、閔、莊、桓、隱，君子之所傳聞也。所見六十一年，所聞八十五年，所傳聞九十六年。於所見，微其辭，於所聞，痛其禍，於傳聞，殺其恩，與情俱也。是故逐季氏，而言又雩，微其辭也；子赤殺，弗忍書日，痛其禍也；子般殺，而書乙未，殺其恩也。屈伸之志，詳略之文，皆應之，吾以其近近而遠遠、親親而疏疏也，亦知其貴貴而賤賤、重重而輕輕也，有知其厚厚而薄薄、善善而惡惡也，有知其陽陽而陰陰、白白而黑黑也。百物皆有合偶，偶之合之，仇之匹之，善矣。詩云：‘威儀抑抑，德音秩秩，無怨無惡，率由仇匹。’此之謂也。然則春秋義之大者也，得一端而博達之，觀其是非，可以得其正法，視其溫辭，可以知其塞怨，是故於外道而不顯，於內諱而不隱，於尊亦然，於賢亦然，此其別內外、差賢不肖、而等尊卑也。義不訕上，智不危身，故遠者以義諱，近者以智畏，畏與義兼，則世逾近，而言逾謹矣，此定、哀之所以微其辭。以故用則天下平，不用則安其身，春秋之道也。

The Spring and Autumn divides the twelve generations into three grades: what was seen, what was heard, and what was transmitted. There are three generations that were seen, four that were heard, and five that were transmitted. So Ai, Ding and Zhao are those the gentleman saw; Xiang, Cheng, Wen and Xuan are those the gentleman heard; Xi, Min, Zhuang, Huan and Yin are those the gentleman received by hearsay. What was seen covers sixty-one years, what was heard eighty-five years, and what was transmitted ninety-six years. For what was seen, the wording is veiled; for what was heard, the disaster is lamented; for what was transmitted, the kindness is reduced, in keeping with feeling. Thus the expulsion of the Ji clan is described as another rain sacrifice, which is veiled wording; Zichi was killed and the day is not written because it could not be borne, which laments the disaster; Zi Ban was killed but the day yiwei is written, which reduces the kindness. The aim of bending and extending, and the text of detail and brevity, all correspond to this. From its drawing near to the near and distance to the distant, its closeness to the close and remoteness to the remote, I also know that it honors the honorable and humbles the humble, weighs the weighty and lightens the light; I also know that it makes generous what is generous and thin what is thin, approves the good and hates the evil; I also know that it makes yang yang and yin yin, white white and black black. All things have their pairs, and matching and joining them as mates and partners is good. The Book of Songs says: 'Dignified and composed, with a harmonious reputation, without resentment or hate, follow your mates and partners.' This is what it means. So the meaning of the Spring and Autumn is great; get hold of one end and you can extend it broadly, look at its rights and wrongs and you can find the correct law, look at its gentle words and you can know how to block resentment. Thus it speaks outward without exposing, avoids mentioning within without concealing, and does so for the honorable and likewise for the worthy; this distinguishes inside and outside, grades the worthy and unworthy, and ranks the honored and humble. Righteousness does not slander superiors, and wisdom does not endanger oneself, so for the distant it uses righteousness to avoid speaking, and for the near it uses wisdom to fear; fear and righteousness exist together, so the nearer the age, the more cautious the words, and this is why the wording under Ding and Ai is veiled. Therefore, if it is used, the world is at peace; if not used, one keeps oneself safe. This is the Way of the Spring and Autumn.

春秋之道，奉天而法古。是故雖有巧手，弗修規矩，不能正方圓；雖有察耳，不吹六律，不能定五音；雖有知心，不覽先王，不能平天下；然則先王之遺道，亦天下之規矩六律已！故聖者法天，賢者法聖，此其大數也；得大數而治，失大數而亂，此治亂之分也；所聞天下無二道，故聖人異治同理也，古今通達，故先賢傳其法於後世也。春秋之於世事也，善復古，譏易常，欲其法先王也。然而介以一言曰：“王者必改制。”自僻者得此以為辭，曰：“古苟可循，先王之道，何莫相因。”世迷是聞，以疑正道而信邪言，甚可患也。答之曰：“人有聞諸侯之君射狸首之樂者，於是自斷狸首，縣而射之，曰：‘安在於樂也？’此聞其名，而不知其實者也。今所謂新王必改制者，非改其道，非變其理，受命於天，易姓更王，非繼前王而王也，若一因前制，修故業，而無有所改，是與繼前王而王者無以別。受命之君，天之所大顯也；事父者承意，事君者儀志，事天亦然；今天大顯已，物襲所代，而率與同，則不顯不明，非天志，故必徒居處，更稱號，改正朔，易服色者，無他焉，不敢不順天志，而明自顯也。若夫大綱，人倫道理，政治教化，習俗文義盡如故，亦何改哉！故王者有改制之名，無易道之實。孔子曰：‘無為而治者，其舜乎！’言其王堯之道而已，此非不易之效與！”問者曰：“物改而天授，顯矣，其必更作樂，何也？”曰：“樂異乎是，製為應天改之，樂為應人作之，彼之所受命者，必民之所同樂也。是故大改制於初，所以明天命也；更作樂於終，所以見天功也；緣天下之所新樂，而為之文，且以和政，且以興德，天下未遍合和，王者不虛作樂，樂者，盈於內而動發於外者也，應其治時，制禮作樂以成之，成者本末質文，皆以具矣。是故作樂者，必反天下之所始樂於己以為本。

The Way of the Spring and Autumn is to serve Heaven and take the ancients as the model. So even with skilled hands, if one does not maintain the compass and square, one cannot make round or square properly; even with keen ears, if one does not blow the six pitch pipes, one cannot fix the five notes; even with a wise mind, if one does not study the former kings, one cannot bring peace to the world. Then the Way left behind by the former kings is the world's compass and square and six pitch pipes! So the sage takes Heaven as his model, the worthy takes the sage as his model, and this is the great number. Obtaining the great number brings order, and losing it brings disorder; this is the distinction between order and disorder. I have heard that there are not two Ways under Heaven; so the sages governed differently but their principle was the same, and being through ancient and modern, the earlier worthies passed their laws on to later ages. The Spring and Autumn in worldly affairs likes returning to antiquity and criticizes changing the constant rules, wanting it to model itself on the former kings. Yet it inserts one remark: 'A true king must reform the institutions.' Someone from a remote place gets hold of this remark as an excuse and says, 'If antiquity could be followed, why did the Way of the former kings not follow each other?' The people of the age are misled by this report, and therefore doubt the right Way and believe wicked words, which is a worrying thing. The answer: Someone heard that the lords of old shot at the music of 'Lishou'; so he cut off a wild cat's head and hung it up to shoot at it, saying 'What has this to do with music?' This is hearing the name and not knowing the reality. Now when it is said that a new king must reform the institutions, it does not mean changing the Way or altering the principle. When one receives the mandate from Heaven and a new surname replaces the old and becomes king, one is not continuing the former king and calling oneself king. If one followed the former institutions entirely, repaired the old enterprise without any changes, there would be no difference from continuing the former king and calling oneself king. The ruler who receives the mandate is greatly manifested by Heaven; one who serves his father takes his intention, one who serves his lord takes his will as model, and so it is also in serving Heaven. Now Heaven greatly manifests itself, yet if things follow those they replace and are entirely the same, it is not manifest and not clear, and not the will of Heaven. So there must be a move of residence, a change of title, a reform of the calendar, and a change of clothing and colors, and nothing else: it is that one dares not fail to follow Heaven's will and so makes oneself manifest. As for the great outline, human relationships, political teaching, customs and cultural meaning, all stay as before; what would there be to change! So a true king has the name of reforming institutions but not the reality of changing the Way. Confucius said, 'One who ruled by non-action was probably Shun!' This means that when he became king he simply used the Way of Yao, and is this not proof that it does not change? The questioner said, "Things change and Heaven bestows; this is already clear. Why must new music be composed as well?" The answer: Music differs from this. Institutions are changed to respond to Heaven, and music is composed to respond to people. The mandate he received must be something the people share in rejoicing. So the beginning of great reform is to make Heaven's mandate clear, and the end of composing new music is to display Heaven's achievement; following what the world newly rejoices in, one makes a composition for it, which both harmonizes government and stirs up virtue. If the world is not yet generally in harmony, a true king does not compose music in vain. Music is filled within and moves outward; in response to that time of order, rites are made and music is composed to complete it. When complete, root and branch, substance and form are all present. So one who composes music must return to what the world originally rejoiced in because of him as the root.

舜時，民樂其昭堯之業也，故韶，韶者，昭也；禹之時，民樂其三聖相繼，故夏，夏者，大也；湯之時，民樂其救之於患害也，故頀，頀者，救也；文王之時，民樂其興師征伐也，故武，武者，伐也。四者天下同樂之，一也，其所同樂之端，不可一也。作樂之法，必反本之所樂，所樂不同事，樂安得不世異！是故舜作韶而禹作夏，湯作頀而文王作武，四樂殊名，則各順其民始樂於己也，吾見其效矣。詩云：‘文王受命，有此武功；既伐於崇，作邑於豐。’樂之風也。又曰：‘王赫斯怒，爰整其旅。’當是時，紂為無道，諸侯大亂，民樂文王之怒，而歌詠之也。周人德已洽天下，反本以為樂，謂之大武，言民所始樂者，武也云爾。故凡樂者，作之於終，而名之以始，重本之義也。由此觀之，正朔服色之改，受命應天，制禮作樂之異，人心之動也，二者離而複合，所為一也。”

In the time of Shun, the people rejoiced that he illuminated the work of Yao, so it was called Shao, and Shao means illuminating; in the time of Yu, the people rejoiced in the succession of three sages, so it was called Xia, and Xia means great; in the time of Tang, the people rejoiced at being rescued from calamity, so it was called Hu, and Hu means rescue; in the time of King Wen, the people rejoiced in the raising of troops to campaign, so it was called Wu, and Wu means attack. In all four the world rejoiced alike, which is one thing; but the cause of rejoicing alike cannot be one. The rule for composing music is to return to what was originally rejoiced in, and since what was rejoiced in differed, how could the music not differ from age to age! So Shun composed Shao and Yu composed Xia, Tang composed Hu and King Wen composed Wu; the four musics have different names, each following what the people originally rejoiced in because of him. I have seen the evidence. The Book of Songs says: 'King Wen received the mandate and had this martial achievement; having attacked Chong, he built a city at Feng.' This is the transforming influence of music. It also says: 'The king flared in anger, and then he marshaled his army.' At that time Zhou was without the Way and the lords were in great disorder, and the people rejoiced at King Wen's anger and so sang it. The virtue of the people of Zhou had already spread throughout the world, and returning to what was originally done to compose music, it was called Great Wu, meaning that what the people originally rejoiced in was martial achievement, and that is all. So in all music, it is composed at the end but named for the beginning, which is the meaning of valuing the root. Seen this way, the changes of calendar and colors are receiving the mandate and answering Heaven, and the differences in making rites and composing music are the stirring of human hearts. The two are separate and yet unite, and what they do is one.

春秋譏文公以喪取。難者曰：“喪之法，不過三年，三年之喪，二十五月。今按經：文公乃四十一月方取，取時無喪，出其法也久矣，何以謂之喪取？”曰：“春秋之論事，莫重於志。今取必納幣，納幣之月在喪分，故謂之喪取也。且文公秋祫祭，以冬納幣，皆失於太蚤，春秋不譏其前，而顧譏其後，必以三年之喪，肌膚之情也，雖從俗而不能終，猶宜未平於心，今全無悼遠之志，反思念取事，是春秋之所甚疾也，故譏不出三年，於首而已譏以喪取也，不別先後，賤其無人心也。緣此以論禮，禮之所重者，在其志，志敬而節具，則君子予之知禮；志和而音雅，則君子予之知樂；誌哀而居約，則君子予之知喪。故曰非虛加之，重志之謂也。志為質，物為文，文著於質，質不居文，文安施質；質文兩備，然後其禮成；文質偏行，不得有我爾之名；俱不能備，而偏行之，寧有質而無文，雖弗予能禮，尚少善之，介葛盧來是也；有文無質，非直不予，乃少惡之，謂州公寔來是也。然則春秋之序道也，先質而後文，右志而左物，故曰：‘禮雲禮云，玉帛云乎哉！’推而前之，亦宜曰：朝雲朝云，辭令云乎哉！‘樂雲樂云，鐘鼓云乎哉！’引而後之，亦宜曰：喪雲喪云，衣服云乎哉！是故孔子立新王之道，明其貴志以反和，見其好誠以滅偽，其有繼周之弊，故若此也。

The Spring and Autumn criticizes Duke Wen for taking a wife during mourning. The critic said, "The rule for mourning does not exceed three years, and the three-year mourning is twenty-five months. Now by the Classic, Duke Wen married only in the forty-first month; at the time of marrying there was no mourning, and he had already exceeded that rule for a long time. Why is it called marrying during mourning?" The answer: "In discussing affairs, the Spring and Autumn gives nothing more weight than intention. Now to marry one must give betrothal gifts, and the month of giving the gifts was still within the mourning period, so it is called marrying in mourning. Moreover, Duke Wen held the combined sacrifice in autumn and gave the betrothal gifts in winter, both of which were too early; the Spring and Autumn does not criticize the earlier but criticizes the later, because the three-year mourning is a matter of feeling in the flesh and skin, and even if one follows custom and cannot complete it, the heart should still be unsettled. Now he had no thought of grieving for the distant dead at all but thought instead of marrying, which the Spring and Autumn deeply hates. So it criticizes him not only after three years, but at the beginning it already criticizes marrying in mourning, without distinguishing before and after, to despise his lack of human feeling. Discussing ritual in this light: what ritual values is intention. When intention is reverent and the forms are complete, the gentleman grants that he knows ritual; when intention is harmonious and the sound elegant, the gentleman grants that he knows music; when intention is grieving and one's dwelling is simple, the gentleman grants that he knows mourning. So it is not said to add emptily but is a statement that values intention. Intention is substance and things are form. Form attaches to substance; if substance does not stay put, how can form be applied to substance? Only when substance and form are both present is ritual accomplished; if form and substance go separately, one cannot have the name 'we.' If both cannot be complete and one must go separately, it is better to have substance without form. Even if one is not granted knowing ritual, he is treated a little kindly, as in the case of Ge Lu coming; to have form without substance is not only not granted but slightly disliked, as in the case of the Duke of Zhou truly coming. So the Spring and Autumn orders the Way with substance first and form after, intention on the right and things on the left. Hence it is said, 'Ritual, ritual, do they mean jade and silk?' Pushed forward, it should also be said: court, court, does it mean speech and words? 'Music, music, do they mean bells and drums?' Pulled backward, it should also be said: mourning, mourning, does it mean clothes? So Confucius set up the Way of the new king, showing that he valued intention in order to return to harmony and showed his love of sincerity in order to extinguish falsehood. That is because there was the corruption of those who succeeded Zhou, so he was like this."

春秋之法：以人隨君，以君隨天。曰：緣民臣之心，不可一日無君，一日不可無君，而猶三年稱子者，為君心之未當立也，此非以人隨君耶！孝子之心，三年不當，而踰年即位者，與天數俱終始也，此非以君隨天邪！故屈民而伸君，屈君而伸天，春秋之大義也。

The rule of the Spring and Autumn: let people follow the ruler, and let the ruler follow Heaven. It says: following the hearts of the people and ministers, one cannot be without a ruler even for a day. One cannot be without a ruler for a day, yet for three years the successor is still called 'son,' because the ruler's heart is not yet right to take the throne; is this not people following the ruler! The heart of a filial son does not feel right for three years, yet he takes the throne after the year turns, in step with the number of Heaven from beginning to end; is this not the ruler following Heaven! So bending the people to extend the ruler and bending the ruler to extend Heaven is the great meaning of the Spring and Autumn.

春秋論十二世之事，人道浹而王道備，法布二百四十二年之中，相為左右，以成文采，其居參錯，非襲古也。是故論春秋者，合而通之，緣而求之，五其比，偶其類，覽其緒，屠其贅，是以人道浹而王法立。以為不然，今夫天子踰年即位，諸侯於封內三年稱子，皆不在經也，而操之與在經無以異，非無其辨也，有所見而經安受其贅也，故能以比貫類，以辨付贅者，大得之矣。

In discussing affairs of the twelve generations, the Spring and Autumn has the human Way fully pervading and the kingly Way complete, its laws spread across two hundred and forty-two years, supporting each other on the left and right to form its pattern, arranged in interleaving positions rather than following the ancients. So those who discuss the Spring and Autumn combine and thread through, seek in sequence, compare its parallels, match its kinds, view its threads, and remove what is superfluous, and so the human Way pervades and the kingly law is established. To think otherwise: the Son of Heaven taking the throne after the year turns and the lords being called 'son' for three years within their borders are neither in the Classic, yet when held up they are no different from being in the Classic. This is not without discernment; there is something seen, so how could the Classic accept surplus? So those who can thread through kinds by parallels and give surplus to discernment gain a great deal.

人受命於天，有善善惡惡之性，可養而不可改，可豫而不可去，若形體之可肥轢而不可得革也。是故雖有至賢，能為君親含容其惡，不能為君親令無惡。書曰：“厥闢去厥只”事親亦然，皆忠孝之極也，非至賢安能如是。父不父則子不子，君不君則臣不臣耳。

People receive mandate from Heaven and have a nature that loves the good and hates the evil; it can be nurtured but not changed, can be guarded against but not removed, just as the body can be fat or thin but cannot be reformed. So even the most worthy can only tolerate the evil of ruler or parent on their behalf, but cannot make them without evil. The Book of Documents says: 'The prince removes his...' So also in serving parents; these are all the utmost of loyalty and filial piety, and who but the most worthy could do this? If the father does not act as father the son does not act as son, and if the ruler does not act as ruler the minister does not act as minister, and that is all.

文公不能服喪，不時奉祭，不以三年，又以喪取，取於大夫，以卑宗廟，亂其群祖，以逆先公，小善無一，而大惡四五；故諸侯弗予盟，命大夫弗為使，是惡惡之徵，不臣之效也。出侮於外，入奪於內，無位之君也。孔子曰：“政逮於大夫，四世矣。”蓋自文公以來之謂也。

Duke Wen could not keep the mourning, did not make sacrifices at the proper times, did not use the three years, and married during mourning, marrying a daughter of a grandee, thereby lowering the ancestral temple, throwing the ancestors into disorder and going against former dukes. He had not one small good and had four or five great evils; so the lords did not give him covenants and the grandees ordered by him did not serve as envoys. This is the proof of hating evil and the evidence of not being treated as a lord. Going out he was insulted abroad, and coming in he was robbed at home; he was a ruler without a position. Confucius said, 'Government has been in the hands of the grandees for four generations.' This probably refers to the time since Duke Wen.

君子知在位者不能以惡服人也，是故簡六藝以贍養之。詩書序其志，禮樂純其美，易春秋明其知，六學皆大，而各有所長。詩道志，故長於質；禮制節，故長於文；樂詠德，故長於風；書著功，故長於事；易本天地，故長於數；春秋正是非，故長於治人；能兼得其所長，而不能遍舉其詳也。故人主大節則知闇，大博則業厭，二者異失同貶，其傷必至，不可不察也。是故善為師者，既美其道，有慎其行，齊時蚤晚，任多少，適疾徐，造而勿趨，稽而勿苦，省其所為，而成其所湛，故力不勞，而身大成，此之謂聖化，吾取之。

The gentleman knows that those in position cannot make people submit by evil, so he selects the Six Arts to nourish them. The Odes and Documents arrange their aims in order, the Rites and Music purify their beauty, and the Changes and Spring and Autumn make their knowledge clear. All six studies are great, and each has its strength. The Odes guide aims, so they are strong in substance; the Rites set measures, so they are strong in form; Music chants virtue, so it is strong in moral influence; the Documents display achievement, so they are strong in affairs; the Changes take Heaven and Earth as their root, so they are strong in numbers; the Spring and Autumn sets right and wrong, so it is strong in governing people. One can combine their strengths but cannot cite all their details. So a ruler who is too restrained is dim in knowledge, and one who is too broad grows weary of affairs; the two faults differ yet are equally condemned, harm is sure to come, and one must examine this. Therefore one who is good at being a teacher both esteems his Way and is careful in his conduct, keeps even time of early and late, appoints more or fewer, quick or slow as fitting, develops without hurrying, examines without making them suffer, observes what they do and completes what they have deeply engaged in, so the strength is not exhausted and the person is greatly accomplished. This is called sage transformation, and I take this.

春秋之好微與，其貴志也。春秋修本末之義，達變故之應，通生死之志，遂人道之極者也。是故君殺賊討，則善而書其誅；若莫之討，則君不書葬，而賊不復見矣。不書葬，以為無臣子也；賊不復見，以其宜滅絕也。今趙盾弒君，四年之後，別牘復見，非春秋之常辭也。古今之學者異而問之曰：“是弒君，何以復見？猶曰賊未討，何以書葬？何以書葬者，不宜書葬也而書葬；何以復見者，亦不宜復見也而復見；二者同貫，不得不相若也。盾之復見，直以赴問而辨不親弒，非不當誅也；則亦不得不謂悼公之書葬，直以赴問而辨不成弒，非不當罪也。若是則春秋之說亂矣，豈可法哉！”“故貫比而論，是非雖難悉得，其義一也。今盾誅無傳，弗誅無傳，以比言之，法論也，無比而處之，誣辭也，今視其比，皆不當死，何以誅之。春秋赴問數百，應問數千，同留經中，翻援比類，以發其端，卒無妄言，而得應於傳者；今使外賊不可誅，故皆復見，而問曰：‘此復見，何也？’言莫妄於是，何以得應乎！故吾以其得應，知其問之不妄，以其問之不妄，知盾之獄不可不察也。夫名為弒父，而實免罪者，已有之矣；亦有名為弒君，而罪不誅者，逆而距之，不若徐而味之，且吾語盾有本，詩云：‘他人有心，予忖度之。’此言物莫無鄰，察視其外，可以見其內也。今案盾事，而觀其心，願而不刑，合而信之，非篡弒之鄰也，按盾辭號乎天，苟內不誠，安能如是，是故訓其終始，無弒之志，枸惡謀者，過在不遂去，罪在不討賊而已。臣之宜為君討賊也，猶子之宜為父嘗藥也；子不嘗藥，故加之弒父，臣不討賊，故加之弒君，其義一也。所以示天下廢臣子之節，其惡之大若此也。故盾之不討賊為弒君也，與止之不嘗藥為弒父無以異，盾不宜誅，以此參之。”問者曰：“夫謂之弒，而有不誅，其論難知，非蒙之所能見也。

The Spring and Autumn Annals likes the subtle and values the intention behind an act. It sets in order the meaning of root and branch, comprehends how to respond to changing events, penetrates the intention in life and death, and brings the Way of humanity to its utmost. Therefore, when a ruler is murdered and the traitor is punished, it commends this by recording the execution; if no one punishes the traitor, then the ruler's burial is not recorded and the traitor's name does not appear again. Not recording the burial means there are no ministers; the traitor not appearing again means he ought to be wiped out. Now Zhao Dun murdered his ruler, and four years later his name appeared again on a separate tablet, which is not the Annals' usual wording. Scholars past and present differ and ask: "This was regicide, so why does he appear again? It is as if the traitor had not yet been punished, so why is the burial recorded? Why is the burial recorded when it should not have been recorded? And why does he appear again when he should not have appeared again? The two run through each other and must be alike. Dun appearing again was only because someone went to inquire and it was clarified that he did not personally commit the murder, not because he should not have been punished; and then one cannot but also say that Duke Dao's burial being recorded was only because someone went to inquire and it was clarified that the regicide was not completed, not because he was not guilty. If so, the Annals' statements would be in chaos; how could it be taken as a model!" So when discussing by drawing parallels, although right and wrong may not be fully obtained, the principle is the same. Now that Dun was punished has no commentary, and that he was not punished has no commentary; to explain it by analogy is a legitimate argument, but to settle it without analogy is false speech. Now looking at those analogies, none of them should have died, so on what ground should he be punished? The Annals contains hundreds of inquiries and thousands of answers, all kept together in the classic; by turning and drawing analogies to open the matter, in the end it never speaks recklessly and can be answered in the commentaries. Now if an outside traitor could not be punished, he would all appear again, but then one asks: "Why does he appear again?" No words are more reckless than that; how can one get an answer! So because of this I get an answer, and know the question is not reckless; because the question is not reckless, I know Dun's case cannot but be examined. There are already those who are named as killing a father but in fact are free of guilt, and also those named as killing a ruler whose guilt is not punished. Rejecting it in the opposite direction is not as good as savoring it slowly. Moreover, I say Dun has a basis: the Book of Odes says: "Others have hearts, and I can fathom them." This means that nothing is without neighbors, and by observing the outside one can see the inside. Now taking Dun's affair and looking at his mind, he wished and did not use punishment, joined and trusted; he was not a neighbor of usurpation and murder. Taking Dun crying out to Heaven, if he were not sincere within, how could he be so? Therefore, interpreting from beginning to end, he had no intention to murder. Those who frame him with evil plots find his fault in not leaving as soon as it was not carried through, and his guilt lies merely in not punishing the traitor. A minister should punish traitors on behalf of the ruler, just as a son should taste the medicine for his father; if the son does not taste the medicine, the label of killing his father is added; if the minister does not punish the traitor, the label of killing his ruler is added; the principle is the same. This is to show the world how great is the evil of abandoning the duties of ministers and sons. So Dun's not punishing the traitor is killing the ruler, no different from Zhi's not tasting medicine being killing his father. Dun ought not to be executed; use this to verify it." The questioner said: "Called regicide yet not executed; this argument is hard to know and is not something that a benighted person can see.

故赦止之罪，以傳明之；盾不誅，無傳，何也？”曰：“世亂義廢，背上不臣，篡弒覆君者多，而有明大惡之誅，誰言其誅？故晉趙盾、楚公子比皆不誅之文，而弗為傳，弗欲明之心也。”問者曰：“人弒其君，重卿在而弗能討者，非一國也。靈公弒，趙盾不在，不在之與在，惡有厚薄，春秋責在而不討賊者，弗系臣子爾也；責不在而不討賊者，乃加弒焉，何其責厚惡之薄，薄惡之厚也？”曰：“春秋之道，視人所惑，為立說以大明之。今趙盾賢，而不遂於理，皆見其善，莫見其罪，故因其所賢，而加之大惡，系之重責，使人湛思，而自省悟以反道，曰：‘籲！君臣之大義，父子之道，乃至乎此。’此所由惡薄而責之厚也；他國不討賊者，諸斗筲之民，何足數哉！弗系人數而已，此所由惡厚而責薄也。傳曰：‘輕為重，重為輕。’非是之謂乎！故公子比嫌可以立，趙盾嫌無臣責，許止嫌無子罪，春秋為人不知惡，而恬行不備也，是故重累責之，以繅枉世而直之，繅者不過其正弗能直，知此而義畢矣。”

So the pardon of Zhi's guilt is explained by the commentary; Dun's not being executed has no commentary; why?" He said: "When the world is in chaos and righteousness is abandoned, those who go against their superiors and are not ministers, usurp, murder and overturn rulers are many, and if there were executions that make great evils plain, who would speak of those executions? So Zhao Dun of Jin and Prince Bi of Chu are both texts where there is no execution, yet no commentary is made, for it is not wanting to make the mind plain." The questioner said: "When a person kills his ruler and the senior ministers are present but cannot punish him, this is not just one state. When Duke Ling was murdered, Zhao Dun was not present. Being present and not being present differ in thickness of evil. The Annals blames the one present who did not punish the traitor only by not counting him among the ministers; but blames the one not present who did not punish the traitor by adding regicide; why is the blame light for the thick evil and heavy for the thin evil?" He said: "The way of the Annals is to look at what people are confused about and to establish an explanation for them in great clarity. Now Zhao Dun was worthy but did not follow principle through, and all saw his goodness and did not see his fault, so, relying on what he was worthy in, it adds a great evil and ties a heavy blame to it, making people think deeply and awaken on their own to return to the Way, saying: 'Ah! The great righteousness between ruler and minister and the way of father and son have come to this.' This is why the evil is light and the blame is heavy; the other states that did not punish traitors were all petty people, worth counting? It just does not count them among people, and this is why the evil is thick and the blame is light. The Commentary says: 'Light becomes heavy and heavy becomes light.' Is this not what it says! So Prince Bi appears to be fit to be established, Zhao Dun appears to have no minister's blame, and Xu Zhi appears to have no son's guilt; the Annals, because people do not know the evil and act calmly without precaution, therefore piles on the blame in layers in order to straighten a crooked age. Correcting what is crooked without going past straight cannot straighten it. Knowing this, the principle is complete."

春秋之常辭也，不予夷狄，而予中國為禮，至邲之戰，偏然反之，何也？”曰：“春秋無通辭，從變而移，今晉變而為夷狄，楚變而為君子，故移其辭以從其事。夫莊王之舍鄭，有可貴之美，晉人不知其善，而欲擊之，所救已解，如挑與之戰，此無善善之心，而輕救民之意也，是以賤之，而不使得與賢者為禮。秦穆侮蹇叔而大敗，鄭文輕眾而喪師，春秋之敬賢重民如是。是故戰攻侵伐，雖數百起，必一二書，傷其害所重也。”問者曰：“其書戰伐甚謹，其惡戰伐無辭，何也？”曰：“會同之事，大者主小，戰伐之事，後者主先，苟不惡，何為使起之者居下，是其惡戰伐之辭已！且春秋之法，凶年不修舊，意在無苦民爾；苦民尚惡之，況傷民乎！傷民尚痛之，況殺民乎！故曰：凶年修舊則譏，造邑則諱，是害民之小者，惡之小也；害民之大者，惡之大也，今戰伐之於民，其為害幾何！考意而觀指，則春秋之所惡者，不任德而任力，驅民而殘賊之；其所好者，設而勿用，仁義以服之也。詩云：‘弛其文德，洽此四國。’此春秋之所善也。夫德不足以親近，而文不足以來遠，而斷斷以戰伐為之者，此固春秋所甚疾已，皆非義也。”難者曰：“春秋之書戰伐也，有惡有善也，惡軸擊而善偏戰，恥伐喪而榮復讎，奈何以春秋為無義戰而盡惡之也？”曰：“凡春秋之記災異也，雖畝有數莖，猶謂之無麥苗也；今天下之大，三百年之久，戰攻侵伐，不可勝數，而復讎者有二焉，是何以異於無麥苗之有數莖哉！不足以難之，故謂之無義戰也。以無義戰為不可，則無麥苗亦不可也；以無麥苗為可，則無義戰亦可矣。若春秋之於偏戰也，善其偏，不善其戰，有以效其然也。春秋愛人，而戰者殺人，君子奚說善殺其所愛哉！故春秋之於偏戰也，猶其於諸夏也，引之魯，則謂之外，引之夷狄，則謂之內；

"The Annals' usual wording does not credit the barbarians but credits the Central States with ritual, but at the battle of Bi it is exactly reversed; why?" He said: "The Annals has no fixed universal wording and shifts as things change. Now Jin changed into barbarians and Chu changed into gentlemen, so it shifted its wording to follow the events. King Zhuang let Zheng go, which was a valuable beauty; the men of Jin did not recognize that good and wanted to attack him, and when the rescue was already finished they stirred up war with him; this is having no heart for esteeming the good and treating lightly the intent of rescuing the people, and so it despises them and does not let them perform ritual with the worthy. Duke Mu of Qin insulted Jian Shu and was greatly defeated, and Duke Wen of Zheng made light of the people and lost his army; this is how far the Annals respects the worthy and values the people. Therefore battles, attacks, invasions and campaigns, though hundreds, are all recorded one by one, because they harm what it values." The questioner said: "Recording of battles is very careful, yet there is no wording expressing hatred of warfare; why?" He said: "In matters of meeting and assembly, the great takes charge of the small; in matters of battle and campaign, the later takes charge of the earlier. If it did not hate it, why put the initiator below? That is already wording that hates warfare! Moreover, according to the Annals' law, in a famine year old works are not repaired, meaning only not to burden the people; if burdening the people is already disliked, how much more harming them! If harming the people is already lamented, how much more killing them! So it is said: repairing old works in a famine year is criticized, and building towns is avoided in the record. Where the harm to people is small, the evil is also small; where the harm is great, the evil is also great. Now what harm do battles and campaigns do to the people! Examining the intent and seeing its direction, what the Annals hates is not employing virtue but employing force, driving the people and ravaging them; what it likes is establishing without using, and winning people's trust through benevolence and righteousness. The Book of Odes says: 'Relax his civil virtue and harmonize these four states.' This is what the Annals approves. If virtue is not enough to bring people close and culture not enough to attract those far away, yet one resolutely acts by means of warfare, this is what the Annals deeply hates, and none of it is righteous." The critic said: "The Annals records battles and campaigns, with some evil and some good: it hates sneak attacks and approves of formal battles, is ashamed of attacking a state in mourning and honors avenging a wrong; how can one say that the Annals has no righteous wars and hates all of them?" He said: "Whenever the Annals records calamities and anomalies, even if there are a few stalks in a field, it still says there was no wheat sprout; now in a world so large and over three hundred years so long, battles, campaigns and invasions are countless, and those for revenge are two; how is that different from a few stalks among no wheat sprouts! They are not enough to blame, so it is called having no righteous wars. If it is wrong to say there are no righteous wars, then it is also wrong to say there are no wheat sprouts; if it is right to say there are no wheat sprouts, then it is right to say there are no righteous wars. As for how the Annals treats formal battles, it approves the formality, not the battle, and this is verified by such things. The Annals loves people, and those who fight kill people; how can a gentleman be said to like killing those he loves! So the Annals, regarding formal battle, is like regarding the Chinese states: relative to Lu it calls them outer, relative to the barbarians it calls them inner;

比之軸戰，則謂之義，比之不戰，則謂之不義；故盟不如不盟，然而有所謂善盟；戰不如不戰，然而有所謂善戰；不義之中有義，義之中有不義；辭不能及，皆在於指，非精心達思者，其庸能知之！詩云：‘棠棣之華，偏其反而；豈不爾思，室是遠而。’孔子曰：‘未之思也！夫何遠之有？’由是觀之，見其指者，不任其辭，不任其辭，然後可與適道矣。”

compared with a deceitful battle, it is called righteous; compared with no battle, it is called unrighteous. So a covenant is not as good as no covenant, yet there is what is called a good covenant; a battle is not as good as no battle, yet there is what is called a good battle. Within the unrighteous there is righteousness, and within righteousness there is unrighteousness. Wording cannot reach all of it, and it lies in the intent; who but one who thinks intensively and reaches deep could know it! The Book of Odes says: 'The flowers of the cherry tree, how they flutter and turn; do I not think of you? But your house is far away.' Confucius said: 'He has not thought of it! What is far about it?' From this we see that one who sees the intent is not bound by the wording; being unbound by the wording, one can then proceed to the Way with him."

“司馬子反為君使，廢君命，與敵情，從其所請，與宋平，是內專政，而外擅名也。專政則輕君，擅名則不臣，而春秋大之，奚由哉？”曰：“為其有慘怛之恩，不忍餓一國之民，使之相食。推恩者遠之為大，為仁者自然為美。今子反出己之心，矜宋之民，無計其閒，故大之也。”難者曰：“春秋之法，卿不憂諸侯，政不在大夫。子反為楚臣，而恤宋民，是憂諸侯也；不復其君，而與敵平，是政在大夫也。湨梁之盟，信在大夫，而春秋刺之，為其奪君尊也；平在大夫，亦奪君尊，而春秋大之，此所閒也。且春秋之義，臣有惡擅名美。故忠臣不顯諫，欲其由君出也。書曰：‘爾有嘉謀嘉猷，入告爾君於內，爾乃順之於外，曰：此謀此猷，惟我君之德。’此為人臣之法也；古之良大夫，其事君皆若是。今子反去君近而不復，莊王可見而不告，皆以其解二國之難，為不得已也，奈其奪君名美何！此所惑也。”曰：“春秋之道，固有常有變，變用於變，常用於常，各止其科，非相妨也。今諸子所稱，皆天下之常，雷同之義也；子反之行，一曲之變，獨修之意也。夫目驚而體失其容，心驚而事有所忘，人之情也；通於驚之情者，取其一美，不盡其失。詩云：‘採葑採菲，無以下體。’此之謂也。今子反往視宋，聞人相食，大驚而哀之，不意之至於此也，是以心駭目動，而違常禮。禮者，庶於仁，文質而成體者也。今使人相食，大失其仁，安著其禮，方救其質，奚恤其文，故曰：‘當仁不讓。’此之謂也。春秋之辭，有所謂賤者，有賤乎賤者，夫有賤乎賤者，則亦有貴乎貴者矣。今讓者，春秋之所貴，雖然，見人相食，驚人相爨，救之忘其讓，君子之道，有貴於讓者也，故說春秋者，無以平定之常義，疑變故之大，則義幾可諭矣。”

"Sima Zifan went as envoy on behalf of his ruler, disregarded the ruler's command, showed feeling to the enemy, followed what they asked and made peace with Song; this is monopolizing government within and usurping a name abroad. Monopolizing government slights the ruler, and usurping a name is not what a minister does, yet the Annals magnifies him; where does this come from?" He said: "Because he had compassion and grief in his kindness and could not bear to let the people of a whole state go hungry and eat one another. In extending kindness, the farther the greater; in practicing benevolence, the more natural the better. Now Zifan acted from his own heart, pitied the people of Song, and did not calculate the gap, so it magnifies him." The critic said: "By the Annals' law, a minister does not worry about the feudal lords, and government does not lie with grand masters. Zifan was a minister of Chu yet cared for the people of Song, which is worrying about the feudal lords; he did not report back to his ruler yet made peace with the enemy, which is government lying with a grand master. At the covenant of Jiliang, trust lay with the grand masters, and the Annals criticized it because it usurped the ruler's honor; making peace by the grand master also usurps the ruler's honor, yet the Annals magnifies him; this is a gap. Moreover, in the Annals' principle, if a minister has evil, usurping a name is a beauty. So loyal ministers do not remonstrate openly, wanting it to come from the ruler. The Book of Documents says: 'If you have a good plan or good counsel, go in and tell your ruler within, and then follow it outside, saying: this plan and this counsel are due to my ruler's virtue.' This is the model for ministers; good grand masters of ancient times all served their rulers so. Now Zifan was near his ruler and did not report back, and King Zhuang could be met and was not told, all because rescuing both states from calamity was unavoidable, but what of his usurping the ruler's name and beauty! This is what confuses people." He said: "The Way of the Annals originally has the constant and the changing; changes apply in changes, constants apply in constants, each stopping at its own rule, not harming each other. What these scholars cite are the constant and common principles of the world; Zifan's conduct is a change of one corner, an intent cultivated by itself. When the eyes are startled the body loses its dignity, and when the heart is startled one forgets something in affairs; this is human feeling; one who understands the feeling of being startled takes its one good point and does not list all the faults. The Book of Odes says: 'Gather the turnip and the radish, do not take only the lower part.' This is what it means. Now when Zifan went to see Song and heard that people were eating each other, he was greatly shocked and grieved, never having thought it would come to this, and so his heart was startled and his eyes moved and he violated the constant ritual. Ritual is close to benevolence, and refinement and substance together form the body. Now if people are made to eat one another, benevolence is greatly lost, so where would ritual attach? He is rescuing the substance right now; why bother with refinement? So it is said: 'When it comes to benevolence, do not yield even to the teacher.' This is what it means. The wording of the Annals has what is called lowly and what is lower than lowly; having what is lower than lowly, there is also what is higher than honored. Now yielding is what the Annals honors, and even so, seeing people eating people and being shocked by people cooking each other, he rescued them and forgot yielding. In the Way of the gentleman, there is something more valuable than yielding. So those who discuss the Annals should not use the usual principle of stable times and doubt the weight of changing events, and then the principle can nearly be made clear."

春秋記天下之得失，而見所以然之故，甚幽而明，無傳而著，不可不察也。夫泰山之為大，弗察弗見，而況微眇者乎！故按春秋而適往事，窮其端而視其故，得志之君子、有喜之人，不可不慎也。齊頃公親齊桓公之孫，國固廣大，而地勢便利矣，又得霸主之餘尊，而志加於諸侯，以此之故，難使會同，而易使驕奢，即位九年，末嘗肯一與會同之事，有怒魯衛之志，而不從諸侯於清丘斷道，春往伐魯，入其北郊，顧返伐衛，敗之新築；當是時也，方乘勝而志廣，大國往聘，慢而弗敬其使者，晉魯俱怒，內悉其眾，外得黨與衛曹，四國相輔，大困之?，獲齊頃公，斮逄醜父。深本頃公之所以大辱身，幾亡國，為天下笑，其端乃從懾魯勝衛起；伐魯，魯不敢出；擊衛，大敗之；因得氣而無敵國，以興患也。故曰：得志有喜，不可不戒。此其效也。自是之後，頃公恐懼，不聽聲樂，不飲酒食肉，內愛百姓，問疾弔喪，外敬諸侯，從會與盟，卒終其身，家國安寧。是福之本生於憂，而禍起於喜也。嗚呼！物之所由然，其於人切近，可不省邪！

The Annals records the gains and losses of the world and shows the reasons why things are so, being very obscure yet clear, without commentary yet evident, so one cannot but examine it. Mount Tai is so large that if one does not look one cannot see it, how much more the minute! So, following the Annals in handling past events, exhausting the beginnings to see the reasons, gentlemen who have achieved their aims and people who are happy cannot but be careful. Duke Qing of Qi was the grandson of Duke Huan of Qi in the direct line, his state was originally vast, the terrain favorable, and he had obtained the remaining prestige of a hegemon, his aims placing him above the lords; so it was hard to make him attend assemblies and easy to make him arrogant and extravagant. In nine years on the throne he never once agreed to take part in an assembly, and had intent to be angry with Lu and Wei, but did not follow the lords at Qingqiu and Duandao; in spring he went to attack Lu, entered the northern suburb, then turned back and attacked Wei, defeating it at Xinzhu. At just this time, riding on victory with broad ambitions, when great states went to send envoys he was neglectful and disrespectful to the envoys, and Jin and Lu both became angry, mobilizing all their people within and gaining allies Wei and Cao outside, the four states helping one another and greatly hemming him in at An, capturing Duke Qing of Qi and killing Pang Chou Fu. Probing deeply into why Duke Qing was so greatly humiliated, nearly lost his state and was laughed at by the world, the beginning arose from subduing Lu and winning over Wei: he attacked Lu and Lu did not dare come out; he struck Wei and badly defeated it; thus gaining pride and having no rival states, he stirred up calamity. So it is said: those who achieve their aims and are happy cannot but be on guard. This is the proof. After that Duke Qing grew fearful, did not listen to music, did not drink wine or eat meat, loved his people within, inquired about the sick and condoled the bereaved, was respectful to the lords outside, and joined in assemblies and covenants, and throughout his life his family and state were secure. This is the root of blessing arising from worry, and calamity arising from joy. Alas! That things are so is close to people; how can one not reflect on it!

“逄醜父殺其身以生其君，何以不得謂知權？醜父欺晉，祭仲許宋，俱枉正以存其君，然而醜父之所為，難於祭仲，祭仲見賢，而醜父猶見非，何也？”曰：“是非難別者在此，此其嫌疑相似，而不同理者，不可不察。夫去位而避兄弟者，君子之所甚貴；獲虜逃遁者，君子之所甚賤。祭仲措其君於人所甚貴，以生其君，故春秋以為知權而賢之；醜父措其君於人所甚賤，以生其君，春秋以為不知權而簡之。其俱枉正以存君，相似也，其使君榮之，與使君辱，不同理。故凡人之有為也，前枉而後義者，謂之中權，雖不能成，春秋善之，魯隱公、鄭祭仲是也；前正而後有枉者，謂之邪道，雖能成之，春秋不愛，齊頃公、逄醜父是也。夫冒大辱以生，其情無樂，故賢人不為也，而眾人疑焉，春秋以為人之不知義而疑也，故示之以義，曰：‘國滅，君死之，正也。’正也者，正於天之為人性命也，天之為人性命，使行仁義而羞可恥，非若鳥獸然，苟為生，苟為利而已。是故春秋推天施而順人理，以至尊為不可以加於至辱大羞，故獲者絕之；以至辱為亦不可以加於至尊大位，故雖失位，弗君也；已反國，復在位矣，而春秋猶有不君之辭，況其溷然方獲而虜邪！其於義也，非君定矣，若非君，則醜父何權矣！故欺三軍，為大罪於晉，其免頃公，為辱宗廟於齊，是以雖難，而春秋不愛。醜父大義，宜言於頃公曰：‘君慢侮而怒諸侯，是失禮大矣；今被大辱而弗能死，是無恥也；而復重罪，請俱死，無辱宗廟，無羞社稷。’如此，雖陷其身，尚有廉名，當此之時，死賢於生，故君子生以辱，不如死以榮，正是之謂也。由法論之，則醜父欺而不中權，忠而不中義，以為不然，復察春秋，春秋之序辭也，置王於春正之間，非曰：上奉天施，而下正人，然後可以為王也云爾！

"Pang Chou Fu killed himself to save his ruler's life; why can he not be called knowing the exigency (quan)? Chou Fu deceived Jin, and Zhai Zhong agreed with Song; both bent the correct to preserve their rulers, but what Chou Fu did was harder than what Zhai Zhong did; Zhai Zhong was regarded as worthy while Chou Fu is still regarded as wrong; why?" He said: "This is where right and wrong are hard to tell apart. These are cases of similar suspicion but different principle, and one cannot but examine them. Leaving one's position and avoiding one's brother is what the gentleman values very much; being captured and escaping is what the gentleman despises very much. Zhai Zhong placed his ruler in what people value highly in order to save his life, so the Annals regarded him as knowing the exigency and called him worthy; Chou Fu placed his ruler in what people despise in order to save his life, and the Annals regarded him as not knowing the exigency and slighted him. Both bent the correct to preserve their ruler, which is similar; but making the ruler honored versus making the ruler disgraced is a different principle. So when a person acts, if he bends first and accords with righteousness afterward, it is called the middle of the exigency, and even if he does not succeed the Annals treats him well, as with Duke Yin of Lu and Zhai Zhong of Zheng; if he is correct first and bends afterward, it is called the crooked way, and even if he succeeds the Annals does not love him, as with Duke Qing of Qi and Pang Chou Fu. To live while braving great disgrace has no joy in it, so worthy men do not do it, but ordinary people are confused. The Annals, because people do not know righteousness and are confused, shows righteousness to them and says: 'When the state is destroyed, the ruler dies for it; this is correct.' Correct means correct according to the destiny Heaven gives to people. The destiny Heaven gives to people makes them practice benevolence and righteousness and be ashamed of what is shameful, not like birds and beasts who merely seek life and seek profit carelessly. Therefore the Annals extends Heaven's bestowal and follows human principle, so that the utmost honor cannot be added to utmost disgrace and great shame, and thus the captured are cut off; the utmost disgrace also cannot be added to the utmost honor and great position, so even if he loses his position, it does not regard him as ruler; he had already returned to the state and was on the throne again, yet the Annals still has wording that denies him as ruler, how much more when he was in muddle and in captivity as a prisoner! In righteousness, then, the ruler was not yet fixed as ruler. If he was not the ruler, what exigency did Chou Fu have! So deceiving the three armies is a great crime against Jin; saving Duke Qing is a disgrace to the ancestral temple of Qi. Therefore, though it was hard, the Annals does not love it. Chou Fu's great righteousness should have been to say to Duke Qing: 'My lord, you insulted and angered the lords, which is a great loss of ritual; now having suffered great disgrace and not being able to die is shameless; and to add a heavy crime on top, I ask that we die together, so as not to disgrace the ancestral temple and shame the altars of soil and grain.' In this way, even though he would have lost his own life, he would still have a name of integrity. At just this time, death is better than life, so the gentleman, living and receiving disgrace is not as good as dying with honor; this is exactly what it means. Judged by the law, then Chou Fu deceived but did not hit the exigency, was loyal but did not hit righteousness. If you think it is not so, examine the Annals again. The Annals' ordering of words places the king between spring and the first month, which says: above, receive Heaven's bestowal, below, rectify people, and only then can one be king; nothing more than that!

今善善惡惡，好榮憎辱，非人能自生，此天施之在人者也，君子以天施之在人者聽之，則醜父弗忠也，天施之在人者，使人有廉恥，有廉恥者，不生於大辱，大辱莫甚於去南面之位。而束獲為虜也。曾子曰：‘辱若可避，避之而已；及其不可避，君子視死如歸。’謂如頃公者也。”

Now, esteeming the good and hating the evil, loving honor and detesting disgrace, are not things people produce on their own; they are what Heaven bestows on a person. A gentleman uses what Heaven bestows on a person to judge, and so Chou Fu was not loyal. What Heaven bestows on a person gives people a sense of integrity and shame. Those with a sense of integrity and shame do not live in great disgrace. No disgrace is greater than leaving the southward-facing position and being bound and captured as a prisoner. Zengzi said: 'If disgrace can be avoided, simply avoid it; when it cannot be avoided, the gentleman faces death as if returning home.' This is said of the likes of Duke Qing."

“春秋曰：‘鄭伐許。’奚惡於鄭，而夷狄之也？”曰：“衛侯遫卒，鄭師侵之，是伐喪也；鄭與諸侯盟於蜀，以盟而歸諸侯，於是伐許，是叛盟也。伐喪無義，叛盟無信，無信無義，故大惡之。”問者曰：“是君死，其子未踰年，有稱伯不子，法辭其罪何？”曰：“先王之制，有大喪者，三年不呼其門，順其志之不在事也。書曰：‘高宗諒闇，三年不言。’居喪之義也。今縱不能如是，奈何其父卒未踰年，即以喪舉兵也。春秋以薄恩，且施失其子心，故不復得稱子，謂之鄭伯，以辱之也。且其先君襄公，伐喪叛盟，得罪諸侯，諸侯怒之未解，惡之未已，繼其業者，宜務善以覆之，今又重之，無故居喪以伐人；父伐人喪，子以喪伐人；父加不義於人，子施失恩於親，以犯中國；是父負故惡於前，己起大惡於後，諸侯畢怒而憎之，率而俱至，謀共擊之，鄭乃恐懼去楚，而成蟲牢之盟是也。楚與中國，俠而擊之，鄭罷弊危亡，終身愁辜。吾本其端，無義而敗，由輕心然。孔子曰：‘道千乘之國，敬事而信。’知其為得失之大也，故敬而慎之。今鄭伯既無子恩，又不庸計，一舉兵不當，被患不窮，自取之也。是以生不得稱子，去其義也；死不得書葬，見其窮也。曰：有國者視此，行身不放義，興事不審時，其何如此爾。”

"The Annals says: 'Zheng attacked Xu.' Why does it hate Zheng and treat him as a barbarian?" He said: "When Marquis Su of Wei died, Zheng's army invaded; this is attacking a state in mourning. Zheng and the lords made a covenant at Shu, and after the covenant went back among the lords and then attacked Xu; this is breaking a covenant. Attacking a state in mourning has no righteousness, breaking a covenant has no good faith; having neither good faith nor righteousness, it hates him greatly." The questioner said: "This is a case where the ruler died and his son had not yet passed the year, and it calls him earl and not son; what is his offense in the formal wording?" He said: "In the institutions of the former kings, for those in great mourning, one does not call at their door for three years, following their intention of not engaging in affairs. The Book of Documents says: 'Gaozong was in silent mourning and did not speak for three years.' This is the righteousness of mourning. Now even if he could not do this, how could he, when his father had just died and the year had not passed, bring his troops while in mourning? The Annals, because his kindness was thin, and moreover he had lost the heart of a son, no longer allowed him to be called son and called him Earl of Zheng in order to humiliate him. Moreover, his late ruler Duke Xiang had attacked a state in mourning and broken a covenant and offended the lords, and the lords' anger had not been removed and their hatred had not stopped; the one who inherited that undertaking should have devoted himself to good to cover it over. Now he made it heavier, and without cause went to attack others while in mourning: the father attacked someone's mourning, and the son attacked others while in mourning; the father inflicted unrighteousness on others, and the son lost affection for his own parent and offended the Central States. This is the father carrying old evils ahead and the son raising great evils behind; the lords were all angry and hated him, came together in force and planned to strike him jointly, and only then did Zheng become afraid and leave Chu and complete the covenant of Chongluo. With Chu and the Central States pressing from both sides, Zheng was exhausted and in danger, and worried over his guilt for his whole life. I trace the beginning: failing without righteousness came from a careless heart. Confucius said: 'In governing a state of a thousand chariots, be reverent in affairs and keep faith.' He knew how great the gains and losses were, and so was reverent and careful. Now the Earl of Zheng neither had the kindness of a son nor made proper plans; with one military move that was not fitting he suffered endless calamity, which he brought on himself. Therefore, while alive he could not be called a son, which removes his righteousness; when he died his burial was not recorded, which displays his exhaustion. It is said: those who have a state should look at this: if one's conduct does not follow righteousness and one starts undertakings without examining the time, how else would it come to this."

謂一元者，大始也。知元年志者，大人之所重，小人之所輕。是故治國之端在正名，名之正，興五世，五傳之外，美惡乃形，可謂得其真矣，非子路之所能見。惟聖人能屬萬物於一，而系之元也，終不及本所從來而承之，不能遂其功。是以春秋變一謂之元，元猶原也，其義以隨天地終始也。故人唯有終始也，而生不必應四時之變，故元者為萬物之本，而人之元在焉，安在乎？乃在乎天地之前，故人雖生天氣，及奉天氣者，不得與天元、本天元命、而共違其所為也。故春正月者，承天地之所為也，繼天之所為而終之也，其道相與共功持業，安容言乃天地之元？天地之元，奚為於此？惡施於人？大其貫承意之理矣。是故春秋之道，以元之深，正天之端，以天之端，正王之政，以王之政，正諸侯之即位，以諸侯之即位，正竟內之治，五者俱正，而化大行。非其位而即之，雖受之先君，春秋危之，宋繆公是也；非其位不受之先君，而自即之，春秋危之，吳王僚是也；雖然，苟能行善得眾，春秋弗危，衛侯晉以立書葬是也；俱不宜立，而宋繆受之先君而危，衛宣弗受先君而不危，以此見得眾心之為大安也。故齊桓非直弗受之先君也，乃率弗宜為君者而立，罪亦重矣，然而知恐懼，敬舉賢人而以自覆蓋，知不背要盟，以自湔浣也，遂為賢君，而霸諸侯；使齊桓被惡，而無此美，得免殺戮乃幸已，何霸之有！魯桓忘其憂，而禍逮其身；齊桓憂其憂，而立功名。推而散之，凡人有憂而不知憂者，兇，有憂而深憂之者，吉。易曰：‘復自道，何其咎。’此之謂也。匹夫之反道以除咎，尚難，人主之反道以除咎、甚易。詩云：‘德輶如毛。’言其易也。

To speak of the "one origin" (yuan) is to speak of the great beginning. Those who know the intent of the first year are valued by great men and made light of by petty men. Therefore the starting point of governing a state lies in rectifying names. When names are rectified, rise through five generations, and beyond five transmissions, beauty and ugliness take shape, and one can be said to have gained the truth, which is not something Zilu could see. Only the sage can attribute the myriad things to one and tie them to the origin. If one finally does not return to where things come from and receive them, one cannot accomplish merit. Therefore the Annals changed "one" to "origin." Origin is like source (yuan), and its meaning follows the end and beginning of heaven and earth. So people have only end and beginning, and birth does not necessarily respond to the changes of the four seasons. Therefore the origin is the root of the myriad things, and the origin of humans is there. Where? It is before heaven and earth. So although people are born of heaven's energy and serve heaven's energy, they cannot, together with the heavenly origin and the destiny rooted in the heavenly origin, contravene what it does. Therefore the spring first month receives what heaven and earth do, continues what heaven does and finishes it, and the Way holds the undertaking together; how can one say it is the origin of heaven and earth? Why is the origin of heaven and earth here? How is it applied to humans? It magnifies the principle that links and receives intention. Therefore the Way of the Annals uses the depth of the origin to rectify the beginning of heaven; uses the beginning of heaven to rectify the king's government; uses the king's government to rectify the feudal lords' accession; and uses the feudal lords' accession to rectify the governance within the borders. When all five are rectified, teaching and transformation are widely carried out. One who acceded to a position not his own, even if receiving it from the former ruler, is regarded by the Annals as precarious, as with Duke Mu of Song; one who acceded to a position not his own, not receiving it from the former ruler but acceding himself, is regarded by the Annals as precarious, as with King Liao of Wu. Even so, if one can do good and win the multitude, the Annals does not regard him as precarious, as with Marquis Jin of Wei, whose burial is recorded because he was established. None of them should have been established, yet Duke Mu of Song, who received it from the former ruler, was precarious, while Duke Xuan of Wei, who did not receive it from the former ruler, was not precarious; from this we see that winning the hearts of the people is great security. So Duke Huan of Qi not only did not receive it from the former ruler but led those not suited to be ruler to establish him, and his offense was heavy too; yet he knew fear, respectfully raised worthy men to cover himself, knew not to violate the covenant of agreement to wash himself, and so became a worthy ruler and hegemon of the lords. If Duke Huan of Qi had borne the evil without these virtues, escaping slaughter would have been lucky, so how could he have been hegemon! Duke Huan of Lu forgot his worry and calamity reached his own person; Duke Huan of Qi worried about his worry and established merit and fame. Extending it, in all cases, those who have worry but do not know to worry will meet misfortune; those who have worry and worry deeply will have good fortune. The Book of Changes says: 'Returning along his own way, what fault could there be?' This is what it means. For a common man to return to the Way and remove fault is already hard; for a ruler to return to the Way and remove fault is very easy. The Book of Odes says: 'Virtue is light as a hair.' This means it is easy.

“公觀魚於棠，何惡也？”“凡人之性，莫不善義，然而不能義者，利敗之也；故君子終日言不及利，欲以勿言愧之而已，愧之以塞其源也。夫處位動風化者，徒言利之名爾，猶惡之，況求利乎！故天王使人求賻求金，皆為大惡而書。今非直使人也，親自求之，是為甚惡，譏。何故言觀魚？猶言觀社也，皆諱大惡之辭也。”

"The Duke watched fish at Tang; what did the Annals dislike?" "The nature of people is such that none does not love righteousness, yet they cannot be righteous because profit ruins it. So the gentleman does not mention profit in his talk all day long; he merely uses not speaking of profit to make others ashamed and uses shame to block the source. When one is in position and sets going the customs of transformation, even merely speaking the name of profit is disliked, how much more seeking profit! So when the Heavenly King sent people to seek funeral gifts and metal, these were all recorded as great evils. Now he not only sent people but sought in person, which is worse and so is criticized. Why say watching fish? It is like saying watching the altar, both being wording that avoids naming great evil."

春秋有經禮，有變禮。為如安性平心者、經禮也；至有於性雖不安，於心雖不平，於道無以易之，此變禮也。是故昏禮不稱主人，經禮也；辭窮無稱，稱主人，變禮也。天子三年然後稱王，經禮也；有故，則未三年而稱王，變禮也。婦人無出境之事，經禮也；母為子娶婦，奔喪父母，變禮也。明乎經變之事，然後知輕重之分，可與適權矣。難者曰：“春秋事同者辭同，此四者，俱為變禮，而或達於經，或不達於經，何也？”曰：“春秋理百物，辨品類，別嫌微，修本末者也。是故星墜謂之隕，螽墜謂之雨，其所發之處不同，或降於天，或發於地，其辭不可同也。今四者俱為變禮也同，而其所發亦不同，或發於男，或發於女，其辭不可同也。是或達於常，或達於變也。”

The Annals has the regular rites and the altered rites. Those that settle nature and calm the mind are regular rites; but where nature is not settled and the mind is not calm, and in the Way nothing can be changed, these are altered rites. So in the marriage rite, not calling it by the host is the regular rite; when words run out and there is nothing to call it, calling it by the host is the altered rite. The Son of Heaven being called king only after three years is the regular rite; when there is a reason, being called king before three years is the altered rite. A woman not having business outside the border is the regular rite; a mother taking a wife for her son, or going to a parent's funeral, is the altered rite. When one understands regular and altered affairs, one then knows the difference between light and heavy and can go on to the exigency with him. The critic said: "In the Annals, the same matter gets the same wording; these four are all altered rites, and some reach the regular and some do not; why?" He said: "The Annals governs the hundred things, distinguishes categories, tells apart suspicions and subtleties, and sets in order root and branch. So when a star falls it is called 'drops' (yun), and when locusts fall it is called 'rained' (yu); where they come from differs, either from heaven or from earth, so the wording cannot be the same. Now the four are all altered rites alike, but where they issue from differs, some from men and some from women, so the wording cannot be the same. This is how some reach the constant and some reach the changing."

桓之志無王，故不書王；其志欲立，故書即位。書即位者，言其弒君兄也；不書王者，以言其背天子。是故隱不言立，桓不言王者，從其志，以見其事也。從賢之志，以達其義；從不肖之志，以著其惡。由此觀之，春秋之所善、善也，所不善、亦不善也，不可不兩省也。

Duke Huan's intent had no king in it, so it does not record the king; his intent was to be established, so it records his accession. Recording his accession says that he killed his ruler and elder brother; not recording the king says that he turned against the Son of Heaven. Therefore for Yin it does not say established, and for Huan it does not say king, following their intentions to show the matter. Following the intention of the worthy, it makes their righteousness penetrating; following the intention of the unworthy, it makes their evil manifest. From this we see that what the Annals approves is good and what it does not approve is also not good, and one cannot but examine both sides.

“經曰：宋督弒其君與夷。傳言莊公馮殺之。不可及於經，何也？”曰：“非不可及於經，其及之端眇，不足以類鉤之，故難知也。傳曰：臧孫許與晉卻克同時而聘乎齊，按經無有，豈不微哉！不書其往，而有避也。今此傳而言莊公馮，而於經不書，亦以有避也。是以不書聘乎齊，避所羞也；不書莊公馮殺，避所善也。是故讓者，春秋之所善，宣公不與其子，而與其弟，其弟亦不與子，而反之兄子，雖不中法，皆有讓高，不可棄也，故君子為之諱。不居正之謂避其後也，亂移之宋督，以存善志，此亦春秋之義善無遺也，若直書其篡，則宣繆之高滅，而善之無所見矣。”難者曰：“為賢者諱，皆言之，為宣繆諱，獨弗言，何也？”曰：“不成於賢也，其為善不法，不可取，亦不可棄，棄之則棄善志也，取之則害王法，故不棄亦不載，以意見之而已。苟志於仁，無惡。此之謂也。”

"The classic says: 'Hua Du of Song killed his ruler Yuyi.' The commentary says that Duke Zhuang Feng killed him. This does not reach the classic; why?" He said: "It is not that it cannot reach the classic; the beginnings of what it reaches are subtle and not enough to be hooked by categories, so they are hard to know. The commentary says: Zang Sun Xu and Xi Ke of Jin visited Qi at the same time. By the classic, there is no such thing; is that not subtle! It does not record his going, because there is something to avoid. Now this commentary speaks of Duke Zhuang Feng, but the classic does not record it, also because there is something to avoid. So not recording the visit to Qi avoids what is shameful; not recording Duke Zhuang Feng's killing avoids what is good. Therefore yielding is what the Annals approves. Duke Xuan did not give the state to his son but to his younger brother; the brother also did not give it to his son but returned it to the elder brother's son. Even if it was not according to law, both have the height of yielding, which cannot be discarded, so the gentleman conceals it for them. Not occupying the proper position is called avoiding what follows; moving the disorder to Hua Du in order to preserve the good intention is also the Annals' principle that good has no omission. If it recorded directly that he usurped, then the height of Xuan and Mu would be wiped out, and the good would have no way to appear." The critic said: "For worthy persons it conceals, as everyone says; for Xuan and Mu alone it does not say so; why?" He said: "They did not complete themselves as worthy. Their doing good was not according to law, so it cannot be adopted and cannot be discarded. Discarding would discard the good intention, and adopting would harm the king's law, so it neither discards nor records them, and uses meaning to show it, that is all. 'If one aims at benevolence, there is no evil.' This is what it means."

器從名，地從主人之謂制，權之端焉，不可不察也。夫權雖反經，亦必在可以然之域，不在可以然之域，故雖死亡，終弗為也，公子目夷是也。故諸侯父子兄弟，不宜立而立者，春秋視其國，與宜立之君無以異也，此皆在可以然之域也；至於鄫取乎莒，以之為同居，目曰莒人滅鄫，此在不可以然之域也。故諸侯在不可以然之域者，謂之大德，大德無踰閒者，謂正經；諸侯在可以然之域者，謂之小德，小德出入可也；權譎也，尚歸之以奉鉅經耳。故春秋之道，博而要，詳而反一也。公子目夷復其君，終不與國，祭仲已與，後改之，晉荀息死而不聽，衛曼姑拒而弗內，此四臣事異而同心，其義一也。目夷之弗與，重宗廟；祭仲與之，亦重宗廟；荀息死之，貴先君之命；曼姑拒之，亦貴先君之命也。事雖相反，所為同，俱為重宗廟，貴先帝之命耳。難者曰：“公子目夷祭仲之所為者，皆存之事君，善之可矣；荀息曼姑非有此事也，而所欲恃者，皆不宜立者，何以得載乎義。”曰：“春秋之法，君立不宜立，不書；大夫立，則書。書之者，弗予大夫之得立不宜立者也；不書，予君之得立之也。君之立不宜立者，非也；既立之，大夫奉之，是也；荀息曼姑之所得為義也。”

Vessels follow names and land follows the master, which is called institution. The beginnings of the exigency cannot but be examined. Even though the exigency goes against the classic, it must be within the realm where it can be so. If it is not within the realm where it can be so, then even at the cost of death one will not do it, as with Prince Mu Yi. So among the lords' fathers, sons and brothers who were established when they should not have been, the Annals regards their states as no different from rulers who were suitable; these are all within the realm where it can be so. As for Zeng marrying from Ju and taking her as a co-resident, and then saying the men of Ju destroyed Zeng, this is outside the realm where it can be so. So lords within the realm where it cannot be so are said to have great virtue, and great virtue that does not overstep the boundary is called the correct classic; lords within the realm where it can be so are said to have small virtue, and small virtue may enter and leave as permitted. The expedient and deceptive, in the end, still return to upholding the great classic. So the Way of the Annals is broad yet concise, detailed yet returns to one. Prince Mu Yi restored his ruler and in the end did not give the state; Zhai Zhong had already given it and later changed; Xun Xi of Jin died and did not comply; Man Gu of Wei refused and did not admit. These four ministers' affairs differ but their hearts are the same, and the righteousness is one. Mu Yi's not giving was to value the ancestral temple; Zhai Zhong's giving was also to value the ancestral temple; Xun Xi's dying for it was to honor the former ruler's command; Man Gu's refusing was also to honor the former ruler's command. Though the affairs are opposite, what they did is the same: all valued the ancestral temple and honored the former ruler's command. The critic said: "What Prince Mu Yi and Zhai Zhong did was all about preserving and serving the ruler, and treating them well is permissible; Xun Xi and Man Gu had no such deeds, and what they relied on were all those who should not have been established; on what ground can they be recorded as righteous?" He said: "By the Annals' law, when a ruler establishes one who should not be established, it does not record it; when a grand master establishes, it records it. Recording it means not allowing the grand master to establish one who should not be established; not recording it means allowing the ruler to establish. A ruler establishing one who should not be established is wrong; once established, a grand master upholding him is right. This is how Xun Xi and Man Gu came to accord with righteousness."

難紀季曰：“春秋之法，大夫不得用地。又曰：公子無去國之義。又曰：君子不避外難。紀季犯此三者，何以為賢！賢臣故盜地以下敵，棄君以避難乎！”曰：“賢者不為是。是故托賢於紀季，以見季之弗為也；紀季弗為，而紀侯使之可知矣。春秋之書事，時詭其實，以有避也；其書人，時易其名，以有諱也。故詭晉文得志之實以代諱，避致王也；詭莒子號，謂之人，避隱公也；易慶父之名，謂之仲孫；變盛謂之成，諱大惡也。然則說春秋者，入則詭辭，隨其委曲，而後得之。今紀季受命乎君，而經書專，無善一名，而文見賢，此皆詭辭，不可不察。春秋之於所賢也，固順其志，而一其辭，章其義而褒其美。今紀侯、春秋之所貴也，是以聽其入齊之志，而詭其服罪之辭也，移之紀季。故告糴於齊者，實莊公為之，而春秋詭其辭，以予臧孫辰；以酅入於齊者，實紀侯為之，而春秋詭其辭，以與紀季；所以詭之不同，其實一也。”難者曰：“有國家者，人慾立之，固盡不聽；國滅，君死之，正也；何賢乎紀侯？”曰：“齊將復讎，紀侯自知力不加，而志距之，故謂其弟曰：‘我宗廟之主，不可以不死也，汝以酅往，服罪於齊，請以立五廟，使我先君歲時有所依歸。’率一國之眾，以衛九世之主，襄公逐之不去，求之弗予，上下同心，而俱死之，故謂之大去。春秋賢死義且得眾心也，故為諱滅，以為之諱，見其賢之也，以其賢之也，見其中仁義也。”

Criticizing Ji Ji, one says: "By the Annals' law, a grand master cannot monopolize land. It also says: a prince has no principle of leaving the state. It also says: a gentleman does not avoid outside troubles. Ji Ji violated these three; on what grounds is he regarded as worthy! Is a worthy minister one who steals land to surrender to the enemy and abandons his ruler to avoid trouble!" He said: "A worthy person does not do this. So it entrusts worthiness to Ji Ji to show that Ji did not do it; that Ji Ji did not do it, and that the Marquis of Ji had him do it, can be known. In recording events, the Annals sometimes alters the facts, because there is something to avoid; in recording people, it sometimes changes names, because there is something to conceal. So it alters the fact of Duke Wen of Jin's achieving his aim, substituting concealment, to avoid summoning the Son of Heaven; it alters the title of the Viscount of Ju, calling him 'person,' to avoid Duke Yin; it changes Qing Fu's name and calls him Zhongsun; it changes Sheng to Cheng, concealing a great evil. So those who discuss the Annals find there are deceptive wordings as soon as they enter, and only by following their twists and turns can one grasp it. Now Ji Ji received a command from his ruler, yet the classic records it as acting on his own, with no good name, while the text reveals him as worthy; these are all deceptive wordings, and one cannot but examine them. Regarding those it deems worthy, the Annals originally follows their intention, unifies the wording, and shows righteousness and praise. Now the Marquis of Ji is what the Annals honors, so it follows his intention of going into Qi, and alters the wording of submitting to punishment, shifting it to Ji Ji. So requesting grain from Qi was actually done by Duke Zhuang, but the Annals alters the wording and gives it to Zang Sun Chen; delivering Xi to Qi was actually done by the Marquis of Ji, but the Annals alters the wording and gives it to Ji Ji. So the alterations differ, but the reality is one." The critic said: "One who has a state, even when people want to establish him, originally does not listen at all; when the state is destroyed, the ruler dies for it, which is correct. Why is the Marquis of Ji regarded as worthy?" He said: "Qi was about to take revenge, and the Marquis of Ji knew his strength was insufficient but his will was to resist, so he said to his younger brother: 'I am the master of the ancestral temple and cannot but die. You take Xi and go to Qi, submit to punishment, and ask to establish five temples so that my former rulers have somewhere to return in each season.' Leading the people of a whole state, he protected the ruler of nine generations. Duke Xiang drove him and he did not leave, asked him and he did not give way; high and low were of one heart and all died together, so it is called 'great departure.' The Annals deems worthy those who die for righteousness and also gain the hearts of the multitude, so it conceals the destruction for him. Because it conceals it for him, it shows him as worthy; because it deems him worthy, it shows that he hit upon benevolence and righteousness."

春秋慎辭，謹於名倫等物者也。是故小夷言伐而不得言戰，大夷言戰而不得言獲，中國言獲而不得言執，各有辭也。有小夷避大夷而不得言戰，大夷避中國而不得言獲，中國避天子而不得言執，名倫弗予，嫌於相臣之辭也。是故大小不踰等，貴賤如其倫，義之正也。

The Annals is careful with wording, careful with names, ranks, relations and categories, and with arranging events and things. Therefore a minor barbarian is said to be 'attacked' and cannot be said to be 'fought'; a major barbarian is said to be 'fought' and cannot be said to be 'captured'; the Central States are said to be 'captured' and cannot be said to be 'seized.' Each has its own wording. The minor barbarian avoids the major barbarian and cannot be said to be 'fought'; the major barbarian avoids the Central States and cannot be said to be 'captured'; the Central States avoid the Son of Heaven and cannot be said to be 'seized.' If names, ranks, relations and categories are not given, it would be suspected of wording as if they were each other's ministers. Therefore great and small do not overstep their ranks, and noble and humble are like categories, which is the correctness of righteousness.

大●者何？旱祭也。難者曰：“大旱●祭而請雨，大水鳴鼓而攻社，天地之所為，陰陽之所起也，或請焉、或怒焉者何？”曰：“大旱者，陽滅陰也，陽滅陰者，尊厭卑也，固其義也，雖大甚，拜請之而已，敢有加也。大水者，陰滅陽也，陰滅陽者，卑勝尊也，日食亦然，皆下犯上，以賤傷貴者，逆節也，故鳴鼓而攻之，朱絲而脅之，為其不義也，此亦春秋之不畏強禦也。故變天地之位，正陰陽之序，直行其道，而不忘其難，義之至也。是故脅嚴社而不為不敬靈，出天王而不為不尊上，辭父之命而不為不承親，絕母之屬而不為不孝慈，義矣夫！”

What is the great yu (rain sacrifice)? It is a sacrifice for drought. The critic said: "In great drought the yu sacrifice is held to seek rain, and in great flood drums are beaten and the altar of the soil is attacked. Heaven and earth act, yin and yang rise, in one case they are petitioned and in another they are angered; why?" He said: "Great drought is yang destroying yin. Yang destroying yin is the honored pressing on the lowly, which is originally in accord with righteousness, and even if it is excessive one merely bows and petitions; who would dare add anything? Great flood is yin destroying yang. Yin destroying yang is the lowly overcoming the honored, as with a solar eclipse; both are the lower offending the upper and the base harming the noble, which is going against the proper order, so drums are beaten to attack it and red cords used to coerce it because it is unrighteous. This is also the Annals not fearing the strong and powerful. So it changes the positions of heaven and earth, rectifies the order of yin and yang, goes straight on its way and does not forget its difficulty, which is righteousness to the utmost. Therefore coercing the solemn altar of soil is not counted as irreverence toward the spirits, releasing the Heavenly King is not counted as failing to honor the superior, declining a father's command is not counted as failing to accept one's parent, and cutting off a mother's kin is not counted as unfilial; what righteousness!"

難者曰：“春秋之法，大夫無遂事。又曰：出境有可以安社稷、利國家者，則專之可也。又曰：大夫以君命出，進退在大夫也。又曰：聞喪徐行而不反也。夫既曰無遂事矣，又曰專之可也，既曰進退在大夫矣，又曰徐行而不反也，若相悖然，是何謂也？”曰：“四者各有所處，得其處，則皆是也，失其處，則皆非也。春秋固有常義，又有應變。無遂事者，謂平生安寧也；專之可也者，謂救危除患也；進退在大夫者，謂將率用兵也；徐行不反者，謂不以親害尊，不以私妨公也；此之謂將得其私知其指。故公子結受命，往媵陳人之婦於鄄，道生事，從齊桓盟，春秋弗非，以為救莊公之危。公子遂受命使京師，道生事，之晉，春秋非之，以為是時僖公安寧無危。故有危而不專救，謂之不忠；無危而擅生事，是卑君也。故此二臣俱生事，春秋有是有非，其義然也。”

The critic said: "By the Annals' law, a grand master has no right to carry out matters on his own. It also says: when going beyond the border, if there is something that can secure the altars and benefit the state, acting on one's own is permissible. It also says: a grand master goes out on the ruler's command, but advance and retreat rest with the grand master. It also says: on hearing of a mourning, one walks slowly and does not turn back. Since it says there is no acting on one's own, yet also says acting on one's own is permissible; since it says advance and retreat rest with the grand master, yet also says walk slowly and do not turn back, these seem contradictory; what does it mean?" He said: "The four each have their place; where they find their place they are all right, and where they lose their place they are all wrong. The Annals originally has constant principles and also responses to change. 'No acting on one's own' speaks of times of ordinary peace; 'acting on one's own is permissible' speaks of rescuing from danger and removing trouble; 'advance and retreat rest with the grand master' speaks of commanders using troops; 'walk slowly and do not turn back' speaks of not harming the honored because of one's parents and not obstructing the public because of the private. This is called getting the private and knowing the direction. So Prince Jie received a command and went to Juan to escort the wife of a man of Chen; something arose on the road, and he made a covenant with Duke Huan of Qi, and the Annals did not condemn it, regarding it as having rescued Duke Zhuang from danger. Prince Sui received a command to be envoy to the capital, and something arose on the road and he went to Jin, and the Annals condemned him, regarding it as a time when Duke Xi was at peace without danger. So where there is danger and one does not rescue on his own, it is called disloyal; where there is no danger and one makes something arise on his own, it is slighting the ruler. So these two ministers both made things arise, and the Annals has approval and condemnation; the righteousness is just so."

齊桓挾賢相之能，用大國之資，即位五年，不能致一諸侯，於柯之盟，見其大信，一年，而近國之君畢至，鄄幽之會是也。其後二十年之間，亦久矣，尚未能大合諸侯也，至於救邢衛之事，見存亡繼絕之義，而明年，遠國之君畢至，貫澤、陽穀之會是也。故曰：親近者不以言，召遠者不以使，此其效也。其後矜功，振而自足，而不修德，故楚人滅弦而志弗憂，江黃伐陳而不往救，損人之國，而執其大夫，不救陳之患，而責陳不納，不復安鄭，而必欲迫之以兵，功未良成，而志已滿矣。故曰：管仲之器小哉！此之謂也。自是日衰，九國叛矣。

Duke Huan of Qi, holding the ability of a worthy chancellor and using the resources of a great state, in the fifth year of his reign could not bring in a single lord. At the covenant of Ke he showed great good faith, and within a year the rulers of nearby states all arrived, as at the meetings of Juan and You. For the twenty years after that, a long time, he still could not greatly unite the lords. When it came to the matter of rescuing Xing and Wei, he showed the righteousness of preserving the perishing and continuing the broken, and the next year the rulers of far states all arrived, as at the meetings of Guanze and Yanggu. So it is said: for those close one does not need words, and to summon those far one does not need envoys; this is the proof. After that he was proud of his achievement, roused and self-satisfied, and did not cultivate virtue, so when the men of Chu destroyed Xian he did not worry, and when Jiang and Huang attacked Chen he did not go to rescue; he harmed others' states and captured their grand masters, did not rescue Chen's trouble but blamed Chen for not admitting him, did not again settle Zheng but had to press with troops. His achievement was not yet well accomplished, but his ambition was already full. So it is said: Guan Zhong's capacity was small! This is what it means. From then on he declined day by day, and nine states turned away.

春秋之聽獄也，必本其事而原其志。志邪者，不待成；首惡者，罪特重；本直者，其論輕。是故逢醜父當斮，而轅濤塗不宜執，魯季子追慶父，而吳季子釋闔廬，此四者，罪同異論，其本殊也。俱欺三軍，或死或不死；俱弒君，或誅或不誅；聽訟折獄，可無審耶！故折獄而是也，理益明，教益行；折獄而非也，闇理迷眾，與教相妨。教，政之本也，獄，政之末也，其事異域，其用一也，不可不以相順，故君子重之也。

In hearing cases, the Annals always relies on the facts and traces back the intention. Where the intention is wicked, it does not wait for completion; the one who initiates the evil has a particularly heavy offense; those whose root is upright are judged lightly. Therefore Pang Chou Fu should have been beheaded, while Yuan Taotu should not have been captured; Ji Zi of Lu pursued Qing Fu, while Ji Zi of Wu released Helu. In these four cases, the crimes are the same but the judgments differ because the root differs. All deceived the three armies, yet some died and some did not; all killed a ruler, yet some were executed and some were not. In hearing lawsuits and deciding cases, can one fail to examine closely! So when a case is decided rightly, the principle becomes clearer and teaching is carried out more widely; when a case is decided wrongly, it obscures principle and confuses the multitude and hinders teaching. Teaching is the root of government and litigation is its branch; the matters lie in different realms but have the same use, and cannot fail to accord with each other, so the gentleman values it.

難晉事者曰：“春秋之法，未踰年之君稱子，蓋人心之正也，至裡克殺奚齊，避此正辭，而稱君之子，何也？”曰：“所聞詩無達詁，易無達占，春秋無達辭。從變從義，而一以奉人。仁人錄其同姓之禍，固宜異操。晉，春秋之同姓也，驪姬一謀，而三君死之，天下之所共痛也，本其所為為之者，蔽於所欲得位，而不見其難也；春秋疾其所蔽，故去其正辭，徒言君之子而已。若謂奚齊曰：‘嘻嘻！為大國君之子，富貴足矣，何必以兄之位為欲居之，以至此乎云爾！’錄所痛之辭也。故痛之中有痛，無罪而受其死者，申生、奚齊、卓子是也；惡之中有惡者，己立之，己殺之，不得如他臣之弒君，齊公子商人是也。故晉禍痛而齊禍重，春秋傷痛而敦重，是以奪晉子繼位之辭，與齊子成君之號，詳見之也。”

One who criticizes the matter of Jin says: "By the Annals' law, a ruler who has not yet passed the year is called 'son,' which is probably the correctness of human feeling. When Li Ke killed Xiqi, it avoided this correct wording and called him 'son of the ruler'; why?" He said: "What I have heard is that the Odes has no universal gloss, the Changes has no universal divination, and the Annals has no universal wording. It follows change and follows righteousness, and uniformly serves people. A benevolent person records the misfortunes of those of the same surname, and so naturally the handling should be different. Jin was of the same surname as the Annals' author, and with one scheme of Lady Li, three rulers died for it, which the whole world mourned together. Tracing those who acted this way, they were blinded by the position they sought and could not see the difficulty. The Annals hates what blinded him, so it removes the correct wording and says only 'son of the ruler.' It is as if saying to Xiqi: 'Alas! You are the son of the ruler of a great state, wealth and rank are enough for you; why did you want your elder brother's position to such a degree, to this end, and no more!' This is wording recording what is mourned. So within what is mourned there is further mourning: those who died without guilt, as with Shensheng, Xiqi and Zhuozi; within what is evil there is further evil: one who established him and killed him himself, unlike other ministers killing rulers, as with Prince Shangren of Qi. So Jin's calamity is mournful and Qi's calamity is heavy; the Annals grieves and mourns, and is generous and values the heavy, and therefore the wording that removes Jin's son from succession and the title that gives Qi's son as ruler are shown in detail."

古之人有言曰：“不知來，視諸往。”今春秋之為學也，道往而明來者也，然而其辭體天之微，效難知也，弗能察，寂若無，能察之，無物不在。是故為春秋者，得一端而多連之，見一空而博貫之，則天下盡矣。魯僖公以亂即位，而知親任季子，季子無恙之時，內無臣下之亂，外無諸侯之患，行之二十年，國家安寧；季子卒之後，魯不支鄰國之患，直乞師楚耳；僖公之情，非輒不肖，而國衰益危者，何也？以無季子也。以魯人之若是也，亦知他國之皆若是也，以他國之皆若是，亦知天下之皆若是也，此之謂連而貫之，故天下雖大，古今雖久，以是定矣。以所任賢，謂之主尊國安，所任非其人，謂之主卑國危，萬世必然，無所疑也。其在易曰：“鼎折足，覆公餗。”夫鼎折足者，任非其人也，覆公餗者，國家傾也。是故任非其人，而國家不傾者，自古至今，未嘗聞也。故吾按春秋而觀成敗，乃切悁悁於前世之興亡也，任賢臣者，國家之興也。夫知不足以知賢，無可奈何矣；知之不能任，大者以死亡，小者以亂危，其若是何邪？以莊公不知季子賢邪？安知病將死，召而授以國政；以殤公為不知孔父賢邪？安知孔父死，已必死，趨而救之；二主知皆足以知賢，而不決，不能任，故魯莊以危，宋殤以弒，使莊公早用季子，而宋殤素任孔父，尚將興鄰國，豈直免弒哉！此吾所悁悁而悲者也。

The ancients had a saying: "If you do not know what is coming, look at what has gone." Now the Spring and Autumn Annals, as a field of study, speaks of the past in order to illuminate what is to come. Yet its wording embodies the subtlety of Heaven, and its verification is hard to know. If one cannot discern it, it is silent as if nothing were there; if one can discern it, there is nothing in which it is not present. Therefore, one who works on the Spring and Autumn Annals, on getting hold of one end, links it to many sides, and on seeing a gap, reaches across it broadly and threads it through, and then the whole world is exhausted. Duke Xi of Lu took his seat in a time of disorder, yet knew to trust and employ Jizi personally. While Jizi was well, there was no disorder of ministers within and no trouble from the feudal lords without; this was kept up for twenty years and the state was at peace. After Jizi died, Lu could not withstand the troubles from neighboring states, and could only beg Chu for troops. Duke Xi's character did not suddenly become unworthy, yet the state grew more weak and endangered; why? Because there was no Jizi. From the people of Lu being so, one also knows that other states are all so; from other states being so, one also knows that the whole world is so. This is called linking and threading through. Therefore, however vast the world and however long past and present, this settles it. When the worthy are employed, it is called the ruler honored and the state secure; when those employed are not the right men, it is called the ruler lowly and the state endangered, which holds for ten thousand generations without doubt. The Book of Changes says: "The tripod breaks a leg and overturns the ducal stew." The tripod breaking a leg is employing the wrong men; overturning the ducal stew is the state being overturned. Therefore, that one employed the wrong men and yet the state was not overturned has never been heard of from antiquity to the present. So when I look at success and failure according to the Spring and Autumn Annals, I am deeply and sorrowfully moved by the rise and fall of earlier ages. Employing worthy ministers is the rising of a state. If one's knowledge is not enough to know the worthy, there is nothing to be done; but to know and be unable to employ them means the great perish for it and the small fall into disorder and danger. Why is it like this? Do you think Duke Zhuang did not know that Jizi was worthy? How, then, did he, when ill and about to die, summon him and hand the state's government to him? Do you think Duke Shang did not know that Kong Fu was worthy? How, then, did he, knowing that if Kong Fu died he himself would surely die, rush to rescue him? The knowledge of both rulers was enough to know the worthy, yet they did not decide and could not employ them, and so Duke Zhuang of Lu was endangered by it and Duke Shang of Song was assassinated by it. Had Duke Zhuang employed Jizi early, and Duke Shang of Song employed Kong Fu all along, they might even have made neighboring states rise, let alone escaped assassination! This is what I sorrowfully grieve over.