Yan Tie Lun (鹽鐵論) · Volume 4

【臣】等謹案鹽鐡論十二卷漢桓寛撰寛字次公汝南人宣帝時舉為郎官至廬江太守丞昭帝始元六年詔郡國舉賢良文學之士問以民所疾苦皆請罷鹽鐡酤與御史大夫桑宏羊等建議相詰難寛集其所論為書凡六十篇篇各標目實則反覆問答諸篇皆首尾相屬後罷酤而鹽鐡則如舊故寛作是書惟以鹽鐡為名葢惜其議不盡行也書末襍論一篇述汝南朱子伯之言記賢良茂陵唐生文學魯萬生等六十餘人而最推中山劉子雍九江祝生於桑宏羊車千秋深著微詞葢其著書之大防所論雖食貨之事而言皆述先王稱六經故諸史皆列之儒家黃虞稷千頃堂書目改史部食貨類中循名而失其實矣明嘉靖癸丑華亭張之象為之注雖無所發明然事實亦粗具梗槩今並錄之以備考核焉乾隆四十三年六月恭校上

[Your subject] and others respectfully note: the Yan Tie Lun (Discourses on Salt and Iron) is in twelve fascicles, compiled by Huan Kuan of the Han dynasty. Huan Kuan, styled Cigong, was from Runan. In the time of Emperor Xuan he was recommended as a gentleman attendant and rose to the rank of Assistant Prefect of Lujiang. In the sixth year of the Shiyuan era of Emperor Zhao, an edict ordered the commanderies and kingdoms to recommend men of worth and literary learning to ask about the sufferings of the people. They all asked for the abolition of the salt and iron monopolies and the wine monopoly (the base text has a rare character here, lost in transcription, being the 'monopoly' of the wine monopoly), and debated against Grand Secretary Sang Hongyang and others. Huan Kuan collected their arguments and made a book, of sixty chapters in all. Each chapter bears a title, but in fact it is a repeated exchange of questions and answers, with each chapter linked head to tail. Later the wine monopoly was abolished while salt and iron remained as before, so Huan Kuan named his book only for salt and iron, regretting that the argument was not fully carried out. The final chapter, Za Lun (Miscellaneous Discussion), records the words of Zhu Ziba of Runan and notes more than sixty men, including the worthy Tang Sheng of Maoling and the literatus Lu Wansheng, while giving highest honor to Liu Ziyong of Zhongshan and Master Zhu of Jiujiang; it makes subtle criticism of Sang Hongyang and Che Qianqiu, and this is the main point of his writing. Although what is discussed concerns food and goods, the words all praise the former kings and cite the Six Classics, so all the histories list it among the Confucian works. Huang Yuji's Qianqingtang Catalogue moved it into the category of food and goods within the history section (the base text has a rare character for 'into' that was lost in transcription), following the name and missing the substance. In the guichou year of the Jiajing reign of the Ming, Zhang Zhixiang of Huating wrote a commentary on it; though it contains no discoveries, it also roughly outlines the facts, and it is now recorded together for reference. Respectfully collated and submitted in the sixth month of the forty-third year of Qianlong.

張子曰餘嘗謂文學政事孔門設教判為兩科要之皆儒者之能事通一無間者也是故學優乃仕仕優乃學此烏可以偏業語之哉借所謂文學雲者而不通政事則空言無當殆非達儒之謂矣餘於桓氏鹽鐡論不獨好其文蓋多其善言政事焉夫君子非患不文也患不適用耳乃世之防士雲者徒騁章句之學而中無卓見牽合雷同阿狥逢迎多所顧忌不能一張膽正言吐露忠赤畢展其志何者大抵以干祿為累得失動心雖欲抗論不可得已苟如是則上負天子下負所學是尚可以為士乎夫士貴立志亦貴養氣志不立則中懦氣不養則外怯孔子曰三軍可奪帥也匹夫不可奪志也孟子曰我善養吾浩然之氣且雲説大人則藐之勿視其巍巍然蓋君子求諸已而已其用其舍其得其失當自有任其責者於我何與焉孔子欲行王道東西南北七十説而無所遇孟子亦奔走齊梁所如不合道之不行豈孔孟之罪哉然萬世之下六經昭如七篇具在道頼以傳至今不泯説者謂夫子賢於堯舜孟子功不在禹下信哉言也漢興百有餘載敦尚儒術文學賢良皆誦法孔孟知所自好其議罷鹽鐡酒均輸憤切時政貫綜國體至能以韋布直詆公卿辯難侃侃無少假借不降其志不餒其氣雖古稱國士何以加焉當其時雖不見用卒乃頼桓氏採録為書遂至不朽後之儒者試取而讀之不以俗學自困則志意奮待問而發臨文不遜盡言不諱將以堯舜待其君伊周待其相孔孟待其身又何疑懼之有如其不遇則從吾所好簟瓢陋巷帶索鼓琴以詠先王之風不然或撰造一家之言建不朽之業寄知音於後世亦可矣詩云優哉防哉聊以卒嵗此之謂也蓋古之人得志則澤加於民不得志修身見於世達則兼善天下窮則獨善其身囂囂如也何必枉道求合哉夫一言之間推見心術窺測至隠若是乎言之不可不慎也漢武帝時頗多防士後先奏對各異其説董生一言主正公孫氏一言主和至觀其終世行業亦以類判如其所言自此以降則文學賢良茂陵唐生九江祝生劉子雄魯萬生者聲稱孝昭之世跡其行事雖不少概見然深考其説立意較然不詭於道其為孔孟之徒也必矣往餘嘗師事涇野呂公西馬公學儒者言朂餘以立志養氣之説自孔孟求之毋曲學以阿世及指稱漢代作者此書為最其言治理並可施設儒者之能事畢在是也嗟乎哲人既逝雅訓猶存不敢廢墜謹為註釋因著其説如此若鹽鐡終始之詳餘別有序姑蔵之山中以俟知者此不具載雲嘉靖癸丑閏三月朔旦雲間張之象序

Zhang Zhixiang says: I once said that literary learning and government affairs were divided into two subjects in Confucius's teaching, but in essence both are things Confucians can do, and when fully mastered they are one with no gap between. So when learning is excellent one takes office, and when office is excellent one studies again; how can one speak of this as being biased toward one trade? If what is called literary learning does not understand government, it is empty talk that does not apply, and certainly not the learning of a Confucian who has mastered things. As for Huan's Yan Tie Lun, I not only like its prose but value it more for being good at discussing government. A gentleman does not fear lacking polish but fears being of no use. The so-called scholars of the world (the base text writes 'fang scholars,' where the first character seems corrupt) only gallop in the learning of chapters and verses, have no outstanding views in their hearts, patch together agreements, flatter and fawn, have many reservations, and cannot speak upright with a bold voice, pour out their loyal hearts, and fully carry out their aims. Why? Most are burdened by seeking salary, their hearts moved by gain and loss, and though they want to argue against the grain they cannot. If so, they fail the Son of Heaven above and what they have studied below; can they still be called scholars? A scholar values setting his resolve and also values nourishing his breath. If the resolve is not set, the inner heart is weak; if the breath is not nourished, one is timid toward the outside. Confucius said: "The commander of three armies can be taken away, but the will of a common man cannot." Mencius said: "I am good at nourishing my flood-like breath." He also said that in persuading the great one should look down on him and not look at his towering manner. The gentleman seeks only within himself; as for being used or set aside, gaining or losing, there are those who bear that responsibility; what has it to do with me? Confucius wished to practice the kingly Way, traveled east, west, south, and north seventy times to persuade rulers, and never found a match; Mencius too rushed about Qi and Liang, and wherever he went he did not fit in. That the Way is not practiced, is that the fault of Confucius and Mencius? Yet through ten thousand generations the Six Classics shine brightly and the seven chapters of Mencius are all there, and by them the Way has been transmitted to this day without extinction. Those who discuss it say that the Master is more worthy than Yao and Shun, and that Mencius's merit is no less than Yu's; this saying is credible. Since the rise of Han over a hundred years, honoring Confucian arts, the literati and the worthy all recited and followed Confucius and Mencius and knew what they should love. In their discussions of abolishing salt and iron, the wine monopoly, and the equalizing transport, they were angered and pained by the government of the time and thoroughly understood the nature of the state, even to the point of directly denouncing the ministers and high officials as commoners in rough belts and coarse cloth, debating earnestly without any borrowing, not lowering their aims and not weakening their integrity; even the men called state-worthy scholars of antiquity, how would they surpass these men? Though they were not used at the time, in the end they came down in Huan's collected book and so became immortal. If later Confucians try taking it to read and are not trapped by vulgar learning, their aims are stirred (the base text has a rare character here, lost in transcription), they wait to be asked before speaking again, do not hold back when writing, speak fully without avoiding taboo, expecting Yao and Shun of their ruler, Yi Yin and the Duke of Zhou of their chancellor, and Confucius and Mencius of themselves; what then is there to doubt or fear? If they do not meet with a ruler, they follow what I love, with a basket of rice and a gourd of water in a humble lane, a belt of rope and a zither, to sing the style of the former kings. Otherwise, one may compose a school's words and establish an immortal enterprise, entrusting those who know the tune to later ages, and that would also do. The Book of Poetry says: "How leisurely, how at ease, thus to spend the year" (the base text writes a variant of 'at ease' with a corrupt character, which should be the usual one). This is what it means. The ancients, when they achieved their aims, spread grace to the people; when they did not achieve them, they cultivated their persons and showed it to the world; in success they benefited the whole world, in hardship they perfected themselves alone, at ease and self-possessed; why bend the Way to seek agreement? In a single sentence one can infer the art of the mind and peer into the most hidden, so in speech one must not be unguarded. In the time of Emperor Wu of Han, there were many scholars (the base text writes 'fang scholars' again), and in their memorials and replies they had different sayings in succession: Dong Zhongshu in one sentence advocated rectitude, Gongsun Hong in one sentence advocated harmony; looking at their lifelong careers, they were also divided by type, just as they said. From then on, the literati and worthy Tang Sheng of Maoling, Zhu Sheng of Jiujiang, Liu Zixiong, and Lu Wansheng were famed in the age of Emperor Zhao. Examining their actions, though little is visible, yet examining their words deeply, their intentions are clear and do not go against the Way; they were certainly followers of Confucius and Mencius. In the past I studied under Mr. Lu of Jingye and Mr. Ma of the western (the base text has a rare character here, lost in transcription), and learned the sayings of the Confucians; they encouraged me to set my resolve and nourish my breath, to seek from Confucius and Mencius and not to bend my learning to curry favor with the age, and they pointed out that among Han writers this book is the best, as it discusses governing and can also be carried out, and that what Confucians can do is all in it. The wise men have passed on, but their upright admonitions remain; I do not dare let them fall, and so respectfully annotate it and put these words here. As for the full details of the beginning and end of salt and iron, I have a separate preface, which for now I keep in the mountains awaiting those who understand, and do not record in detail here. On the first day of the intercalary third month of the guichou year of Jiajing, preface by Zhang Zhixiang of Yunjian.