Page:Ch'un Ts'ew Pt I.pdf/65

Rh taken care that the whole series of transactions should not be misrepresented as it is in his paragraphs.

Let us take a fifth case. In XII. vi. 8 it is said that 'Ch‘in K‘eih of Ts‘e murdered his ruler T‘oo.' In the previous year, Ch‘oo-k‘ëw, marquis of Ts‘e, had died, leaving the State to his favourite son T‘oo, who was only a child. His other sons, who were grown up, fled in the winter to various States. Ch‘in K‘eih, one of the principal ministers of the State, finding that the government did not go on well, sent to Loo for Yang-săng, one of Ch‘oo-k‘ëw's sons, who had taken refuge there, and so managed matters in Ts‘e that he was declared marquis, and the child T‘oo displaced. Yet Ts‘e had no malice against T‘oo, and so spoke of him in a dispute which he had with Yang-săng, not long after the accession of the latter, as to awaken his fears lest the minister should attempt to restore the degraded child. The consequence was that he sent a trusty officer to remove T‘oo from the city where he had been placed for safety to another. Whether it was by the command of the new marquis, or on an impulse originating with himself, that officer took the opportunity to murder the child on the way. This man, therefore, whose name was Choo Maou, was the actual murderer of T‘oo. If he were too mean in position to obtain a place in the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw, the murder should have been ascribed to Yang-săng or the marquis Taou, by whose servant and in whose interest, if not by whose command, it was committed. To ascribe it to Ch‘in K‘eih must be regarded as a gross misrepresentation. I cannot think that the existing marquis of Ts‘e could have sent such a notification of the event to Loo, for for him to make Ch‘in K‘eih responsible for the deed was to declare that his own incumbency of the State was unjust, as it was Ch‘in K‘eih who had brought it about. Are we then to ascribe the entry entirely to Confucius? And are we to see in it a remarkable proof of his hatred of rebellion and usurpation, and his determination to hold the prime mover to it, however distant, and under whatever motives he had acted, responsible for all the consequences flowing from it?

The sixth and last case which I will adduce may be said not to be so contrary to the letter of the facts as the preceding five cases, and yet I am mistaken if in every western reader, who takes the trouble to make himself acquainted with those facts, it do not awaken a greater indignation against the record and its compiler than any of them. In VII. x. 8 we read that 'Hëa Ch‘ing-shoo of 48]