Sacred Books of the East Vol. 40: Taoism Vol. 2

The short essay, for it is more an essay than 'a record,' which is here translated is appended by Ziâo Hung to his 'Wings to Kwang-dze.' It is hardly worthy of Shih's reputation.} {p. 321} a composition which might serve as a record of the event; (which I made as follows):-- 2. According to the Historical Records (of Sze-mâ Khien), Kwang-dze lived in the time of the kings Hui of Liang (B.C. 370-333 [?]){fr. 1} and Hsüan of Khî (B.C. 332-314). There was no subject of study to which he did not direct his attention, but his preference was for the views of Lâo-dze; and thus it was that of the books which he wrote, containing in all more than ten myriad characters, the greater part are metaphorical illustrations of those views. He made 'The Old Fisherman,' 'The Robber Kih,' and 'The Cutting Open Satchels,' to deride the followers of Confucius, and to set forth the principles of Lâo-dze. (So writes Sze-mâ Khien, but) his view is that of one who had only a superficial knowledge of Kwang-dze. My idea is that Kwang wished to support the principles of Khung-dze, though we must not imitate him in the method which he took to do so. (I will illustrate my meaning by a case of a different kind):--A prince of Khû{fr. 2} was once hurrying away from the city in disguise{fr. 2}, when the gate-keeper refused to let him pass through. On this his servant threatened the prince with a switch, and reviled him, saying, 'Slave, you have no strength!' On seeing this, the gate-keeper allowed them to go out. The thing certainly took place in an irregular way, and the prince escaped by an inversion of what was right;--he seemed openly to put himself in opposition, while he was secretly maintaining and supporting. If we think that his servant did not love the prince, our judgment will be wrong; if we think that his action was a model for imitation in serving a prince, in that also we shall be wrong. In the same way the words of Kwang-dze are thrown out in a contradictory manner, with which the tenor of his writing does not agree. The correct interpretation,