← Back to 漢書

卷二十 古今人表

Volume 20: Prominent people from the past until the present

Chapter 22 of 漢書 ✓ Translated
← Previous Chapter
Chapter 22
Next Chapter →
1
As Yan Shigu notes: "It lists only figures of antiquity and not contemporaries because this work was left unfinished."
2
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
From the time writing first appeared, what the classics and commentaries preserve about the earliest ages is that rulers from Yao and Shun back were remembered with formal titles and posthumous names. The chief ministers who aided those rulers cannot all be securely identified. Still, the various philosophical writings speak of them. Even when such accounts are not confirmed by the Confucian canon, they remain in the textual record and serve to highlight virtue, expose wrongdoing, and admonish later generations, so I have gathered them widely. Confucius said, "If you speak of sageliness and perfect benevolence, I would not presume to claim them." He also said, "Why stop at benevolence? One would have to be a sage." "Without understanding, how could one realize true benevolence?" "Those born with knowledge are the highest type; those who gain knowledge through study come next; and those who face difficulty yet refuse to learn are the lowest among the people." He also said, "With people above the middle level, you can discuss higher teachings." "Only those of the highest wisdom and the deepest folly are unchangeable." As one tradition puts it: under Yao and Shun, when Yu, Ji, and Xie promoted what was good, their policies were enacted; but when Gun and Huandou sought to push evil, they were punished with death. If one can be led into good but never into evil, that is what is called the highest wisdom. By contrast, under Jie and Zhou, loyal men like Long Feng and Bi Gan were killed for trying to guide their rulers toward good, while Yu Xin and the Marquis of Chong prospered by abetting evil. Those who can be drawn into evil but not into good are called the lowest fools. Duke Huan of Qi became a hegemon under Guan Zhong, but fell into disorder when advised by Shu Diao. Those who can be led toward either good or evil are what we call average people. On this basis, I set out a nine-rank order, drawing fully from the classics and commentaries, tracing each age in sequence, and assembling a concise outline of key figures from antiquity to later times.
3
退 使
Zhang Yan comments: "Laozi was deep and reserved, and even Confucius learned from him. Though not classed as a sage, he was certainly a great worthy. Wenbo's mother was thoroughly versed in ritual, praised by sages for her conduct, and imitated by later generations for her words, yet she is only placed in the fourth class. Tian Dan revived powerful Qi from the isolated city of Jimo; Lu Zhonglian was widely learned and dismissed fame and gain; Lin Xiangru overawed the king of Qin and later yielded place to Lian Po, yet all are ranked only in the fifth class. Tai Ji indulged in shamanic superstition and spirit sacrifices, and the people of Chen followed her into proliferating illicit cults. The eunuch Mengzi, straying from orthodox standards to save himself, later wrote resentful satires after his castration, yet is ranked in the third class. Lao Ai committed unspeakable incest and threw ritual order into chaos, crimes too vile to recount, yet he is placed in the seventh class. There are many other inconsistencies and confusions; I mention and compare a few to highlight these mistakes. He ranged alone across several millennia, examining the various schools, but before he could complete the project he was caught up in the Dou clan calamity. Is that why it ended this way?" Yan Shigu says: "The six traditions evaluate things differently, assigning different weights and priorities; With so many forms of conduct preserved in the record, selecting and ranking them by one standard is difficult. Zhang simply advanced his own opinions and faulted Ban Gu's history, but his own arguments were themselves inconsistent. Besides, those eras are very distant, many classical records were lost, scholars disagree and dispute, and learned traditions diverge. For that reason, some names in this table differ from what appears in other texts. This note is offered specifically to clarify and bring out the underlying intent. For the era between Nüwa and before Dihong, the various textual traditions and biographies conflict with one another and offer no single authoritative account; at most, we can preserve the names of those ancient sovereigns. For people whose deeds are clearly recorded in the historical sources, no explanation is needed; where points remain obscure, I occasionally add clarification."
← Previous Chapter
Back to Chapters
Next Chapter →