Art or Science of War

1. Usage still unsettled (Power and knowledge. Science when mere knowing; Art, when doing, is the object)

The choice between these terms seems to be still unsettled, and no one seems to know rightly on what grounds it should be decided, and yet the thing is simple. We have already said elsewhere that 'knowing' is something different from 'doing'. The two are so different that they should not easily be mistaken the one for the other. The 'doing' cannot properly stand in any book, and therefore also Art should never be the title of a book. But because we have once accustomed ourselves to combine in conception, under the name of theory of Art, or simply Art, the branches of knowledge (which may be separately pure sciences) necessary for the practice of an Art, therefore it is consistent to continue this ground of distinction, and to call everything Art when the object is to carry out the 'doing' (being able), as for example, Art of building; Science, when merely knowledge is the object; as Science of mathematics, of astronomy. That in every Art certain complete sciences may be included is intelligible of itself, and should not perplex us. But still it is worth observing that there is also no science without a mixture of Art. In mathematics, for instance, the use of figures and of algebra is an Art, but that is only one amongst many instances. The reason is, that however plain and palpable the difference is between knowledge and power in the composite results of human knowledge, yet it is difficult to trace out their line of separation in man himself.

2. Difficulty of separating perception from judgement (Art of war)

All thinking is indeed Art. Where the logician draws the line, where the premises stop which are the result of cognition — where judgement begins, there Art begins. But more than this: even the perception of the mind is judgement again, and consequently Art; and at last, even the perception by the senses as well. In a word, if it is impossible to imagine a human being possessing merely the faculty of cognition, devoid of judgement or the reverse, so also Art and Science can never be completely separated from each other. The more these subtle elements of light embody themselves in the outward forms of the world, so much the more separate appear their domains; and now once more, where the object is creation and production, there is the province of Art; where the object is investigation and knowledge Science holds sway. After all this it results of itself that it is more fitting to say Art of War than Science of War.

So much for this, because we cannot do without these conceptions. But now we come forward with the assertion that War is neither an Art nor a Science in the real signification, and that it is just the setting out from that starting-point of ideas which has led to a wrong direction being taken, which has caused War to be put on a par with other arts and sciences, and has led to a number of erroneous analogies.

This has indeed been felt before now, and on that account it was maintained that War is a handicraft; but there was more lost than gained by that, for a handicraft is only an inferior art, and as such is also subject to definite and rigid laws. In reality the Art of War did go on for some time in the spirit of a handicraft — we allude to the times of the Condottieri — but then it received that direction, not from intrinsic but from external causes; and military history shows how little it was at that time in accordance with the nature of the thing.

3. War is part of the intercourse of the human race

We say therefore War belongs not to the province of Arts and Sciences, but to the province of social life. It is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others. It would be better, instead of comparing it with any Art, to liken it to business competition, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities; and it is still more like State policy, which again, on its part, may be looked upon as a kind of business competition on a great scale. Besides, State policy is the womb in which War is developed, in which its outlines lie hidden in a rudimentary state, like the qualities of living creatures in their germs.

4. Difference

The essential difference consists in this, that War is no activity of the will, which exerts itself upon inanimate matter like the mechanical Arts; or upon a living but still passive and yielding subject, like the human mind and the human feelings in the ideal Arts, but against a living and reacting force. How little the categories of Arts and Sciences are applicable to such an activity strikes us at once; and we can understand at the same time how that constant seeking and striving after laws like those which may be developed out of the dead material world could not but lead to constant errors. And yet it is just the mechanical Arts that some people would imitate in the Art of War. The imitation of the ideal Arts was quite out of the question, because these themselves dispense too much with laws and rules, and those hitherto tried, always acknowledged as insufficient and one-sided, are perpetually undermined and washed away by the current of opinions, feelings, and customs.

Whether such a conflict of the living, as takes place and is settled in War, is subject to general laws, and whether these are capable of indicating a useful line of action, will be partly investigated in this book; but so much is evident in itself, that this, like every other subject which does not surpass our powers of understanding, may be lighted up, and be made more or less plain in its inner relations by an inquiring mind, and that alone is sufficient to realize the idea of a theory.

Methodicism

In order to explain ourselves clearly as to the conception of method, and method of action, which play such an important part in War, we must be allowed to cast a hasty glance at the logical hierarchy through which, as through regularly constituted official functionaries, the world of action is governed.

Law, in the widest sense strictly applying to perception as well as action, has plainly something subjective and arbitrary in its literal meaning, and expresses just that on which we and those things external to us are dependent. As a subject of cognition, Law is the relation of things and their effects to one another; as a subject of the will, it is a motive of action, and is then equivalent to command or prohibition.

Principle is likewise such a law for action, except that it has not the formal definite meaning, but is only the spirit and sense of law in order to leave the judgement more freedom of application when the diversity of the real world cannot be laid hold of under the definite form of a law. As the judgement must of itself suggest the cases in which the principle is not applicable, the latter therefore becomes in that way a real aid or guiding star for the person acting.

Principle is objective when it is the result of objective truth, and consequently of equal value for all men; it is subjective, and then generally called Maxim if there are subjective relations in it, and if it therefore has a certain value only for the person himself who makes it.

Rule is frequently taken in the sense of Law, and then means the same as Principle, for we say 'no rule without exceptions', but we do not say 'no law without exceptions', a sign that with Rule we retain to ourselves more freedom of application.

In another meaning Rule is the means used of discerning a recondite truth in a particular sign lying close at hand, in order to attach to this particular sign the law of action directed upon the whole truth. Of this kind are all the rules of games of play, all abridged processes in mathematics, etc.

Directions and instructions are determinations of action which have an influence upon a number of minor circumstances too numerous and unimportant for general laws.

Lastly, Method, mode of acting, is an always recurring proceeding selected out of several possible ones; and Methodicism (METHODISMUS) is that which is determined by method instead of by general principles or particular prescriptions. By this the cases which are placed under such methods must necessarily be supposed alike in their essential parts. As they cannot all be this, then the point is that at least as many as possible should be; in other words, that Method should be calculated on the most probable cases. Methodicism is therefore not founded on determined particular premises, but on the average probability of cases one with another; and its ultimate tendency is to set up an average truth, the constant and uniform application of which soon acquires something of the nature of a mechanical appliance, which in the end does that which is right almost unwittingly.

The conception of law in relation to perception is not necessary for the conduct of War, because the complex phenomena of War are not so regular, and the regular are not so complex, that we should gain anything more by this conception than by the simple truth. And where a simple conception and language is sufficient, to resort to the complex becomes affected and pedantic. The conception of law in relation to action cannot be used in the theory of the conduct of War, because owing to the variableness and diversity of the phenomena there is in it no determination of such a general nature as to deserve the name of law.

But principles, rules, prescriptions, and methods are conceptions indispensable to a theory of the conduct of War, in so far as that theory leads to positive doctrines, because in doctrines the truth can only crystallize itself in such forms.

As tactics is the branch of the conduct of War in which theory can attain the nearest to positive doctrine, therefore these conceptions will appear in it most frequently.

Not to use cavalry against unbroken infantry except in some case of special emergency, only to use firearms within effective range in the combat, to spare the forces as much as possible for the final struggle-these are tactical principles. None of them can be applied absolutely in every case, but they must always be present to the mind of the Chief, in order that the benefit of the truth contained in them may not be lost in cases where that truth can be of advantage.

If from the unusual cooking by an enemy's camp his movement is inferred, if the intentional exposure of troops in a combat indicates a false attack, then this way of discerning the truth is called rule, because from a single visible circumstance that conclusion is drawn which corresponds with the same.

If it is a rule to attack the enemy with renewed vigour, as soon as he begins to limber up his artillery in the combat, then on this particular fact depends a course of action which is aimed at the general situation of the enemy as inferred from the above fact, namely, that he is about to give up the fight, that he is commencing to draw off his troops, and is neither capable of making a serious stand while thus drawing off nor of making his retreat gradually in good order.

Regulations and methods bring preparatory theories into the conduct of War, in so far as disciplined troops are inoculated with them as active principles. The whole body ofinstructions for formations, drill, and field service are regulations and methods: in the drill instructions the first predominate, in the field service instructions the latter. To these things the real conduct of War attaches itself; it takes them over, therefore, as given modes of proceeding, and as such they must appear in the theory of the conduct of War.

But for those activities retaining freedom in the employment of these forces there cannot be regulations, that is, definite instructions, because they would do away with freedom of action. Methods, on the other hand, as a general way of executing duties as they arise, calculated as we have said, on an average of probability, or as a dominating influence of principles and rules carried through to application, may certainly appear in the theory of the conduct of War, provided only they are not represented as something different from what they are, not as the absolute and necessary modes of action (systems), but as the best of general forms which may be used as shorter ways in place of a particular disposition for the occasion, at discretion.

But the frequent application of methods will be seen to be most essential and unavoidable in the conduct of War, if we reflect how much action proceeds on mere conjecture, or in complete uncertainty, because one side is prevented from learning all the circumstances which influence the dispositions of the other, or because, even if these circumstances which influence the decisions of the one were really known, there is not, owing to their extent and the dispositions they would entail, sufficient time for the other to carry out all necessary counteracting measures-that therefore measures in War must always be calculated on a certain number of possibilities; if we reflect how numberless are the trifling things belonging to any single event, and which therefore should be taken into account along with it, and that therefore there is no other means to suppose the one counteracted by the other, and to base our arrangements only upon what is of a general nature and probable; if we reflect lastly that, owing to the increasing number of officers as we descend the scale of rank, less must be left to the true discernment and ripe judgement of individuals the lower the sphere of action, and that when we reach those ranks where we can look for no other notions but those which the regulations of the service and experience afford, we must help them with the methodic forms bordering on those regulations. This will serve both as a support to their judgement and a barrier against those extravagant and erroneous views which are so especially to be dreaded in a sphere where experience is so costly.

Besides this absolute need of method in action, we must also acknowledge that it has a positive advantage, which is that, through the constant repetition of a formal exercise, a readiness, precision, and firmness is attained in the movement of troops which diminishes the natural friction, and makes the machine move easier.

Method will therefore be the more generally used, become the more indispensable, the further down the scale of rank the position of the active agent; and on the other hand, its use will diminish upwards, until in the highest position it quite disappears. For this reason it is more in its place in tactics than in strategy.

War in its highest aspects consists not of an infinite number of little events, the diversities in which compensate each other, and which therefore by a better or worse method are better or worse governed, but of separate great decisive events which must be dealt with separately. It is not like a field of stalks, which, without any regard to the particular form of each stalk, will be mowed better or worse, according as the mowing instrument is good or bad, but rather as a group of large trees, to which the axe must be laid with judgement, according to the particular form and inclination of each separate trunk.

How high up in military activity the admissibility of method in action reaches naturally determines itself, not according to actual rank, but according to things; and it affects the highest positions in a less degree, only because these positions have the most comprehensive subjects of activity. A constant order of battle, a constant formation of advance guards and outposts, are methods by which a General ties not only his subordinates' hands, but also his own in certain cases. Certainly they may have been devised by himself, and may be applied by him according to circumstances, but they may also be a subject of theory, in so far as they are based on the general properties of troops and weapons. On the other hand, any method by which definite plans for wars or campaigns are to be given out all ready made as if from a machine are absolutely worthless.

As long as there exists no theory which can be sustained, that is, no enlightened treatise on the conduct of War, method in action cannot but encroach beyond its proper limits in high places, for men employed in these spheres of activity have not always had the opportunity of educating themselves, through study and through contact with the higher interests. In the impracticable and inconsistent disquisitions of theorists and critics they cannot find their way, their sound common sense rejects them, and as they bring with them no knowledge but that derived from experience, therefore in those cases which admit of, and require, a free individual treatment they readily make use of the means which experience gives them-that is, an imitation of the particular methods practised by great Generals, by which a method of action then arises of itself. If we see Frederick the Great's Generals always making their appearance in the so-called oblique order of battle, the Generals of the French Revolution always using turning movements with a long extended line of battle, and Buonaparte's lieutenants rushing to the attack with the bloody energy of concentrated masses, then we recognize in the recurrence of the mode of proceeding evidently an adopted method, and see therefore that method of action can reach up to regions bordering on the highest. Should an improved theory facilitate the study of the conduct of War, form the mind and judgement of men who are rising to the highest commands, then also method in action will no longer reach so far, and so much of it as is to be considered indispensable will then at least be formed from theory itself, and not take place out of mere imitation. However pre-eminently a great Commander does things, there is always something subjective in the way he does them; and if he has a certain manner, a large share of his individuality is contained in it which does not always accord with the individuality of the person who copies his manner.

At the same time, it would neither be possible nor right to banish subjective methodicism or manner completely from the conduct of War: it is rather to be regarded as a manifestation of that influence which the general character of a War has upon its separate events, and to which satisfaction can only be done in that way if theory is not able to foresee this general character and include it in its considerations. What is more natural than that the War of the French Revolution had its own way of doing things? and what theory could ever have included that peculiar method? The evil is only that such a manner originating in a special case easily outlives itself, because it continues whilst circumstances imperceptibly change. This is what theory should prevent by lucid and rational criticism. When in the year 18o6 the Prussian Generals, Prince Louis at Saalfeld, Tauentzien on the Dornberg near Jena, Grawert before and Rüchel behind Kappellendorf, all threw themselves into the open jaws of destruction in the oblique order of Frederick the Great and managed to ruin Hohenlohe's Army in a way that no Army was ever ruined, even on the field of battle, all this was done through a manner which had outlived its day, together with the most downright stupidity to which methodicism ever led.

Criticism

The influence of theoretical principles upon real life is produced more through criticism than through doctrine, for as criticism is an application of abstract truth to real events, therefore it not only brings truth of this description nearer to life, but also accustoms the understanding more to such truths by the constant repetition of their application. We therefore think it necessary to fix the point of view for criticism next to that for theory.

From the simple narration of an historical occurrence which places events in chronological order, or at most only touches on their more immediate causes, we separate the critical.

In this critical three different operations of the mind may be observed.

First, the historical investigation and determining of doubtful facts. This is properly historical research, and has nothing in common with theory.

Secondly, the tracing of effects to causes. This is the real critical inquiry; it is indispensable to theory, for everything which in theory is to be established, supported, or even merely explained, by experience can only be settled in this way.

Thirdly, the testing of the means employed. This is criticism, properly speaking, in which praise and censure is contained. This is where theory helps history, or rather, the teaching to be derived from it.

In these two last strictly critical parts of historical study, all depends on tracing things to their primary elements, that is to say, up to undoubted truths, and not, as is so often done, resting half-way, that is, on some arbitrary assumption or supposition.

As respects the tracing of effect to cause, that is often attended with the insuperable difficulty that the real causes are not known. In none of the relations of life does this so frequently happen as in War, where events are seldom fully known, and still less motives, as the latter have been, perhaps purposely, concealed by the chief actor, or have been of such a transient and accidental character that they have been lost for history. For this reason critical narration must generally proceed hand in hand with historical investigation, and still such a want of connexion between cause and effect will often present itself, that it does not seem justifiable to consider effects as the necessary results of known causes. Here, therefore, voids must occur, that is, historical results which cannot be made use of for teaching. All that theory can demand is that the investigation should be rigidly conducted up to that point, and there leave off without drawing conclusions. A real evil springs up only if the known is made perforce to suffice as an explanation of effects, and thus a false importance is ascribed to it.

Besides this difficulty, critical inquiry also meets with another great and intrinsic one, which is that the progress of events in War seldom proceeds from one simple cause, but from several in common, and that it therefore is not sufficient to follow up a series of events to their origin in a candid and impartial spirit, but that it is then also necessary to apportion to each contributing cause its due weight. This leads, therefore, to a closer investigation of their nature, and thus a critical investigation may lead into what is the proper field of theory.

The critical consideration, that is, the testing of the means, leads to the question, Which are the effects peculiar to the means applied, and whether these effects were comprehended in the plans of the person directing?

The effects peculiar to the means lead to the investigation of their nature, and thus again into the field of theory.

We have already seen that in criticism all depends upon attaining to positive truth; therefore, that we must not stop at arbitrary propositions which are not allowed by others, and to because he has not found one to please him, or because he has not yet been able to make himself master of one, will at least occasionally make use of a piece of one, as one would use a ruler, to show the blunders committed by a General. The most of them are incapable of reasoning without using as a help here and there some shreds of scientific military theory. The smallest of these fragments, consisting in mere scientific words and metaphors, are often nothing more than ornamental flourishes of critical narration. Now it is in the nature of things that all technical and scientific expressions which belong to a system lose their propriety, if they ever had any, as soon as they are distorted, and used as general axioms, or as small crystalline talismans, which have more power of demonstration than simple speech.

Thus it has come to pass that our theoretical and critical books, instead of being straightforward, intelligible dissertations, in which the author always knows at least what he says and the reader what he reads, are brimful of these technical terms, which form dark points of interference where author and reader part company. But frequently they are something worse, being nothing but hollow shells without any kernel. The author himself has no clear perception of what he means, contents himself with vague ideas, which if expressed in plain language would be unsatisfactory even to himself.

A third fault in criticism is the misuse of historical examples, and a display of great reading or learning. What the history of the Art of War is we have already said, and we shall further explain our views on examples and on military history in general in special chapters. One fact merely touched upon in a very cursory manner may be used to support the most opposite views, and three or four such facts of the most heterogeneous description, brought together out of the most distant lands and remote times and heaped up, generally distract and bewilder the judgement and understanding without demonstrating anything; for when exposed to the light they turn out to be only trumpery rubbish, made use of to show off the author's learning.

But what can be gained for practical life by such obscure, partly false, confused arbitrary conceptions? So little is gained that theory on account of them has always been a true antithesis of practice, and frequently a subject of ridicule to those whose soldierly qualities in the field are above question.

But it is impossible that this could have been the case, if theory in simple language, and by natural treatment of those things which constitute the Art of making War, had merely sought to establish just so much as admits of being established; if, avoiding all false pretensions and irrelevant display of scientific forms and historical parallels, it had kept close to the subject, and gone hand in hand with those who must conduct affairs in the field by their own natural genius.

On Examples

Examples from history make everything clear, and furnish the best description of proof in the empirical sciences. This applies with more force to the Art of War than to any other. General Scharnhorst, whose handbook is the best ever written on actual War, pronounces historical examples to be of the first importance, and makes an admirable use of them himself. Had he survived the War in which he fell, the fourth part of his revised treatise on artillery would have given a still greater proof of the observing and enlightened spirit in which he sifted matters of experience.

But such use of historical examples is rarely made by theoretical writers; the way in which they more commonly make use of them is rather calculated to leave the mind unsatisfied, as well as to offend the understanding. We therefore think it important to bring specially into view the use and abuse of historical examples.

Unquestionably the branches of knowledge which lie at the foundation of the Art of War come under the denomination of empirical sciences; for although they are derived in a great measure from the nature of things, still we can only learn this very nature itself for the most part from experience; and besides that, the practical application is modified by so many circumstances that the effects can never be completely learnt from the mere nature of the means.

The effects of gunpowder, that great agent in our military activity, were only learnt by experience, and up to this hour experiments are continually in progress in order to investigate them more fully. That an iron ball to which powder has given a velocity of 1,000 feet in a second, smashes every living thing which it touches in its course is intelligible in itself; experience is not required to tell us that; but in producing this effect how many hundred circumstances are concerned, some of which can only be learnt by experience! And the physical is not the only effect which we have to study, it is the moral which we are in search of, and that can only be ascertained by experience; and there is no other way of learning and appreciating it but by experience. In the middle ages, when firearms were first invented, their effect, owing to their rude make, was materially but trifling compared to what it now is, but their effect morally was much greater. One must have witnessed the firmness of one of those masses taught and led by Buonaparte, under the heaviest and most unintermittent cannonade, in order to understand what troops, hardened by long practice in the field of danger, can do, when by a career of victory they have reached the noble principle of demanding from themselves their utmost efforts. In pure conception no one would believe it. On the other hand, it is well known that there are troops in the service of European Powers at the present moment who would easily be dispersed by a few cannon shots.

But no empirical science, consequently also no theory of the Art of War, can always corroborate its truths by historical proof; it would also be, in some measure, difficult to support experience by single facts. If any means is once found efficacious in War, it is repeated; one nation copies another, the thing becomes the fashion, and in this manner it comes into use, supported by experience, and takes its place in theory, which contents itself with appealing to experience in general in order to show its origin, but not as a verification of its truth.

But it is quite otherwise if experience is to be used in order to overthrow some means in use, to confirm what is doubtful, or introduce something new; then particular examples from history must be quoted as proofs.

Now, if we consider closely the use of historical proofs, four points of view readily present themselves for the purpose.

First, they may be used merely as an explanation of an idea. In every abstract consideration it is very easy to be misunderstood, or not to be intelligible at all: when an author is afraid of this, an exemplification from history serves to throw the light which is wanted on his idea, and to ensure his being intelligible to his reader.

Secondly, it may serve as an application of an idea, because by means of an example there is an opportunity of showing the action of those minor circumstances which cannot all be comprehended and explained in any general expression of an idea; for in that consists, indeed, the difference between theory and experience. Both these cases belong to examples properly speaking, the two following belong to historical proofs.

Thirdly, a historical fact may be referred to particularly, in order to support what one has advanced. This is in all cases sufficient, if we have only to prove the possibility of a fact or effect.

Lastly, in the fourth place, from the circumstantial detail of a historical event, and by collecting together several of them, we may deduce some theory, which therefore has its true proof in this testimony itself.

For the first of these purposes all that is generally required is a cursory notice of the case, as it is only used partially. Historical correctness is a secondary consideration; a case invented might also serve the purpose as well, only historical ones are always to be preferred, because they bring the idea which they illustrate nearer to practical life.

The second use supposes a more circumstantial relation of events, but historical authenticity is again of secondary importance, and in respect to this point the same is to be said as in the first case.

For the third purpose the mere quotation of an undoubted fact is generally sufficient. If it is asserted that fortified positions may fulfil their object under certain conditions, it is only necessary to mention the position of Bunzelwitz in support of the assertion.

But if, through the narrative of a case in history, an abstract truth is to be demonstrated, then everything in the case bearing on the demonstration must be analysed in the most searching and complete manner; it must, to a certain extent, develop itself carefully before the eyes of the reader. The less effectually this is done the weaker will be the proof, and the more necessary it will be to supply the demonstrative proof which is wanting in the single case by a number of cases, because we have a right to suppose that the more minute details which we are unable to give neutralize each other in the effects in a certain number of cases.

If we want to show by example derived from experience that cavalry are better placed behind than in a line with infantry; that it is very hazardous without a decided preponderance of numbers to attempt an enveloping movement, with widely separated columns, either on a field of battle or in the theatre of war-that is, either tactically or strategically-then in the first of these cases it would not be sufficient to specify some lost battles in which the cavalry was on the flanks and some gained in which the cavalry was in rear of the infantry; and in the latter of these cases it is not sufficient to refer to the battles of Rivoli and Wagram, to the attack of the Austrians on the theatre of war in Italy, in 1796, or of the French upon the German theatre of war in the same year. The way in which these orders of battle or plans of attack essentially contributed to disastrous issues in those particular cases must be shown by closely tracing out circumstances and occurrences. Then it will appear how far such forms or measures are to be condemned, a point which it is very necessary to show, for a total condemnation would be inconsistent with truth.

It has been already said that when a circumstantial detail of facts is impossible, the demonstrative power which is deficient may to a certain extent be supplied by the number of cases quoted; but this is a very dangerous method of getting out of the difficulty, and one which has been much abused. Instead of one well-explained example, three or four are just touched upon, and thus a show is made of strong evidence. But there are matters where a whole dozen of cases brought forward would prove nothing, if, for instance, they are facts of frequent occurrence, and therefore a dozen other cases with an opposite result might just as easily be brought forward. If any one will instance a dozen lost battles in which the side beaten attacked in separate converging columns, we can instance a dozen that have been gained in which the same order was adopted. It is evident that in this way no result is to be obtained.

Upon carefully considering these different points, it will be seen how easily examples may be misapplied.

An occurrence which, instead of being carefully analysed in all its parts, is superficially noticed, is like an object seen at a great distance, presenting the same appearance on each side, and in which the details of its parts cannot be distinguished. Such examples have, in reality, served to support the most contradictory opinions. To some Daun's campaigns are models of prudence and skill. To others, they are nothing but examples of timidity and want of resolution. Buonaparte's passage across the Noric Alps in 1797 may be made to appear the noblest resolution, but also as an act of sheer temerity. His strategic defeat in 1812 may be represented as the consequence either of an excess, or of a deficiency, of energy. All these opinions have been broached, and it is easy to see that they might very well arise, because each person takes a different view of the connexion of events. At the same time these antagonistic opinions cannot be reconciled with each other, and therefore one of the two must be wrong.

Much as we are obliged to the worthy Feuquières for the numerous examples introduced in his memoirs-partly because a number of historical incidents have thus been preserved which might otherwise have been lost, and partly because he was one of the first to bring theoretical, that is, abstract, ideas into connexion with the practical in war, in so far that the cases brought forward may be regarded as intended to exemplify and confirm what is theoretically asserted-yet, in the opinion of an impartial reader, he will hardly be allowed to have attained the object he proposed to himself, that of proving theoretical principles by historical examples. For although he sometimes relates occurrences with great minuteness, still he falls short very often of showing that the deductions drawn necessarily proceed from the inner relations of these events.

Another evil which comes from the superficial notice of historical events, is that some readers are either wholly ignorant of the events, or cannot call them to remembrance sufficiently to be able to grasp the author's meaning, so that there is no alternative between either accepting blindly what is said, or remaining unconvinced.

It is extremely difficult to put together or unfold historical events before the eyes of a reader in such a way as is necessary, in order to be able to use them as proofs; for the writer very often wants the means, and can neither afford the time nor the requisite space; but we maintain that, when the object is to establish a new or doubtful opinion, one single example, thoroughly analysed, is far more instructive than ten which are superficially treated. The great mischief of these superficial representations is not that the writer puts his story forward as a proof when it has only a false title, but that he has not made himself properly acquainted with the subject, and that from this sort of slovenly, shallow treatment of history, a hundred false views and attempts at the construction of theories arise, which would never have made their appearance if the writer had looked upon it as his duty to deduce from the strict connexion of events everything new which he brought to market, and sought to prove from history.

When we are convinced of these difficulties in the use of historical examples, and at the same time of the necessity (of making use of such examples), then we shall also come to the conclusion that the latest military history is naturally the best field from which to draw them, inasmuch as it alone is sufficiently authentic and detailed.

In ancient times, circumstances connected with War, as well as the method of carrying it on, were different; therefore its events are of less use to us either theoretically or practically; in addition to which, military history, like every other, naturally loses in the course of time a number of small traits and lineaments originally to be seen, loses in colour and life, like a worn-out or darkened picture; so that perhaps at last only the large masses and leading features remain, which thus acquire undue proportions.

If we look at the present state of warfare, we should say that the Wars since that of the Austrian succession are almost the only ones which, at least as far as armament, have still a considerable similarity to the present, and which, notwithstanding the many important changes which have taken place both great and small, are still capable of affording much instruction. It is quite otherwise with the War of the Spanish succession, as the use of firearms had not then so far advanced towards perfection, and cavalry still continued the most important arm. The further we go back, the less useful becomes military history, as it gets so much the more meagre and barren of detail. The most useless of all is that of the old world.

But this usefulness is not altogether absolute, it relates only to those subjects which depend on a knowledge of minute details, or on those things in which the method of conducting war has changed. Although we know very little about the tactics in the battles between the Swiss and the Austrians, the Burgundians and French, still we find in them unmistakable evidence that they were the first in which the superiority of a good infantry over the best cavalry was displayed. A general glance at the time of the Condottieri teaches us how the whole method of conducting War is dependent on the instrument used; for at no period have the forces used in War had so much the characteristics of a special instrument, and been a class so totally distinct from the rest of the national community. The memorable way in which the Romans in the second Punic War attacked the Carthaginian possessions in Spain and Africa, while Hannibal still maintained himself in Italy, is a most instructive subject to study, as the general relations of the States and Armies concerned in the indirect act of defence are sufficiently well known.

But the more things descend into particulars and deviate in character from the most general relations, the less we can look for examples and lessons of experience from very remote periods for we have neither the means of judging properly of corresponding events, nor can we apply them to our completely different method of War.

Unfortunately, however, it has always been the fashion with historical writers to talk about ancient times. We shall not say how far vanity and charlatanism may have had a share in this, but in general we fail to discover any honest intention and earnest endeavour to instruct and convince, and we can therefore only look upon such quotations and references as embellishments to fill up gaps and hide defects.

It would be an immense service to teach the Art of War entirely by historical examples, as Feuquières proposed to do; but it would be full work for the whole life of a man, if we reflect that he who undertakes it must first qualify himself for the task by a long personal experience in actual War.

Whoever, stirred by ambition, undertakes such a task, let him prepare himself for his pious undertaking as for a long pilgrimage; let him give up his time, spare no sacrifice, fear no temporal rank or power, and rise above all feelings of personal vanity, of false shame, in order, according to the French code, to speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

分册总目录

论语选萃

Confucius The First Ten Books

返回总目录

企鹅口袋书系列·伟大的思想

论语选萃

(英汉双语)

孔丘 著

D.C. 劳 英译

付雅丽 白话文翻译、注释













中国出版集团

中国对外翻译出版公司

目录

卷一

卷二

卷三

卷四

卷五

卷六

卷七

卷八

卷九

卷十

返回分册总目录

卷 一

1.子曰:“学而时习 【1】 之,不亦说 【2】 乎?有朋自远方来,不亦乐乎?人不知 【3】 ,而不愠 【4】 ,不亦君子乎?”

孔子说:“将学到的东西不断地用于实践不是一件很开心的事吗?有志同道合的朋友从远方来看望自己难道不会很快乐吗?自己的学识、抱负没有人认可或知道而不心存怨恨,这难道不是君子吗?”



2.有子 【5】 曰:“其为人也孝弟 【6】 ,而好犯上者 【7】 ,鲜 【8】 矣;不好犯上,而好作乱者,未之有也 【9】 。君子务本 【10】 ,本立而道生 【11】 。孝弟也者,其为仁之本与 【12】 ?”

有子说:“一个人很孝顺父母而且疼爱自己的兄弟姐妹,却又经常对别的长辈或地位比自己高的人不恭敬,这样的人是很少存在的;不会对比自己年长的人或地位高的人不恭,却又经常胡作非为的人我从来没有见过。君子专心致力于根本的事务,基础建立了,治国做人的原则也就有了。孝顺父母、敬爱兄长,这就是仁的根本啊!”



3.子曰:“巧言令色 【13】 ,鲜 【14】 矣仁。”

孔子说:“总是花言巧语,假装和颜悦色的人很少是仁慈的。”



4.曾子 【15】 曰:“吾日三省吾身 【16】 。为人谋而不忠乎?与朋友交而不信乎?传不习 【17】 乎?”

曾子说:“我每天都会反省自己很多次,帮别人做事是否尽心尽力?与朋友交往有没有不守信用?学到的知识是否不断温习或应用起来?”



5.子曰:“道 【18】 千乘之国 【19】 ,敬事而信,节用而爱人 【20】 ,使民以时。”

孔子说:“治理大国的人应该做到:做事兢兢业业、信守承诺,认真严谨地处理国家政事,节约财政开支,友爱同僚,役使民众而不误他们的农时。”



6.子曰:“弟子 【21】 入则孝,出则弟 【22】 ,谨而信,泛爱众,而亲仁 【23】 。行有余力,则以学文。”

孔子说:“年轻人在家要孝敬父母,出门要友敬爱兄长,为人处事谨慎而又言而有信,尊敬爱护每一个人,亲近有仁德的人。做到了这些并且有余力就可以继续学习各种文化知识。”



7.子夏 【24】 曰:“贤贤 【25】 【26】 色;事父母,能竭其力;事君,能致其身 【27】 ;与朋友交,言而有信。虽曰未学,吾必谓之学矣。”

子夏说:“尊敬贤德的人并不断向他们学习,改正自己错误的做法;侍奉父母要尽心尽力,竭尽自己的力量;服务君王能全身心地奉献;与朋友交往重诺守义,言而有信。即使这样的人没有读过一天书,我一定说他是很有学问的。”



8.子曰:“君子不重 【28】 则不威;学则不固 【29】 。主忠信 【30】 。无 【31】 友不如己者 【32】 ;过 【33】 则勿惮 【34】 改。”

孔子说:“一个人不自重自爱就不会有威严;不断学习才不会鄙陋;恪守忠信,与志同道合的人做朋友,有了过错要去改正,不要害怕改变。”



9.曾子曰:“慎终 【35】 ,追远 【36】 ,民德归厚矣。”

曾子说:“慎重地对待丧礼,虔诚地举行祭祀,民风就会慢慢转好的。”



10.子禽 【37】 问于子贡 【38】 曰:“夫子 【39】 至于是邦 【40】 也,必闻其政,求之与,抑 【41】 与之与?”子贡曰:“夫子温、良、恭、俭、让 【42】 以得之。夫子之求之也,其诸 【43】 异乎人之求之与?”

子禽向子贡请教问题:“老师(孔子)每到一个国家就总是能知道这个国家的政令、政风,这是老师去请求得来的呢?还是有人主动告诉他呢?”子贡回答说:“老师温良如玉、恭敬俭朴谦让,所以才会有资格知道这些事。老师得到的方法大概与别人的方法不同吧!”



11.子曰:“父在,观其 【44】 志;父没,观其行 【45】 ;三年 【46】 无改于父之道 【47】 ,可谓孝矣。”

孔子说:“父亲在世的时候,应该观察儿子的思想、志向;父亲去世以后应该观察儿子的所作所为。如果过了很长的一段时间儿子都没有改变当时的好的作为,就可以说他是很孝顺的了。”



12.有子 【48】 曰:“礼之用,和为贵。先王 【49】 之道,斯为美,小大由之。有所不行,知和而和,不以礼节之,亦不可行也。”

有子说:“礼的应用,以和谐为关键。先代圣王的治国方法之最可贵的地方就在于他们做所有的事都以此为出发点。如果不能做到这一点,只为求和谐的目的而去做,但不以‘礼’的精髓制约行为,也是行不通的。”



13.有子曰:“信近 【50】 于义 【51】 ,言可复 【52】 也;恭近于礼,远 【53】 耻辱也;因 【54】 不失其亲,亦可宗 【55】 也。”

有子说:“信守承诺的行为合乎于‘义’,这样的言辞才能够被履行;态度容貌的庄重矜持要符合于礼,这样的行为才不至于遭受侮辱;所依靠的人都是关系亲密、值得依靠的人,这样才可靠。”



14.子曰:“君子食无求饱,居无求安,敏于事而慎于言,就 【56】 有道 【57】 而正 【58】 焉,可谓好学也已。”

孔子说:“君子(代指一般有德行的人)在饮食上不求饱足,果腹即可;住所上不求安逸,栖身则已;对事情有敏锐的看法而又慎于言辞,向有道德的人看齐并不断端正自己的行为,这样就算是好学的人了。”



15.子贡曰:“贫而无谄 【59】 ,富而无骄,何如 【60】 ?”子曰:“可也。未若贫而乐 【61】 ,富而好礼者也。”子贡曰:“《诗》云,‘如切如磋!如琢如磨 【62】 ’,其斯之谓与?”子曰:“赐 【63】 也!始可与言《诗》已矣,告诸往而知来者 【64】 。”

子贡说:“没钱而不谄媚别人;有钱而不骄奢待人,怎么样呀?”孔子说:“这样的人也算是不错了,但是不如虽然贫穷却乐观地生活,富贵而谦恭好礼的人呀!”子贡说:“《诗经》讲,要像对待骨、角、象牙、玉石一样,切磋它,琢磨它,这就是做人或做学问的方法吧?”孔子赞叹道:“赐啊!已经可以和你讲解《诗经》了,你已能从我讲的过去的事情中领会到另外没有说到的意思了。



16.子曰:“不患 【65】 【66】 之不已知,患不知人也。”

孔子说:“不担心别人不知道自己,而担心自己不了解别人啊!”

注释

【1】  习:可指温习和实习。

【2】  说:同“悦”。

【3】  人不知:“知”字无宾语,可能是不懂道理,也可能是不了解自己。从下一句“而不愠”来看,后一解释更顺一些。

【4】  愠:音yùn,怨恨。

【5】  有子:孔子的学生,姓有,名若,比孔子小13岁,一说小33岁。后一说较为可信。在《论语》书中,记载的孔子学生,一般都称字,只有曾参和有若称“子”。因此,许多人认为《论语》即由曾参和有若所著述。

【6】  孝弟:孝,奴隶社会时期所认为的子女对待父母的正确态度;弟,读音和意义与“悌”(音tì)相同,即弟弟对待兄长的正确态度。旧注说:善事父母曰孝,善事兄长曰弟。

【7】  犯上:犯,冒犯、干犯。上,指在上位的人。

【8】  鲜:音xiǎn,少的意思。

【9】  未之有也:此为“未有之也”的倒装句型。

【10】  务本:务,专心、致力于。本,根本。

【11】  道:在中国古代思想里,道有多种含义。此处的道,指孔子提倡的仁道,即以仁为核心的整个道德思想体系及其在实际生活的体现。简单讲,就是治国做人的基本原则。

【12】  为仁之本:仁是孔子哲学思想的最高范畴,又是伦理道德准则。为仁之本,即以孝悌作为仁的根本。还有一种解释,认为古代的“仁”就是“人”字,为仁之本即做人的根本。

【13】  巧言令色:朱熹注曰:“好其言,善其色,致饰于外,务以说人。”巧和令都是美好的意思。但此处指装出和颜悦色的样子。

【14】  鲜:少的意思。

【15】  曾子:曾参[shēn],孔子的重要弟子。

【16】  三省吾身:“省”音xǐng,反省。也可理解为反省三件事,不过根据《论语》的句法,如是此意,“三”字应放在句末:吾日省吾身者三。

【17】  习:有温习、实习二义。

【18】  道:治理。

【19】  千乘之国:有兵车千辆的国家,在当时是大国。乘,音shèng。

【20】  爱人:此处的“人”可能指官员或上层人士。下句“使民以时”的“民”字则指民众。

【21】  弟子:可指年轻人或学生,此处指年轻人。

【22】  出则弟:“弟”同“悌”,意为尊敬兄长。

【23】  亲仁:“仁”指有仁德之人。

【24】  子夏:姓卜,名商,字子夏,孔子的学生,比孔子小44岁,生于公元前507年。孔子死后,他在魏国宣传孔子的思想主张。

【25】  贤贤:第一个“贤”字作动词用,尊重的意思。贤贤即尊重贤者。

【26】  易:有两种解释;一是改变的意思,此句即为尊重贤者而改正自己错误的做法;二是轻视的意思,即看重贤德而轻视女色。

【27】  致其身:致,意为“献纳”、“尽力”。这是说把生命奉献给君主。

【28】  重:庄重、自持。

【29】  学则不固:有两种解释:一是作坚固解,与上句相连,不庄重就没有威严,所学也不坚固;二是作固陋解,喻人见闻少,学了就可以不固陋。

【30】  主忠信:以忠信为主。

【31】  无:通毋,“不要”的意思。

【32】  不如己:一般解释为不如自己。另一种解释说,“不如己者,不类乎己,所谓‘道不同不相为谋’也。”把“如”解释为“类似”。后一种解释更为符合孔子的原意。

【33】  过:过错、过失。

【34】  惮:音dàn,害怕、畏惧。

【35】  慎终:慎重地对待丧礼。终指丧礼。

【36】  追远:指祭祀时要虔诚。

【37】  子禽:姓陈,名亢,字子禽。郑玄所注《论语》说他是孔子的学生,但《史记·仲尼弟子列传》未载此人,故一说子禽非孔子学生。

【38】  子贡:姓端木名赐,字子贡,卫国人,比孔子小31岁,是孔子的学生,生于公元前520年。子贡善辩,孔子认为他可以做大国的宰相。据《史记》记载,子贡在卫国做了商人,家有财产千金,成了有名的商业家。

【39】  夫子:这是古代的一种敬称,凡是做过大夫的人都可以取得这一称谓。孔子曾担任过鲁国的司寇,所以他的学生们称他为“夫子”。后来,因此而沿袭以称呼老师。《论语》书中所说的“夫子”,都是孔子的学生对他的称呼。

【40】  邦:指当时割据的诸侯国家。

【41】  抑:表示选择的文言连词,有“还是”的意思。

【42】  温、良、恭、俭、让:就字面理解即为:温顺、善良、恭敬、俭朴、谦让。这是孔子的弟子对他的赞誉。

【43】  其诸:语气词,有“大概”“或者”的意思。

【44】  其:他的,指儿子,不是指父亲。

【45】  行:指行为举止等。

【46】  三年:指要经过一个较长的时间而已,不一定仅指三年的时间。

【47】  道:有时候是一般意义上的名词,无论好坏、善恶都可以叫作道。但更多时候是积极意义的名词,表示善的、好的东西。这里表示“合理内容”的意思。

【48】  有子:有若,字子有,人们尊称为有子,是孔子的重要学生。

【49】  先王:指尧、舜、禹、汤、文王、武王等圣贤君主。

【50】  近:接近、符合的意思。

【51】  义:义是儒家的伦理范畴,是指思想和行为符合一定的标准。这个标准就是“礼”。

【52】  复:实践的意思。朱熹《集注》云:“复,践言也。”

【53】  远:动词,使动用法,使之远离的意思,此外亦可以译为避免。

【54】  因:依靠、凭藉。一说因应写作姻,但从上下文看似有不妥之处。

【55】  宗:主、可靠。

【56】  就:靠近、看齐。

【57】  有道:指有道德的人。

【58】  正:匡正、端正。

【59】  谄:音chǎn,意为巴结、奉承。

【60】  何如:《论语》书中的“何如”,都可以译为“怎么样”。

【61】  贫而乐:一本作“贫而乐道”。

【62】  如切如磋,如琢如磨:此二句见《诗经·卫风·淇澳》。有两种解释:一说切磋琢磨分别指对骨、象牙、玉、石四种不同材料的加工,否则不能成器;一说加工象牙和骨,切了还要磋,加工玉石,琢了还要磨,有精益求精之意。

【63】  赐:子贡名,孔子对学生都称其名。

【64】  告诸往而知来者:诸,同之;往,过去的事情;来,未来的事情。

【65】  患:忧虑、担心。

【66】  人:指有教养、有知识的人。

卷 二

1.子曰:“为政以德 【1】 ,譬如北辰 【2】 ,居其所而众星共 【3】 之。”

孔子说:“如果君王以‘德’治理国家,那就会像北极星一样,安居在自己的位置而其余众星有序地环绕在它的周围(随它的方向前进)。”



2.子曰:“《诗》三百 【4】 ,一言以蔽之,曰:‘思无邪 【5】 。’”

孔子说:“《诗经》的全部内容用一句话来概括就是:思想纯正。”



3.子曰:“道 【6】 之以政,齐之以刑,民免而无耻;道之以德,齐之以礼,有耻且格 【7】 。”

孔子说:“如果用行政命令来训导民众,用严刑峻法来整束民众,民众只会千方百计避免获罪而丧失廉耻之心;如果用道德引导民众,用礼仪约束民众,民众就会有羞耻之心并且努力(改正自己)以达到要求。”



4.子曰:“吾十有 【8】 五而志于学,三十而立 【9】 ,四十而不惑 【10】 ,五十而知天命 【11】 ,六十而耳顺 【12】 ,七十而从心所欲不逾矩 【13】 。”

孔子说:“我十五岁的时候立下了学习的志向,三十岁时说话做事有了把握,四十岁时掌握了知识开始不因外界事物困惑,五十岁时知晓天命,六十岁对不利于自己的意见也会正确对待,七十岁以后则能行动都随自己的心意而又不会越过世俗规矩。”



5.孟懿子 【14】 问孝。子曰:“无违 【15】 。”樊迟 【16】 御,子告之曰:“孟孙问孝于我,我对曰‘无违’。”樊迟曰:“何谓也?”子曰:“生,事之以礼;死,葬之以礼,祭之以礼。”

孟懿子向孔子请教关于“孝”的问题。孔子回答他说:“不要违背。”当樊迟为孔子驾车的时候,孔子告诉他说:“孟孙(孟懿子)问我什么是孝,我告诉他说就是‘不要违背’。”樊迟问道:“这是什么意思呢?”孔子回答道:“当父母在世的时候,以礼来侍奉他们,父母过世以礼来安葬他们,以礼来祭祀怀念他们。”



6.孟武伯 【17】 问孝,子曰:“父母唯其疾之忧 【18】 。”

孟武伯问孔子什么是“孝”,孔子回答说:“孝顺父母就是要(时刻)关心他们的身体,为他们的疾病担忧。”



7.子游 【19】 问孝,子曰:“今之孝者,是谓能养。至于犬马,皆能有养 【20】 ,不敬,何以别乎?”

子游向孔子请教什么是“孝”,孔子说:“今天我们说到‘孝’,就说是能够赡养老人就可以了。但我们对家里的狗、马也能做到很好地喂养它们;所以,如果没有用恭敬的态度对待父母,那么这种赡养与喂养家里的动物有什么区别呢?”



8.子夏问孝,子曰:“色难 【21】 。有事,弟子服其劳 【22】 ;有酒食,先生 【23】 【24】 ,曾是以为孝乎?”

子夏问孔子什么是“孝”。孔子说:“要做到和颜悦色、始终恭敬最不容易。如果只是父母长辈有什么事,晚辈子女帮他们完成、服侍他们;有好的饮食也都先拿来奉给他们,你以为这样就是做到‘孝’了吗?”



9.子曰:“吾与回 【25】 言,终日不违 【26】 ,如愚。退而省其私 【27】 ,亦足以发,回也不愚。”

孔子说:“每次我跟颜回说些什么,一整天他都不会提出什么相反的意见或问题来,就好像很愚钝一样。但通过观察他私下里与其他人的言行,其实对我们平时讨论的问题有很多阐发。颜回也并不是很愚钝呀!”



10.子曰:“视其所以 【28】 ,观其所由 【29】 ,察其所安 【30】 ,人焉廋 【31】 哉?人焉廋哉?”

孔子说:“(要考察一个人)只要看他所做过的事情,观察他曾经的经历,看他的秉性涵养,这样一个人怎么能掩藏起自己来呢?怎么能掩藏起自己来呢?”



11.子曰:“温故而知新 【32】 ,可以为师矣。”

孔子说:“不断温习以前学到的知识,不断从中阐发出新的体会,这样的人可以做老师了。”



12.子曰:“君子不器 【33】 。”

孔子说:“君子不会像器皿一样只具备某一方面的才能。”



13.子贡问君子。子曰:“先行其言而后从之。”

子贡问孔子怎样做一个君子。孔子说:“对于要说的话,先将它付诸于行动,然后再将它说出来(,这样才是君子)。”



14.子曰:“君子周 【34】 而不比 【35】 ,小人 【36】 比而不周。”

孔子说:“君子与人相处合群而不勾结,小人则是与人勾结而不合群。”



15.子曰:“学而不思则罔 【37】 ,思而不学则殆 【38】 。”

孔子说:“单纯学习知识但不去思索就会茫然、迷惑,只是不断空想但不学习实践就会迷惑茫然。”



16.子曰:“攻 【39】 乎异端 【40】 ,斯 【41】 害也已 【42】 。”

孔子说:“(不讲道理地)攻击反对不同于己的言论或事物,这种行为也是错误的。”



17.子曰:“由 【43】 ,诲女 【44】 ,知之乎?知之为知之,不知为不知,是知也。”

孔子说:由啊,我教导你的你明白吗?对一件事,知道就是知道,不知道就是不知道,这就是有智慧啊。



18.子张 【45】 学干禄 【46】 ,子曰:“多闻阙 【47】 【48】 ,慎言其余,则寡尤 【49】 ;多见阙殆,慎行其余,则寡悔。言寡尤,行寡悔,禄在其中矣。”

子张问怎样求取官职。孔子回答说:“多听取别人的意见,有疑问的就先将它搁置在一边,对有把握的事也不要轻易地谈论,这样说话就会少犯错误;遇到事情要多观察,有怀疑的就先不做,对有把握的事也要谨慎地去处理,这样做事就不会有太多悔恨。做到了少说错话、少做错事,官职俸禄自然就能得到。”



19.哀公 【50】 问曰:“何为则民服?”孔子对曰 【51】 :“举直错诸枉 【52】 ,则民服;举枉错诸直,则民不服。”

鲁哀公问孔子:“怎样做才能使民众臣服?”孔子回答说:“选拔任用正直公平的人,把不正直的人放置一旁,那么人民就会臣服;任用不正直的人而将正直无私的人放置不予任用,则民众不会臣服。”



20.季康子 【53】 问:“使民敬、忠以 【54】 【55】 ,如之何?”子曰:“临 【56】 之以庄,则敬;孝慈 【57】 ,则忠;举善而教不能,则劝。”

季康子问孔子:“要使民众恭敬、忠厚,并且自勉努力,应该怎样做呢?”孔子说:“对待民众庄重威严,他们就会态度恭敬;通过自己的行为引导百姓孝敬父母、慈爱兄弟,则民风忠厚;提拔良善的人而教导能力差的人,人们就会自勉努力了。”



21.或 【58】 谓孔子曰:“子奚 【59】 不为政?”子曰:“《书》 【60】 云:‘孝乎惟孝,友于兄弟,施于有政 【61】 。’是亦为政,奚其为为政?”

有人对孔子说:“先生为什么不从事政治呢?”孔子回答道:“《尚书》里说过,孝就是孝敬父母,友爱兄弟。把这孝的风气去影响当政者,也就是从政了,难道只有做官才能算是从事政治吗?”



22.子曰:“人而无信,不知其可也。大车无 【62】 ,小车无 【63】 ,其何以行之哉?”

孔子说:“一个人做事没有信誉,会让人不知道他到底想做什么,让人无所适从。就像牛车上没有 ,小车上没有 一样,它凭什么来行进呢?”



23.子张问:“十世 【64】 可知也?”子曰:“殷因 【65】 于夏礼,所损益 【66】 可知也;周因于殷礼,所损益可知也。其或继周者,虽百世,可知也。”

子张问孔子:“今后十世(的礼仪制度)可以知道吗?”孔子回答说:“殷代沿用夏代的礼制,周代沿用殷代的礼制,他们在因循的过程中对这些礼制的修整变化是可以考察到的。以后别的继承周代的国家就算历任百世,他的礼制也可以推出来。”



24.子曰:“非其鬼 【67】 而祭之;谄 【68】 也。见义 【69】 不为,无勇也。”

孔子说:“不是自己家的祖先而去祭祀他,这是谄媚的行为,见到应该做的事而不做是没有勇气。”

注释

【1】  为政以德:以,用的意思。此句是说统治者应以道德进行统治,即“德治”。

【2】  北辰:北极星。

【3】  共:同拱,环绕。

【4】  《诗》三百:《诗经》中有三百零五篇诗,说“《诗》三百”是说一整数。

【5】  “思无邪”:这是《诗经·鲁颂》中的一句,孔子借来概括《诗经》的内容。

【6】  道:同“导”。

【7】  格:符合规格,达到要求。

【8】  有:同“又”。

【9】  立:站得住的意思。

【10】  不惑:掌握了知识,不被外界事物而困惑。

【11】  天命:指不能为人力所支配的事情。

【12】  耳顺:对此有多种解释。一般而言,指对那些于己不利的意见也能正确对待。

【13】  从心所欲不逾矩:从,遵从的意思;逾,越过;矩,规矩。

【14】  孟懿子:鲁国的大夫,复姓仲孙或孟孙,故下文称孟孙。

【15】  无违:古人常用“违”来指违礼。

【16】  樊迟:名须,字子迟,孔子的学生。

【17】  孟武伯:孟懿子的儿子,名彘,音zhì。武是他的谥号。

【18】  父母唯其疾之忧:其,代词,指父母。疾,病。

【19】  子游:姓言名偃,字子游,孔子的学生。

【20】  养:指饲养。

【21】  色难:色,脸色。难,不容易的意思。

【22】  服劳:服,从事、担负。服劳即服侍。

【23】  先生:先生指长者或父母;前面说的弟子,指晚辈、儿女等。

【24】  馔:音zhuàn,意为饮食、吃喝。

【25】  回:姓颜名回,字子渊,生于公元前521年,比孔子小30岁,鲁国人,孔子的得意门生。

【26】  不违:不提相反的意见和问题。

【27】  退而省其私:考察颜回私下里与其他学生讨论学问的言行。

【28】  所以:所做的事情。

【29】  所由:所经历的事情。

【30】  所安:所安的心境。

【31】  廋:音sōu,隐藏、藏匿。

【32】  温故而知新:故,过去的。新,刚刚学到的知识或新的体会。

【33】  器:器具。孔子用“君子不器”来主张君子要具备多种才能和技艺。

【34】  周:合群。

【35】  比:音bì,勾结。

【36】  小人:没有道德修养的凡人。

【37】  罔:迷惑、糊涂。

【38】  殆;疑惑、危险。

【39】  攻:攻击。有人将“攻”解释为“治”。不妥。

【40】  异端:不正确的言论。另外、不同的一端。

【41】  斯:代词,这。

【42】  也已:这里用作语气词。

【43】  由:姓仲名由,字子路。生于公元前542年,孔子的学生。

【44】  女:同汝,你。

【45】  子张:姓颛孙名师,字子张,生于公元前503年,比孔子小48岁,孔子的学生。

【46】  干禄:干,求的意思。禄,即古代官吏的俸禄。干禄就是求取官职。

【47】  阙:缺。此处意为放置在一旁。

【48】  疑:怀疑。

【49】  寡尤:寡,少的意思。尤,过错。

【50】  哀公:姓姬名蒋,哀是其谥号,鲁国国君,公元前494~前468年在位。

【51】  对曰:《论语》中记载对国君及在上位者问话的回答都用“对曰”,以表示尊敬。

【52】  举直错诸枉:举,选拔的意思。直,正直公平。错,同措,放置。枉,不正直。

【53】  季康子:姓季孙名肥,康是他的谥号,鲁哀公时任正卿,是当时政治上最有权势的人。

【54】  以:连接词,与“而”同。

【55】  劝:勉励。这里是自勉努力的意思。

【56】  临:对待。

【57】  孝慈:一说当政者自己孝慈;一说当政者引导老百姓孝慈。此处采用后者。

【58】  或:有人。不定代词。

【59】  奚:疑问词,相当于“为什么”。

【60】  《书》:指《尚书》。

【61】  施于有政:施:一作施行讲;一作延及讲。

【62】   :音ní,古代大车车辕前面横木上的木销子。大车指的是牛车。

【63】   :音yuè,古代小车车辕前面横木上的木销子。没有 ,车就不能走。

【64】  世:古时称30年为一世。也有的把“世”解释为朝代。

【65】  因:因袭:沿用、继承。

【66】  损益:减少和增加,即优化、变动之义。

【67】  鬼:有两种解释:一是指鬼神,二是指死去的祖先。

【68】  谄:音chǎn,谄媚、阿谀。

【69】  义:人应该做的事就是义。

卷 三

1.孔子谓季氏 【1】 :“八佾 【2】 舞于庭,是可忍 【3】 ,孰不可忍也!”

孔子评论季平子说:“季家用违反礼仪的八佾在自家庭院里演出,这种事情都容忍做出来了,还有什么事做不出来呢?”



2.三家 【4】 者以《雍》彻 【5】 。子曰:“‘相维辟公,天子穆穆’ 【6】 ,奚取于三家之堂 【7】 ”。

在鲁国当政的孟孙氏、叔孙氏、季孙氏三家在祭祖完毕撤去祭品时,也命乐工唱《雍》这篇诗。孔子评论说:“‘(诗《雍》中的两句)’助祭的是诸侯,天子严肃静穆地在那里主祭。这样的意思,怎么能用在你们三家祭祖的庙堂里呢?”



3.子曰:“人而不仁,如礼何?人而不仁,如乐何?”

孔子说:“为人没有仁德,他要怎样实行礼制呢?为人没有仁德,他要怎样运用乐制呢?”



4.林放 【8】 问礼之本。子曰:“大哉问!礼,与其奢也,宁俭;丧,与其易 【9】 也,宁戚 【10】 。”

林放向孔子询问“礼”的根本。孔子回答说:“这是多么重要的问题呀!礼仪,与其奢侈宁愿俭朴;丧礼,与其仪式铺张不如内心悲戚。”



5.子曰:“夷狄 【11】 之有君,不如诸夏 【12】 之亡 【13】 也。”

孔子说:“蛮荒之地的人即使有君主统治也不如中原礼仪之邦的人没有君主统治。”



6.季氏旅 【14】 于泰山,子谓冉有 【15】 曰:“女 【16】 弗能救 【17】 与?”对曰:“不能。”子曰:“呜呼!曾谓泰山不如林放 【18】 乎?”

季氏将要祭祀泰山,孔子问冉有:“你难道不能劝阻他这种不合礼制的行为吗?”冉有回答说:“不能。”孔子叹道:“哎!难道泰山神还不如林放知礼而接受不合规矩的祭礼吗?”



7.子曰:“君子无所争,必也射 【19】 乎!揖 【20】 让而升,下而饮,其争也君子。”

孔子说:“君子没有什么争强好胜的心,如果有的话,那就在射箭比赛上表现最明显了。开始比赛时,先拱手行礼以示尊敬,相互礼让后上场,射完箭又相互作揖,再退下来一起喝酒。这种争的方式也是君子的做法。”



8.子夏问曰:“‘巧笑倩兮,美目盼兮,素以为绚兮’。 【21】 何谓也?”子曰:“绘事后素 【22】 。”曰:“礼后乎?”子曰:“起予者商也 【23】 ,始可与言《诗》已矣。”

子夏问孔子说:“《诗经》上说,乖巧的笑容多迷人,美丽的眼睛多灵动,用素粉来打扮多漂亮啊。这几句话是什么意思呢?”孔子回答道:“这是说先有白底然后才能画画。”子夏又问道:“那么说礼也是后起的事了?”孔子答道:“商,你真是能启发我的人,现在可以同你一起讨论《诗经》了。”



9.子曰:“夏礼吾能言之,杞 【24】 不足征 【25】 也;殷礼吾能言之,宋 【26】 不足征也。文献 【27】 不足故也。足,则吾能征之矣。”

孔子说:“夏代的礼制我还能说出来,但单凭杞国现存的礼制已不足以证明我所说的了;殷代的礼制我能说出来,但凭宋国的礼制也已经不能证明我所说的了。这是因为他们所保留下来的文献资料不足的缘故啊。如果资料足够的话,我就能证明给你们看了。”



10.子曰:“禘 【28】 自既灌 【29】 而往者,吾不欲观之矣 【30】 。”

孔子说:“对于行禘礼的仪式,从第一次献酒以后,我就不愿意再往下看了。”



11.或问禘之说 【31】 ,子曰:“不知也。知其说者之于天下也,其如示诸斯 【32】 乎!”指其掌。

有人向孔子询问关于禘祭的规定,孔子回答说:“我不知道。真正懂得禘这个文化精神的人,看天下国家事物的道理,就好像是呈现在这里这么清楚明白。说完指指掌心。”



12.祭如在,祭神如神在。子曰:“吾不与祭,如不祭。”

祭祀祖先就要像祖宗在自己面前一样(恭敬),祭神就要像真正面对神灵一样虔诚。孔子说:“如果我没有全心投入到祭祀中去,不如不去祭祀。”



13.王孙贾 【33】 问曰:“与其媚 【34】 于奥 【35】 ,宁媚于灶 【36】 ,何谓也?”子曰:“不然。获罪于天 【37】 ,无所祷也。”

卫国大臣王孙贾问孔子:“(有人说)与其向奥神献媚,不如向灶神献媚,这是什么意思?”孔子回答道:“不是这样的。当所做的事为天理难容时,无论向谁祈祷都没有用。”



14.子曰:“周监 【38】 于二代 【39】 ,郁郁 【40】 乎文哉,吾从周。”

孔子说:“周代承继借鉴了夏商两朝的礼仪文化,它的礼制文化非常丰富、伟大与光辉,我遵从周代的礼制。”



15.子入太庙 【41】 ,每事问。或曰:“孰谓鄹 【42】 人之子知礼乎?入太庙,每事问。”子闻之,曰:“是礼也。”

孔子到了太庙每遇一件事都会详细询问。有人说:“不是说孔子对礼制很有研究吗?那为什么进了太庙事无巨细都要询问呢?”孔子听到后说:“这件事(对每一件事都详细询问)本身就是懂礼制的表现啊!”



16.子曰:“射不主皮 【43】 ,为力不同科 【44】 ,古之道也。”

孔子说:“比赛射箭时不在于能让箭穿透靶子,因为各人的力气大小不同。这是自古以来就有的规矩。”



17.子贡欲去告朔 【45】 之饩羊 【46】 。子曰:“赐也!尔爱 【47】 其羊,我爱其礼。”

子贡想要取消每月初一祭祀时用的活羊。孔子知道后说:“赐啊!你舍不得你的羊,但我舍不得的是我的礼呀!”



18.子曰:“事君尽礼,人以为谄也。”

孔子说:“侍奉君王一切都按照礼制的要求去做,别人却以为是在向君主献媚。”



19.定公 【48】 问:“君使臣,臣事君,如之何?”孔子对曰:“君使臣以礼,臣事君以忠。”

鲁定公问孔子:“君主役使臣子,臣子侍奉君主,都应该怎样去做啊?”孔子回答道:“君王让臣子做事应该以礼待臣;臣子应以忠心报君,全心侍奉君主。”



20.子曰:“《关睢》 【49】 ,乐而不淫,哀而不伤。”

孔子说:“《关睢》这首诗,快乐而不放荡,悲哀而不痛苦。”



21.哀公问社 【50】 于宰我,宰我 【51】 对曰:“夏后氏以松,殷人以柏,周人以栗,曰:使民战栗 【52】 。”子闻之,曰:“成事不说,遂事不谏,既往不咎。”

鲁哀公问宰我土地神的神主应该用什么树木制作,宰我说:“夏代用松树,殷代用柏树,周代用栗树,取其‘让民众恐惧、发抖’之意。”孔子听说后说:“已经做过的事就不用提了,已经完成的事就不用再去劝阻了,已经过去的事也就不必再追究了。”



22.子曰:“管仲 【53】 之器小哉!”或曰:“管仲俭乎?”曰:“管氏有三归 【54】 ,官事不摄 【55】 ,焉得俭?”“然则管仲知礼乎?”曰:“邦君树塞门 【56】 ,管氏亦树塞门;邦君为两君之好有反坫 【57】 ,管氏亦有反坫。管氏而知礼,孰不知礼?”

孔子说:“管仲的器量还是太小了呀!”有人问:“管仲节俭吗?”孔子说:“管仲收取人民大量市租,他家里的管事也是一人一职而不兼任,这怎么会是节俭呢?”有人又问:“那么管仲懂得礼制吗?”孔子回答说:“齐君在大门口筑了一道照壁,管仲也在大门口筑一道照壁;齐君为招待别国国君而设置用来放置献过酒的空杯子的台子,管仲也设置一个。如果说管仲知道礼制,那还有谁是不知礼的呢?”



23.子语 【58】 鲁大师 【59】 乐,曰:“乐其可知也:始作,翕 【60】 如也;从 【61】 之,纯 【62】 如也,皦 【63】 如也,绎 【64】 如也,以成。”

孔子告诉鲁太师演奏音乐的道理:“音乐的演奏是有规律的。刚开始演奏的时候,各种乐音和谐地配合,轻轻地舒展开,慢慢地发声;继续展开下去,音乐由小而大,悠扬悦耳,音节分明,到了高潮,或激昂慷慨或非常庄严肃穆,最后这个乐曲演奏完了,但还是余音缭绕,后面好像还有悠悠未尽之意。”



24.仪封人 【65】 请见,曰:“君子之至于斯也,吾未尝不得见也。”从者见之 【66】 。出,曰:“二三子何患于丧 【67】 乎?天下之无道也久矣,天将以夫子为木铎 【68】 。”

仪地镇守边疆的官员请求拜见孔子,他说:“凡是来到这里的有德行的人,没有一个是我不能见到的。”于是孔子的学生请求孔子接见他。官员拜见完孔子后对学生说:“你们这些人担心失去官职干什么呢?天下文化礼制的丧失已经很久了,上天让孔子降生,就是想以他来警醒世人啊!”



25.子谓《韶》 【69】 :“尽美 【70】 矣,又尽善 【71】 也。”谓《武》 【72】 :“尽美矣,未尽善也。”

孔子谈论到《韶》乐的时候说:“这支乐舞的音调、舞蹈美极了,表现的思想也善极了。当谈到《武》乐的时候则说:这支乐舞美极了,但还没做到善极。”



26.子曰:“居上不宽,为礼不敬,临丧不哀,吾何以观之哉?”

孔子说:“居于统治地位而不宽以待人,行礼的时候也不庄严肃穆,对待丧事不真心哀戚,这种样子我怎么能看得下去呢?”

注释

【1】  季氏:鲁国正卿季孙氏,即季平子。

【2】  八佾:佾音yì,行列的意思。古时一佾八人,八佾就是64人,据《周礼》规定,只有周天子才可以使用八佾,诸侯为六佾,卿大夫为四佾,士用二佾。季氏是正卿,只能用四佾。

【3】  可忍:可以容忍。一说可以忍心。

【4】  三家:鲁国当政的三家:孟孙氏、叔孙氏、季孙氏。他们都是鲁桓公的后代,又称“三桓”。

【5】  《雍》:《诗经·周颂》中的一篇。古代天子祭宗庙完毕撤去祭品时唱这首诗。

【6】  相维辟公,天子穆穆:《雍》诗中的两句。相,助。维,语助词,无意义。辟公,指诸侯。穆穆:庄严肃穆。

【7】  堂:接客祭祖的地方。

【8】  林放:鲁国人。

【9】  易:治理。这里指有关丧葬的礼节仪式办理得很周到。一说谦和、平易。

【10】  戚:心中悲哀的意思。

【11】  夷狄:古代中原地区的人对周边地区的贬称,谓之不开化,缺乏教养,不知书达礼。

【12】  诸夏:古代中原地区华夏族的自称。

【13】  亡:同无。古书中的“无”字多写作“亡”。

【14】  旅:祭名。祭祀山川为旅。当时,只有天子和诸侯才有祭祀名山大川的资格。

【15】  冉有:姓冉名求,字子有,生于公元前522年,孔子的弟子,比孔子小29岁。当时是季氏的家臣,所以孔子责备他。

【16】  女:同汝,你。

【17】  救:挽求、劝阻的意思。这里指谏止。

【18】  林放:见本篇第4章之注。

【19】  射:原意为射箭。此处指古代的射礼。

【20】  揖:拱手行礼,表示尊敬。

【21】  巧笑倩兮,美目盼兮,素以为绚兮:前两句见《诗经·卫风·硕人》篇。倩,音qiàn,笑得好看。兮,语助词,相当于“啊”。盼:眼睛黑白分明。绚,有文采。

【22】  绘事后素:绘,画。素,白底。

【23】  起予者商也:起,启发。予,我,孔子自指。商,子夏名商。

【24】  杞:春秋时国名,是夏禹的后裔。在今河南杞县一带。

【25】  征:证明。

【26】  宋:春秋时国名,是商汤的后裔,在今河南商丘一带。

【27】  文献:文,指历史典籍;献,指贤人。

【28】  禘:音dì,古代只有天子才可以举行的祭祀祖先的非常隆重的典礼。

【29】  灌:禘礼中第一次献酒。

【30】  吾不欲观之矣:我不愿意看了。

【31】  禘之说:“说”,理论、道理、规定。禘之说,意为关于禘祭的规定。

【32】  示诸斯:“斯”指后面的“掌”字。

【33】  王孙贾:卫灵公的大臣,时任大夫。

【34】  媚:谄媚、巴结、奉承。

【35】  奥:这里指屋内位居西南角的神。

【36】  灶:这里指灶旁管烹饪做饭的神。

【37】  天:以天喻君,一说天即理。

【38】  监:音jiàn,同鉴,借鉴的意思。

【39】  二代:这里指夏代和商代。

【40】  郁郁:文采盛貌。丰富、浓郁之意。

【41】  太庙:君主的祖庙。鲁国太庙,即周公旦的庙,供鲁国祭祀周公。

【42】  鄹:音zōu,春秋时鲁国地名,又写作“陬”,在今山东曲阜附近。“鄹人之子”指孔子。

【43】  皮:皮,用兽皮做成的箭靶子。

【44】  科:等级。

【45】  告朔:朔,农历每月初一为朔日。告朔,古代制度,天子每年秋冬之际,把第二年的历书颁发给诸侯,告知每个月的初一日。

【46】  饩羊:饩,音xì。饩羊,祭祀用的活羊。

【47】  爱:爱惜,舍不得的意思。

【48】  定公:鲁国国君,姓姬名宋,定是谥号。公元前509~前495年在位。

【49】  《关睢》:睢,音jū。这是《诗经》的第一篇。此篇写一君子“追求”淑女,思念时辗转反侧,寤寐思之的忧思,以及结婚时钟鼓乐之琴瑟友之的欢乐。

【50】  社:土地神,祭祀土神的庙也称社。

【51】  宰我:名予,字子我,孔子的学生。

【52】  战栗:恐惧,发抖。

【53】  管仲:姓管名夷吾,齐国人,春秋时期的法家先驱。齐桓公的宰相,辅助齐桓公成为诸侯的霸主,公元前645年死。

【54】  三归:相传是三处藏钱币的府库。

【55】  摄:兼任。

【56】  树塞门:树,树立。塞门,在大门口筑的一道短墙,以别内外,相当于屏风、照壁等。

【57】  反坫:坫,音diàn。古代君主招待别国国君时,放置献过酒的空杯子的土台。

【58】  语:音yù,告诉,动词用法。

【59】  大师:大,音tài。大师是乐官名。

【60】  翕:音xī。意为合、聚、协调。

【61】  从:音zòng,意为放纵、展开。

【62】  纯:美好、和谐。

【63】  皦:音jiǎo,音节分明。

【64】  绎:连续不断。

【65】  仪封人:仪为地名,在今河南兰考县境内。封人,系镇守边疆的官。

【66】  从者见之:随行的人见了他。

【67】  丧:失去,这里指失去官职。

【68】  木铎:木舌的铜铃。古代天子发布政令时摇它以召集听众。

【69】  《韶》:相传是古代歌颂虞舜的一种乐舞。

【70】  《美》:指乐曲的音调、舞蹈的形式而言。

【71】  《善》:指乐舞的思想内容而言的。

【72】  《武》:相传是歌颂周武王的一种乐舞。

卷 四

1.子曰:“里仁为美 【1】 ,择不处仁 【2】 ,焉得知 【3】 ?”

孔子说:“跟仁德的人做邻居才好,如果居住时不选择住在贤德的人的附近,我们又怎么能得到智慧呢?”



2.子曰:“不仁者不可以久处约 【4】 ,不可以长处乐。仁者安仁 【5】 ,知者利仁。”

孔子说:“没有仁德之心的人不能长久地处在贫困中,也不能长久地处于安乐中。有仁德的人安于仁道,有智慧的人则是知道仁对自己有利才去实行仁道的。”



3.子曰:“唯仁者能好 【6】 人,能恶 【7】 人。”

孔子说:“唯有仁德的人能正确地喜欢一个人、厌恶一个人。”



4.子曰:“苟志于仁矣,无恶也。”

孔子说:“如果立定志向实行仁道的话,总是没有坏处的。”



5.子曰:“富与贵,是人之所欲也,不以其道得之,不处也;贫与贱,是人之所恶也,不以其道得之,不去也。君子去仁,恶乎成名?君子无终食之间违仁,造次必于是,颠沛必于是。”

孔子说:“财富与地位是每一个人所向往的,但不是以正当方式得到的,君子是不会接受的。贫穷与卑微是每个人所厌恶的,如果不是用正当的手段去改变这种境况,君子宁愿不改变。君子如果离开了仁德,又怎么能叫君子呢?君子不会在哪怕一顿饭的时间里背离仁德,即使在最紧迫的时刻也必须按照仁德办事,就是在颠沛流离的时候,也一定会按仁德去办事。”



6.子曰:“我未见好仁者,恶不仁者。好仁者,无以尚之;恶不仁者,其为仁矣,不使不仁者加乎其身。有能一日用其力于仁矣乎?我未见力不足者。盖有之矣,我未之见也。”

孔子说:“我没有见过爱好仁德的人,也没有见过厌恶不仁的人。爱好仁德的人,那是不能再好的了;厌恶不仁的人,在实行仁德的时候,只是不想让不仁德的人或事影响自己。有能每天都把自己的力量用在实行仁德上的人吗?我没有见过力量不够的(只是没有人去这样做罢了)。这种人大概也还是有的,但我没见过。”



7.子曰:“人之过也,各于其党。观过,斯知仁矣。”

孔子说:“一个人会有过错,往往都是与他所处的各种社会关系有关。通过仔细考察这个人所犯的错误,就可以知道他是什么样的人了。”



8.子曰:“朝闻道,夕死可矣。”

孔子说:“如果在早上听闻了真理,即使晚上就会死去也没有什么遗憾了。”



9.子曰:“士志于道,而耻恶衣恶食者,未足与议也。”

孔子说:“如果读书人立志要探求真理,却又对吃粗粮穿破衣的生活感到羞耻,这种人是不足以与他谈论人生至理的。”



10.子曰:“君子之于天下也,无适 【8】 也,无莫 【9】 也,义 【10】 之与比 【11】 。”

孔子说:“君子对于天下的人和事,没有固定的厚薄亲疏,只要合理恰当,便怎样做。”



11.子曰:“君子怀 【12】 德,小人怀土 【13】 ;君子怀刑 【14】 ,小人怀惠。”

孔子说:“君子时刻不忘记德行,小人时刻惦记的只是乡土;君子关心法度,小人关心恩惠。”



12.子曰:“放 【15】 于利而行,多怨 【16】 。”

孔子说:“只是为了追求利益而去做事,很容易招致别人的怨恨。”



13.子曰:“能以礼让为国乎,何有 【17】 ?不能以礼让为国,如礼何 【18】 ?”

孔子说:“能够用礼让的原则来治理国家,那还有什么困难呢?不能用礼让的原则来治理国家,怎么能实行礼制呢?”



14.子曰:“不患无位,患所以立;不患莫己知,求为可知也。”

孔子说:“(君子)不担心没有地位,只担心自己没有学到得以安身立命的知识;不担心没有人知道自己,只求自己能成为有真才实学,值得为人们知道的人。”



15.子曰:“参 【19】 乎,吾道一以贯之。”曾子曰:“唯。”子出,门人问曰:“何谓也?”曾子曰:“夫子之道,忠恕 【20】 而已矣。”

孔子说:“参呀,我的学说是由一个基本的思想贯彻始终的。”曾子说:“是的。”孔子出去以后,别的学生问曾子:“先生说的是什么意思呀?”曾子说:“老师的学说,主要是讲忠和恕罢了。”



16.子曰:“君子喻于义,小人喻于利 【21】 。”(4.16)

孔子说:“君子明白的是义,小人只知道利。”



17.子曰:“见贤思齐焉,见不贤而内自省 【22】 也。”(4.17)

孔子说:“看见贤德的人就要努力学习向他靠齐,看见不贤德的人就要立即反省自己有没有类似的缺点。”



18.子曰:“事父母几 【23】 谏,见志不从,又敬不违,劳 【24】 而不怨。”

孔子说:“侍奉父母,(当他们有错的时候)要婉转地进行劝谏,如果他们不听从自己的意见,那也要态度恭敬而不要忤逆违背他们的意愿,要为他们担忧操劳而不要心存怨恨。”



19.子曰:“父母在,不远游 【25】 ,游必有方 【26】 。”

孔子说:“父母在世的时候,不要离开他们去很远的地方,(避免他们没有人照顾,)不得已而出外必须要告诉他们要去的地方。”



20.子曰:“三年无改于父之道,可谓孝矣。”

孔子说:“如果过了很长一段时间儿子都没有改变父亲在世时的好的作为,就可以说他是很孝顺的了。”



21.子曰:“父母之年,不可不知也。一则以喜,一则以惧。”

孔子说:“父母的生日是不可以不知道的。一方面可以为他们的长寿而开心,另一方面也要为他们的年老而担忧。”



22.子曰:“古者言之不出,耻躬之不逮也。”

孔子说:“古代的人言语不轻易说出口,因为他们担心自己的行为会有做不到的地方。”



23.子曰:“以约 【27】 失之者鲜 【28】 矣。”

孔子说:“时刻以礼制约束自己而又总犯错误的人是很少见的呀。”



24.子曰:“君子欲讷 【29】 于言而敏 【30】 于行。”

孔子说:“君子言语要谨慎,行动要勤敏。”



25.子曰:“德不孤,必有邻。”

孔子说:“有道德的人是不会孤独的,一定会有志同道合的人来与他做伴。”



26.子游曰:“事君数 【31】 ,斯 【32】 辱矣;朋友数,斯疏矣。”

子游说:“侍奉君主过于烦琐,就会招致羞辱;对待朋友太过烦琐反而会导致疏远。”

注释

【1】  里仁为美:里,住处,借作动词用。住在有仁者的地方才好。

【2】  处:居住。

【3】  知:音zhì,同智。

【4】  约:穷困、困窘。

【5】  安仁、利仁:安仁是安于仁道;利仁,认为仁有利自己才去行仁。

【6】  好:音hào,喜爱的意思。作动词。

【7】  恶:音wù,憎恶、讨厌。作动词。

【8】  适:音dí,意为亲近、厚待。

【9】  莫:疏远、冷淡。

【10】  义:适宜、妥当。

【11】  比:亲近、相近、靠近。

【12】  怀:不忘记。

【13】  土:乡土。

【14】  刑:法制惩罚。

【15】  放:音fǎng,同仿,效法,引申为追求。

【16】  怨:别人的怨恨。

【17】  何有:全意为“何难之有”,即不难的意思。

【18】  如礼何:把礼怎么办?

【19】  参:曾参,又称曾子,孔子的学生。

【20】  忠恕:忠是“己欲立而立人,己欲达而达人”,也就是忠诚待人。恕是“己所不欲,勿施于人”,也就是推己及人。

【21】  义,利:此句中的“义”主要指伦理道德,比“正义”的含义广泛些。孔子这句话引起后世持续的“义利之辩”。

【22】  内自省:检查自己有没有类似的缺点。

【23】  几:音jī,轻微、婉转的意思。

【24】  劳:忧愁、烦劳的意思。

【25】  游:指游学、游官、经商等外出活动。

【26】  方:一定的地方。

【27】  约:约束。这里指“约之以礼”。

【28】  鲜:少的意思。

【29】  讷:迟钝。这里指说话要谨慎。

【30】  敏:敏捷、快速的意思。

【31】  数:音shuò,屡次、多次,引申为烦琐的意思。

【32】  斯:就。

卷 五

1.子谓公冶长 【1】 ,“可妻也。虽在缧绁 【2】 之中,非其罪也。”以其子 【3】 妻之。”

孔子评论公冶长说:“(这个人),可以将女儿嫁给他。虽然现在身陷监牢,但这并不是由于他的过错造成的。”于是就将自己的女儿嫁给了公冶长。



2.子谓南容 【4】 :“邦有道 【5】 ,不废 【6】 ;邦无道,免于刑戮 【7】 。”以其兄之子妻之。

孔子评价南宫适说:“国家政治清明时,他是不会被埋没的;国家政治昏暗时,他也能善于自处,免去刑戮。”于是就将自己兄长的女儿嫁给南宫适。



3.子谓子贱 【8】 ,“君子哉若人 【9】 ,鲁无君子者,斯焉取斯 【10】 。”

孔子评论子贱说:“这个人是君子呀!假若鲁国没有君子,那么这种人又是从哪里培养出这种好品德的呢?”



4.子贡问曰:“赐也何如?”子曰:“女,器也。”曰:“何器也?”曰:“瑚琏 【11】 也。”

子贡问孔子说:“我这个人怎么样啊?”孔子说:“你好比是一个器具。”子贡问道:“什么器具呀?”孔子回答道:“你就是宗庙里盛黍稷的瑚琏。”



5.或曰:“雍 【12】 也仁而不佞 【13】 。”子曰:“焉用佞?御人以口给 【14】 ,屡憎于人,不知其仁 【15】 。焉用佞?”

有人评论冉雍说:“冉雍这个人很有仁德但是没有口才。”孔子说:“要那么好的口才干什么呢?靠伶牙俐齿和人辩论,常常会招致别人的厌恶,这样的人我不知道他是不是能做到有仁德。那么冉雍又何必一定要能言善辩呢?”



6.子使漆雕开 【16】 仕。对曰:“吾斯之未能信。”子说 【17】

孔子让漆雕开去做官。漆雕开说:“我对做官这件事还没有信心。”孔子听后很高兴。



7.子曰:“道不行,乘桴 【18】 浮于海,从 【19】 我者,其由与!”子路闻之喜。子曰:“由也好勇过我,无所取材。”

孔子说:“如果我的主张最终不能实现,那我就会乘一个木筏子去海外了。跟随我的人恐怕只有仲由吧。”子路听说后非常高兴。孔子见了说道:“仲由这个人太冲动鲁莽了,这种好勇的精神大大超过了我,这样的话做事就会不知道仲裁,不明断。”



8.孟武伯问子路仁乎?子曰:“不知也。”又问。子曰:“由也,千乘之国,可使治其赋 【20】 也,不知其仁也。”“求也何如?”子曰:“求也,千室之邑 【21】 ,百乘之家 【22】 ,可使为之宰 【23】 也,不知其仁也。”“赤 【24】 也何如?”子曰:“赤也,束带立于朝 【25】 ,可使与宾客 【26】 言也,不知其仁也。”

孟武伯问孔子子路算不算有仁德,孔子回答说:“不知道。”孟武伯又继续询问,孔子说:“仲由这个人啊,在有一千乘马车的大国里,可以让他负责兵役和军政的工作。至于他有没有仁德,我不晓得。”

孟武伯又问:“冉求这个人怎么样呢?”孔子说:“冉求呢,在有千户人家的公邑或有百辆兵车的采邑里当总管是可以的。至于他有没有仁德,我不晓得。”

孟武伯问:“公西赤又怎么样呢?”孔子说:“公西赤嘛,可以让他穿着礼服,站在朝堂上接待贵宾,但我也不知道他是不是做到了仁。”



9.子谓子贡曰:“女与回也孰愈 【27】 ?”对曰:“赐也何敢望回?回也闻一以知十 【28】 ,赐也闻一以知二 【29】 。”子曰:“弗如也。吾与 【30】 女弗如也。”

孔子对子贡说:“你和颜回哪一个人的学问更好一些呢?”子贡说:“我怎么可以和颜回相比呢?颜回听到一件事就可以推知十件事;而我知道一件事只能推知两件事。”孔子说:“是不如他呀,我同意你说的,是不如他。”



10.宰予昼寝,子曰:“朽木不可雕也,粪土 【31】 之墙不可杇 【32】 也,于予与何诛 【33】 !”子曰:“始吾于人也,听其言而信其行;今吾于人也,听其言而观其行。于予与 【34】 改是。”

宰予大白天在屋里睡觉。孔子说:“腐烂了的木头没有办法在上面雕刻,腐土垒起的墙壁没有办法粉刷;至于宰予嘛,我又怎么能去责备他呢?”

孔子又说:“最开始的时候,我观察一个人,听到他所说的话,便相信他的行为;现在我观察一个人,会在听到他的话后,继续考察他的行为。由于宰予这件事以后,我才改变了态度的。”



11.子曰:“吾未见刚者。”或对曰:“申枨 【35】 。”子曰:“枨也欲,焉得刚?”

孔子说:“我没有见过刚毅不屈的人。”有的人回答道:“申枨就是呀。”孔子说:“申枨做事情还是会存有一些欲望,这样的人又怎么会刚毅不屈呢?”



12.子贡曰:“我不欲人之加诸我也,吾亦欲无加诸人。”子曰:“赐也,非尔所及也。”

子贡说:“我不希望别人强加给我一些事,我也不会强加给别人事情。”孔子说:“赐啊,这样的事你还做不到呢。”



13.子贡曰:“夫子之文章 【36】 ,可得而闻也;夫子之言性 【37】 与天道 【38】 ,不可得而闻也。”

子贡说:“先生在诗书礼乐等各方面的学问我们可以(在日常学习中)学到,先生关于天道命运方面的学识则是我们怎么学也学不到的。”



14.子路有闻,未之能行,唯恐有闻。

子路听到一个道理但没有能够亲自实行的时候,唯恐又听到新的道理。



15.子贡问曰:“孔文子 【39】 何以谓之文也?”子曰:“敏 【40】 而好学,不耻下问,是以谓之文也。”

子贡问孔子:“孔文子的谥号为什么是‘文’呢?”孔子说:聪明勤勉而又刻苦学习,遇到不懂的问题,随时向人请教,而不在乎别人身份地位的高低,所以谥号为‘文’。



16.子谓子产 【41】 有君子之道四焉:“其行己也恭,其事上也敬,其养民也惠,其使民也义。”

孔子评价子产有四种行为合于君子之道:“他自己的行为举止庄严肃穆,他对待君王恭敬有礼,他教导人民恩惠有加,他役使百姓合于义理法度。”



17.子曰:“晏平仲 【42】 善与人交,久而敬之 【43】 。”

孔子说:“晏平仲很会跟人交往,交往越久,别人对他越恭敬有礼。”



18.子曰:“臧文仲 【44】 居蔡 【45】 ,山节藻棁 【46】 ,何如其知也!”

孔子说:“臧文仲养了一只大龟,龟室的斗拱雕成山的形状,短柱上画以水草花纹,他这个人又怎么能算是有智慧的人呢?”



19.子张问曰:“令尹子文 【47】 三仕为令尹,无喜色;三已 【48】 之,无愠色。旧令尹之政,必以告新令尹。何如?”子曰:“忠矣。”曰:“仁矣乎?”曰:“未知。焉得仁?”“崔子 【49】 【50】 齐君 【51】 ,陈子文 【52】 有马十乘,弃而违之,至于他邦,则曰:‘犹吾大夫崔子也。’违之。之一邦,则又曰:‘犹吾大夫崔子也。’违之,何如?子曰:“清矣。”曰:“仁矣乎?”曰:“未知,焉得仁?”

子张问孔子说:“楚国的令尹子文几次做楚国宰相,没有显出高兴的样子,几次被免职,也没有显出怨恨的样了;他每次被免职时一定把以前的政务都告诉给来接任的新宰相。这个人怎么样啊?”孔子说:“可算尽忠于国家了。”子张问:“算得上仁了吗?”孔子说:“不知道。这怎么能算仁呢?”

子张又问:“崔杼杀了他的君主齐庄公,陈文子家很富有,有四十匹马,都舍弃不要而离开了齐国,到了另一个国家,他说,这里的执政者也和我们齐国的大夫崔杼差不多,于是就离开了。到了另一个国家,又说,这里的执政者也和我们的大夫崔杼差不多,又离开了。这个人你看怎么样?”孔子说:“可以算得上清高了。”子张说:“这算不算仁呢?”孔子说:“不知道。这怎么能算得上仁呢?”



20.季文子 【53】 三思而后行。子闻之,曰:“再,斯 【54】 可矣。”

季文子每做一件事都要考虑很多次才行动。孔子听说后,说:“想两次就可以了。”



21.子曰:“宁武子 【55】 ,邦有道则知,邦无道则愚 【56】 ,其知可及也,其愚不可及也。”

孔子说:“宁武子这个人,在国家太平时节他就显得聪明,当国家无道昏暗时,他就装傻。他的那种聪明别人可以做得到,他那种装傻别人就做不到了。”



22.子在陈 【57】 曰:“归与!归与!吾党之小子 【58】 狂简 【59】 ,斐然 【60】 成章,不知所以裁 【61】 之。”

孔子在陈国,说:“回去吧!回去吧!我们家乡的学生有远大志向,但行为粗率简单;文采斐然可观,但还不知道怎样来约束自己。”



23.子曰:“伯夷叔齐 【62】 不念旧恶 【63】 ,怨是用希 【64】 。”

孔子说:“伯夷、叔齐这两兄弟不记念过去的仇恨,因此别人对他们的怨恨也就很少。”



24.子曰:“孰谓微生高 【65】 直?或乞醯 【66】 焉,乞诸其邻而与之。”

孔子说:“谁说微生高这个人直率?有人向他借点醋,他不直说自己没有,却跑到邻居家里讨了点转借给人。”



25.子曰:“巧言令色足恭 【67】 ,左丘明 【68】 耻之,丘亦耻之。匿怨而友其人,左丘明耻之,丘亦耻之。”

孔子说:“花言巧语,伪善的脸色,逢迎的姿态,低三下四的恭顺,这种态度,左丘明认为可耻,我也认为可耻。内心怀有怨恨,表面上却装出友好的样子,这种行为,左丘明认为可耻,我也认为可耻。”



26.颜渊、季路侍 【69】 。子曰:“盍 【70】 各言尔志。”子路曰:“原车马,衣轻裘,与朋友共,敝之而无憾。”颜渊曰:“愿无伐 【71】 善,无施劳 【72】 。”子路曰:“愿闻子之志。”子曰:“老者安之,朋友信之,少者怀之 【73】 。”

颜渊、子路两人侍立在孔子身边。孔子说:“何不各人说说自己的志向?”子路说:“愿意把我的车马、衣服、皮袍与朋友共同使用,即使用坏了也不抱怨。”颜渊说:“我愿意不夸耀自己的长处,不表白自己的功劳。”子路向孔子说:“希望听听您的志向。”孔子说:“我的志向是让年长者生活安逸,让朋友们信任我,让年轻的子弟们得到关怀。”



27.子曰:“已矣乎!吾未见能见其过而内自讼者也。”

孔子说:“算了吧,我还从来没见过能够看到自己的错误便能从内心责备自己的人。”



28.子曰:“十室之邑,必有忠信如丘者焉,不如丘之好学也。”

孔子说:“就是在只有十户人家的小村子,也一定会有像我这样讲忠信的人,只是不如我那样好学罢了。”

注释

【1】  公冶长:姓公冶名长,齐国人,孔子的弟子。

【2】  缧绁:音léi xiè,捆绑犯人用的绳索,这里借指牢狱。

【3】  子:古时无论儿、女均称子。

【4】  南容:姓南宫名适(音kuò),字子容。孔子的学生,通称他为南容。

【5】  道:孔子这里所讲的道,是说国家的政治符合最高的和最好的原则。

【6】  废:废置,不任用。

【7】  刑戮:刑罚。

【8】  子贱:姓宓(音fú)名不齐,字子贱。生于公元前521年,比孔子小49岁。

【9】  若人:这个,此人。

【10】  斯焉取斯:斯,此。第一个“斯”指子贱,第二个“斯”字指子贱的品德。

【11】  瑚琏:古代祭祀时盛粮食用的器具。

【12】  雍:姓冉名雍,字仲弓,生于公元前522年,孔子的学生。

【13】  佞:音nìng,能言善辩,有口才。

【14】  口给:言语便捷、嘴快话多。

【15】  不知其仁:指有口才者有仁与否不可知。

【16】  漆雕开:姓漆雕名开,字子开,一说字子若,生于公元前540年,孔子的门徒。

【17】  说:音yuè,同“悦”。

【18】  桴:音fū,用来过河的木筏子。

【19】  从:跟随、随从。

【20】  赋:兵赋,向居民征收的军事费用。

【21】  千室之邑,邑是古代居民的聚居点,大致相当于后来的城镇。有一千户人家的大邑。

【22】  百乘之家:指卿大夫的采地,当时大夫有车百乘,是采地中的较大者。

【23】  宰:家臣、总管。

【24】  赤:姓公西名赤,字子华,生于公元前509年,孔子的学生。

【25】  束带立于朝:指穿着礼服立于朝廷。

【26】  宾客:指一般客人和来宾。

【27】  愈:胜过、超过。

【28】  十:指数的全体,旧注云:“一,数之数;十,数之终。”

【29】  二:旧注云:“二者,一之对也。”

【30】  与:赞同、同意。

【31】  粪土:腐土、脏土。

【32】  杇:音wū,抹墙用的抹子。这里指用抹子粉刷墙壁。

【33】  诛:意为责备、批评。

【34】  与:语气词。

【35】  申枨:枨,音chéng。姓申名枨,字周,孔子的学生。

【36】  文章:这里指孔子传授的诗书礼乐等。

【37】  性:人性。《阳货篇》第十七中谈到性。

【38】  天道:天命。《论语》书中孔子多处讲到天和命,但不见有孔子关于天道的言论。

【39】  孔文子:卫国大夫孔圉(音yǔ),“文”是谥号,“子”是尊称。

【40】  敏:敏捷、勤勉。

【41】  子产:姓公孙名侨,字子产,郑国大夫,做过正卿,是郑穆公的孙子,为春秋时郑国的贤相。

【42】  晏平仲:齐国的贤大夫,名婴。《史记》卷六十二有他的传。“平”是他的谥号。

【43】  久而敬之:“之”在这里指代晏平仲。

【44】  臧文仲:姓臧孙名辰,“文”是他的谥号。因不遵守周礼,被孔子指责为“不仁”、“不智”。

【45】  蔡:国君用以占卜的大龟。蔡这个地方产龟,所以把大龟叫做蔡。

【46】  山节藻棁:节,柱上的斗拱。棁,音zhuō,房梁上的短柱。把斗拱雕成山形,在棁上绘以水草花纹。这是古时装饰天子宗庙的做法。

【47】  令尹子文:令尹,楚国的官名,相当于宰相。子文是楚国的著名宰相。

【48】  三已:三,指多次。已,罢免。

【49】  崔文:齐国大夫崔杼(音zhù)曾杀死齐庄公,在当时引起极大反应。

【50】  弑:地位在下的人杀了地位在上的人。

【51】  齐君:即指被崔杼所杀的齐庄公。

【52】  陈文子:陈国的大夫,名须无。

【53】  季文子:即季孙行父,鲁成公、鲁襄公时任正卿,“文”是他的谥号。

【54】  斯:就。

【55】  宁武子:姓宁名俞,卫国大夫,“武”是他的谥号。

【56】  愚:这里是装傻的意思。

【57】  陈:古国名,大约在今河南东部和安徽北部一带。

【58】  吾党之小子:古代以五百家一为党。吾党意即我的故乡。小子,指孔子在鲁国的学生。

【59】  狂简:志向远大但行为粗率简单。

【60】  斐然:斐,音fěi,有文采的样子。

【61】  裁:裁剪,节制。

【62】  伯夷、叔齐:殷朝末年孤竹君的两个儿子。父亲死后,二人互相让位,都逃到周文王那里。周武王起兵伐纣,他们认为这是以臣弑君,是不忠不孝的行为,曾加以拦阻。周灭商统一天下后,他们以吃周朝的粮食为耻,逃进深山中以野草充饥,饿死在首阳山中。

【63】  恶:嫌隙,仇恨。

【64】  希:同稀。

【65】  微生高:姓微生名高,鲁国人。当时人认为他为直率。

【66】  醯:音xī,即醋。

【67】  足恭:一说是两只脚做出恭敬逢迎的姿态来讨好别人;另一说是过分恭敬。这里采用后说。

【68】  左丘明:姓左丘名明,鲁国人,相传是《左传》一书的作者。

【69】  侍:服侍,站在旁边陪着尊贵者叫侍。

【70】  盍:何不。

【71】  伐:夸耀。

【72】  施劳:施,表白。劳,功劳。

【73】  少者怀之:让少者得到关怀。