爱问文中子、韩退之。
先生曰：「退之，文人之雄耳；文中子，贤儒也。后人徒以文词之故，推尊退之，其实退之去文中子远甚。」
爱问：「何以有拟经之失？」
先生曰：「拟经恐未可尽非。且说后世儒者著述之意与拟经如何？」
爱曰：「世儒著述，近名之意不无，然期以明道。拟经纯若为名。」
先生曰：「著述以明道，亦何所效法？」
曰：「孔子删述《六经》以明道也。」
先生曰：「然则拟经独非效法孔子乎？」
爱曰：「著述，即于道有所发明。拟经，似徒拟其迹，恐于道无补。」
先生曰：「子以明道者，使其反朴还淳而见诸行事之实乎？抑将美其言辞而徒以譊譊于世也？天下之大乱，由虚文胜而实行衰也。使道明于天下，则《六经》不必述；删述《六经》，孔子不得已也。自伏义画卦，至于文王、周公，其间言《易》，如《连山》、《归藏》之属，纷纷籍籍，不知其几，《易》道大乱。孔子以天下好文之风日盛，知其说之将无纪极，于是取文王、周公之说而赞之，以为惟此为得其宗。于是纷纷之说尽废，而天下之言《易》者始一。《书》、《诗》、《礼》、《乐》、《春秋》皆然。《书》自《典》、《谟》以后，《诗》自《二南》以降，如《九丘》、《八索》，一切淫哇逸荡之词，盖不知其几千百篇；《礼》、《乐》之名物度数，至是亦不可胜穷。孔子皆删削而述正之，然后其说始废。如《书》、《诗》、《礼》、《乐》中，孔子何尝加一语。今之《礼记》诸说，皆后儒附会而成，已非孔子之旧。至于《春秋》，虽称孔子作之，其实皆鲁史旧文。所谓『笔』者，笔其旧；所谓『削』者，削其繁：是有减无增。孔子述《六经》，惧繁文之乱天下，惟简之而不得，使天下务去其文以求其实，非以文教之也。《春秋》以后，繁文益盛，天下益乱。始皇焚书得罪，是出于私意，又不合焚《六经》。若当时志在明道，其诸反经叛理之说，悉取而焚之，亦正暗合删述之意。自秦、汉以降，文又日盛，若欲尽去之，断不能去；只宜取法孔子，录其近是者而表章之，则其诸怪悖之说，亦宜渐渐自废。不知文中子当时拟经之意如何？某切深有取于其事，以为圣人复起，不能易也。天下所以不治，只因文盛实衰，人出己见，新奇相高，以眩俗取誉，徒以乱天下之聪明，涂天下之耳目，使天下靡然争务修饰文词，以求知于世，而不复知有敦本尚实，反朴还淳之行，是皆著述者有以启之。」
爱曰：「著述亦有不可缺者，如《春秋》一经，若无《左传》，恐亦难晓。」
先生曰：「《春秋》必待《传》而后明，是歇后谜语矣，圣人何苦为此艰深隐晦之词？《左传》多是鲁史旧文，若《春秋》须此而后明，孔子何必削之？」
爱曰：「伊川亦云：『《传》是案，《经》是断。』如书『弑某君』、『伐某国』，若不明其事，恐亦难断。」
先生曰：「伊川此言，恐亦是相沿世儒之说，未得圣人作经之意。如书『弑君』，即弑君便是罪，何必更问其弑君之详？征伐当自天子出，书『伐国』，即伐国便是罪，何必更问其伐国之详？圣人述《六经》，只是要正人心，只是要存天理、去人欲，于存天理、去人欲之事，则尝言之。或因人请问，各随分量而说，亦不肯多道，恐人专求之言语，故曰『予欲无言』。若是一切纵人欲、灭天理的事，又安肯详以示人？是长乱导奸也。故孟子云：『仲尼之门，无道桓、文之事者，是以后世无传焉。』此便是孔门家法。世儒只讲得一个伯者的学问，所以要知得许多阴谋诡计，纯是一片功利的心，与圣人作经的意思正相反，如何思量得通？」因叹曰：「此非达天德者，未易与言此也！」
又曰：「孔子云：『吾犹及史之阙文也』。孟子云：『尽信《书》不如无《书》，吾于《武成》，取二三策而已。』孔子删《书》，于唐、虞、夏四五百年间不过数篇，岂更无一事？而所述止此，圣人之意可知矣。圣人只是要删去繁文，后儒却只要添上。」
爱曰：「圣人作经，只是要去人欲、存天理。如五伯以下事，圣人不欲详以示人，则诚然矣。至如尧、舜以前事，如何略不少见？」
先生曰：「羲、黄之世，其事阔疏，传之者鲜矣。此亦可以想见。其时全是淳庞朴素、略无文采的气象，此便是太古之治，非后世可及。」
爱曰：「如《三坟》之类，亦有传者，孔子何以删之？」
先生曰：「纵有传者，亦于世变渐非所宜。风气益开，文采日胜，至于周末，虽欲变以夏、商之俗，已不可挽，况唐、虞乎？又况羲、黄之世乎？然其治不同，其道则一。孔子于尧、舜则祖述之，于文、武则宪章之。文、武之法，即是尧、舜之道，但因时致治，其设施政令，已自不同。即夏、商事业施之于周，已有不合。故『周公思兼三王，其有不合，仰而思之，夜以继日』。况太古之治，岂复能行？斯固圣人之所可略也。」
又曰：「专事无为，不能如三王之因时致治，而必欲行以太古之俗，即是佛、老的学术。因时致治，不能如三王之一本于道，而以功利之心行之，即是伯者以下事业。后世儒者，许多讲来讲去，只是讲得个伯术。」
徐爱问起文中子王通与韩愈。
先生说：「韩愈只是文人中的豪雄，文中子却是位贤儒。后人只因文章词藻的缘故推崇韩愈，其实韩愈比文中子差得远。」
徐爱问：「那么文中子为何有模拟经典的过失？」
先生说：「模拟经典恐怕不能一概否定。且说后世儒者著述的用意与模拟经典有什么不同？」
徐爱说：「世俗儒者著述，求名之意不是没有，但也期望以此阐明圣道。模拟经典却似乎纯粹是为了名。」
先生说：「著述以明道，又是效法谁呢？」
徐爱答：「孔子删述《六经》以明道。」
先生说：「那么模拟经典难道不正是效法孔子吗？」
徐爱说：「著述能对道有所发明，模拟经典似乎只模仿了形迹，恐怕对道没有补益。」
先生说：「你认为阐明圣道的人，是要使世风返朴归淳、见于行事之实呢，还是要美化言辞、喋喋不休地炫耀于世？天下大乱，是由于虚文盛行而实德衰败。假使大道昌明于天下，《六经》就不必述作；删述《六经》，是孔子不得已。从伏羲画卦到文王、周公，其间论《易》的，如《连山》《归藏》之类，纷然杂陈，不知多少，《易》道大乱。孔子见天下喜好文饰之风日盛，知道这些说法将泛滥无极，于是取文王、周公之说来阐发，认为唯有这个才得其正宗。于是纷纷之说尽废，天下论《易》的才归于一致。《书》《诗》《礼》《乐》《春秋》都是如此。《尚书》自《典》《谟》以后，《诗经》自《二南》以降，如《九丘》《八索》，一切淫靡放荡之词，不知几千几百篇；《礼》《乐》的名物度数，到这时也多得不可穷尽。孔子都加以删削订正，然后那些说法才废止。在《书》《诗》《礼》《乐》中，孔子何尝添加过一句话？今天的《礼记》诸说，都是后儒附会而成，已不是孔子的旧貌。至于《春秋》，虽说是孔子所作，其实都是鲁国史书旧文。所谓『笔』，是照录旧文；所谓『削』，是删削繁冗：只有减少没有增加。孔子述《六经》，是怕繁文扰乱天下，想简化又不能，要使天下人务去虚文以求实情，并不是要用文辞来教化。《春秋》以后，繁文更盛，天下更乱。秦始皇焚书得罪后世，是出于私意，又不该连《六经》也焚毁。假使当时志在明道，把那些反经叛理之说全部取来烧掉，倒也暗合孔子删述的本意。自秦汉以下，虚文又日盛，想全部去掉，断然去不掉；只应效法孔子，选取其中近于正道的加以表彰，那么那些怪诞悖理之说，也该渐渐自行废止。不知文中子当时模拟经典用意如何？我却深以为他的做法可取，认为即使圣人复生也不会改变。天下之所以不治，只因为文盛实衰，人人各出己见，以新奇相标榜，炫世取誉，白白扰乱天下的聪明、堵塞天下的耳目，使天下人一窝蜂去修饰文辞以求闻名于世，不再知道有敦本尚实、返朴还淳的行止，这都是著述者们开的头。」
徐爱说：「著述也有不可缺的，比如《春秋》一经，若无《左传》，恐怕也难读懂。」
先生说：「《春秋》必须靠《传》才能明白，就成了歇后谜语了，圣人何苦写这种艰深隐晦的文字？《左传》多是鲁史旧文，若《春秋》必须靠它才明白，孔子又何必删削？」
徐爱说：「程颐也说：『《传》是案卷，《经》是判词。』比如写『弑某君』『伐某国』，若不明白事件的经过，恐怕也难下判断。」
先生说：「程颐这话，恐怕也是沿袭世俗儒者的说法，没有领会圣人作经的本意。比如写『弑君』，弑君本身就是罪，何必再问弑君的详情？征伐应当由天子发出，写『伐国』，伐国本身就是罪，何必再问伐国的详情？圣人述《六经》，只是要正人心，只是要存天理、去人欲；对存天理、去人欲的事，是常常讲的。有人请教，也随各人的分量来说，仍不肯多说，怕人专门在言语上求道，所以说『我想无言』。至于那些纵人欲、灭天理的事，又怎肯详细展示给人？那是助长动乱、引导奸邪。所以孟子说：『孔门不讲齐桓晋文之事，所以后世没有流传。』这便是孔门的家法。世俗儒者只讲了一套霸者的学问，所以要知道许多阴谋诡计，纯粹是一片功利之心，与圣人作经的意思正相反，怎么想得通？」于是叹道：「不是通达天德的人，不容易同他讲这个！」
又说：「孔子说：『我还赶上见过史书存疑缺文的时代。』孟子说：『完全相信《尚书》不如没有《尚书》，我对《武成》篇，只取其中两三策而已。』孔子删《尚书》，唐尧虞舜夏代四五百年间不过留下数篇，难道再没有一件事？而所记止于此，圣人的用意可想而知了。圣人只是要删去繁文，后儒却只想往上添。」
徐爱说：「圣人作经，只是要去人欲、存天理。五霸以下的事，圣人不愿详细展示给人，这是确实的了。至于尧舜以前的事，为什么也略而不多见？」
先生说：「伏羲、黄帝之世，事迹简陋疏略，流传下来的本来就少。这也可想而知：那时全是淳庞朴素、毫无文采的气象，这便是太古之治，不是后世比得上的。」
徐爱说：「如《三坟》之类，也有流传下来的，孔子为什么删掉？」
先生说：「纵然有流传的，世事变易也已渐渐不合时宜。风气日开，文采日盛，到了周代末年，即使想变回夏商的习俗，已不可挽回，何况唐虞？何况伏羲黄帝之世？不过治法不同，大道则一。孔子对尧舜便祖述之，对文王武王便宪章之。文武的法度就是尧舜之道，只是因时致治，其政令设施已自不同。就是夏商的事业施之于周代，已有不合。所以『周公想兼取三王之道，遇有不合处，仰头思索，夜以继日』。何况太古之治，难道还能实行？这当然是圣人可以省略的。」
又说：「专门讲无为，不能像三王那样因时致治，却一定要用太古的风俗来施行，这就是佛老的学术。因时致治，却不能像三王那样一以道为本，而以功利之心来施行，这就是五霸以下的事业。后世儒者讲来讲去，只是讲了一套霸术。」
Xu Ai asked about Wang Tong (Wenzhongzi) and Han Yu.
The Master said: "Han Yu was merely the hero of men of letters; Wenzhongzi was a worthy Confucian. Later ages exalt Han Yu for his literary brilliance alone; in truth he falls far short of Wenzhongzi."
Xu Ai asked: "Then why was Wenzhongzi faulted for imitating the classics?"
The Master said: "Imitating the classics can hardly be condemned wholesale. Tell me: how does the intent of later scholars' writings differ from imitating the classics?"
Xu Ai said: "Common scholars write partly for fame, yet hope to illuminate the Way. Imitating the classics seems purely for fame."
The Master said: "Writing to illuminate the Way — after whose model?"
"Confucius edited and transmitted the Six Classics to illuminate the Way."
"Then is imitating the classics not precisely modeling oneself on Confucius?"
Xu Ai said: "Writings can shed new light on the Way; imitating the classics copies the outward traces and probably adds nothing to the Way."
The Master said: "Do you think one who illuminates the Way seeks to return the age to simplicity and substance, shown in actual deeds — or to embellish words and clamor before the world? The world's great disorder comes from empty words flourishing while real practice decays. Were the Way bright in the world, the Six Classics need not have been produced; Confucius edited them out of necessity. From Fuxi's trigrams to King Wen and the Duke of Zhou, writings on the Changes — like the Lianshan and Guicang — were countless and chaotic, and the way of the Changes was in confusion. Seeing the world's growing love of ornament and knowing these doctrines would multiply without end, Confucius took up the accounts of King Wen and the Duke of Zhou and illuminated them, holding these alone as the true lineage; the welter of theories was discarded, and discourse on the Changes became one. So too with the Documents, the Odes, the Rites, the Music, the Spring and Autumn. After the canonical chapters of the Documents, after the Odes of the two souths, pieces like the Nine Hills and Eight Cords — licentious, wandering songs beyond counting; the names and measures of Rites and Music had become inexhaustible. Confucius pruned and corrected them all, and only then did those accounts pass away. In the Documents, Odes, Rites and Music, when did Confucius add a single phrase? Today's Record of Rites is largely later scholars' piecing together, no longer Confucius's old text. As for the Spring and Autumn, though said to be Confucius's composition, it is all the old text of Lu's chronicle: 'writing' meant recording what was there; 'pruning' meant cutting the excess — subtraction, never addition. Confucius transmitted the Six Classics fearing that ornate writing would disorder the world, wishing to simplify where he could not abolish, wanting people to strip away words and seek substance — not teaching by means of words. After the Spring and Autumn, ornament flourished further and the world grew more disordered. The First Emperor sinned in burning the books out of private motive, and wrongly included the Six Classics; had his aim been to illumine the Way, burning all doctrines that reversed the classics and betrayed principle would have silently accorded with Confucius's intent in editing. Since Qin and Han, writings have daily multiplied; they cannot all be removed. One should only follow Confucius: record and honor what is nearly right, and the absurd theories will gradually die of themselves. I do not know Wenzhongzi's precise intent in imitating the classics, but I deeply approve his deed — were a sage to rise again, he would not change it. The world is ungoverned because words flourish while substance decays: each airs his own view, competing in novelty to dazzle the age and win repute, beclouding the world's intelligence and stopping its ears and eyes, till all race to polish phrases for fame and no longer know the conduct that honors the root and reveres the real, returning to simplicity — the writers started all this."
Xu Ai said: "Some writings are indispensable — the Spring and Autumn without the Zuo Commentary would be hard to understand."
The Master said: "If the classic needs the commentary to be understood, it is a riddle; why would the sage write so obscurely? The Zuo Tradition is mostly old Lu chronicle; if the classic needed it, why would Confucius have pruned?"
Xu Ai said: "Cheng Yi too said: 'The commentary is the case file; the classic is the verdict.' Writing 'regicide of such-a-lord' or 'attack on such-a-state' — without knowing the affair, how to judge?"
The Master said: "That too probably follows common scholars' talk and misses the sage's intent in making the classics. Writing 'regicide' — regicide is itself the crime; why ask the details? Punitive expeditions should issue from the Son of Heaven; writing 'attacked a state' — the attack is itself the crime; why ask the details? The sage transmitted the classics only to rectify hearts, to preserve heavenly principle and remove human desire; of matters serving that end he often spoke, answering each according to his capacity, yet unwilling to say much — fearing people would seek the Way only in words; hence 'I wish to be wordless.' As for deeds abetting desire and extinguishing principle, how could he detail them for all? That would breed disorder and lead the wicked. Hence Mencius: 'In Zhongni's school no one spoke of the affairs of Duke Huan and Duke Wen, and so they were not handed down.' That is the family rule of Confucius's school. Common scholars teach only the learning of hegemons, needing to know all the schemes and stratagems — a heart of pure utility, directly contrary to the sage's intent in the classics; how could they ever think it through?" He sighed: "None but one who reaches Heaven's virtue can easily be told this!"
He added: "Confucius said, 'I still caught the time when the historians left gaps.' Mencius said, 'To trust the Documents entirely is worse than having no Documents; from the Wucheng I accept only two or three strips.' In editing the Documents, Confucius kept only a few pieces for the four or five centuries of Yao, Shun and Xia — were there really no other events? That he recorded only this shows the sage's intent. The sage wished to cut away excess words; later scholars only wish to add."
Xu Ai said: "The sage made the classics to remove human desire and preserve heavenly principle — that he did not detail the affairs of the Five Hegemons is clear. But why are affairs before Yao and Shun also so sparse?"
The Master said: "In the ages of Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor, affairs were simple and few have come down; one can imagine — an air wholly simple, plain and unadorned: that was the government of high antiquity, beyond the reach of later ages."
Xu Ai said: "But works like the Three Mounds were transmitted; why did Confucius cut them?"
The Master said: "Even had they survived, with the world changing they gradually lost their fitness. As customs opened and ornament daily prevailed, by the end of Zhou even a return to Xia and Shang ways was impossible, let alone Yao and Shun, let alone Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor. Yet though their governments differed, the Way was one. Confucius transmitted Yao and Shun and took as statute Wen and Wu: the institutions of Wen and Wu are the Way of Yao and Shun, only adapting to their time. Even Xia and Shang measures applied to Zhou would partly not fit — hence 'the Duke of Zhou wished to combine the three dynasties' ways, and where they did not fit, looked up and pondered, night into day.' How much less could high antiquity's rule be practiced! This is rightly what the sage could omit."
He added: "To insist on non-action, unable like the three kings to govern according to the times, and force the customs of high antiquity on the world — that is Buddhist and Daoist learning. To govern by the times but not root everything in the Way, acting with a utilitarian heart — that is the enterprise of hegemons and below. Later scholars, for all their lecturing, lecture only the arts of hegemony."