← На головну

Попередній перегляд перекладу

Англійський оригінал · основний файл
[Chapter 5: Lord Xi]\n\nIt was the duke's first year, the spring, the king's first month.\nWhy does the Annals not state that the Lord "ascended the throne"? When succeeding a lord who was assassinated, a son does not state that he ascended the throne. He was not the son, so why is he treated here as a son? The principle for a minister and a son is one and the same in this context.\nThe armies of Qi, Song, and Cao halted at Niebei to rescue Xing.\nAn action of rescue does not normally mention a "halt." Why does it mention a "halt" here? Because they were too late for the event. What does "too late for the event" mean? Xing had already perished. Who destroyed it? It was probably the Di barbarians who destroyed it. Why does the Annals not explicitly state that the Di destroyed it? It is to conceal the failure on behalf of Lord Huan. Why conceal it for Lord Huan? Above there was no powerful Son of Heaven, and below there was no leader among the feudal lords. When the lords of the world destroyed one another, and Lord Huan failed to rescue them, Lord Huan considered it a disgrace. Why is the "halt" mentioned before the "rescue"? Because the rulers personally led the armies. If the rulers led them, why does the text only refer to them as "armies"? It is because the Annals does not grant feudal lords the right to arbitrarily enfeoff or re-establish states. Why not grant it? In reality, Lord Huan granted it, but the text does not grant it. Why does the wording not grant it? According to the righteousness of feudal lords, they are not permitted to arbitrarily enfeoff states. If their righteousness does not permit arbitrary enfeoffment, then why is it said that he "in reality granted it"? Above there was no Son of Heaven, and below there was no leader among the lords. If a state among the lords of the world was about to perish, and one had the power to rescue it, then rescuing it was permissible.\nIn summer, the sixth month, Xing was relocated to Chenyi.\nWhat is meant by "relocate"? It means it was done by their own will. What is meant by "relocated"? It means it was against their own will.\nThe armies of Qi, Song, and Cao built walls for Xing.\nThis and the previous entry belong to the same continuous undertaking. Why are "the armies of Qi, Song, and Cao" mentioned again? If "the armies" were not repeated, there would be no way for the reader to know that this was part of the exact same continuous achievement.\nIn autumn, the seventh month, on the wuchen day, the Lord's wife, Lady Jiang, passed away in Yi, and the people of Qi took her remains back.\nWhat was Yi? It was Qi territory. Since it was Qi territory, why does the text say "the people of Qi took her back"? Because the Lady passed away in Yi, the people of Qi consequently took her back. The Lady passed away on Qi territory, but why did the people of Qi take her back? Lord Huan summoned her there and had her strangled to death. The people of Chu attacked Zheng. In the eighth month, the Lord met with the Marquis of Qi, the Duke of Song, the Earl of Zheng, the Earl of Cao, and a person of Zhulou at Ting.\n\n...
Китайська довідка · основний файл
【僖公第五】\n\n元年,春,王正月。\n公何以不言即位?继弑君,子不言即位。此非子也,其称子何?臣子一例也。\n〇齐师、宋师、曹师次于聂北救邢。\n救不言次,此其言次何?不及事也。不及事者何?邢已亡矣。孰亡之?盖狄灭之。曷为不言狄灭之?为桓公讳也。曷为为桓公讳?上无天子,下无方伯,天下诸侯有相灭亡者,桓公不能救,则桓公耻之。曷为先言次而后言救?君也。君则其称师何?不与诸侯专封也。曷为不与?实与而文不与。文曷为不与?诸侯之义,不得专封也。诸侯之义不得专封,则其曰实与之何?上无天子,下无方伯,天下诸侯有相灭亡者,力能救之,则救之可也。\n〇夏,六月,邢迁于陈仪。\n迁者何?其意也。迁之者何?非其意也。\n〇齐师、宋师、曹师城邢。\n此一事也,曷为复言"齐师、宋师、曹师不复言师,则无以知其为一事也。"\n〇秋,七月,戊辰,夫人姜氏薨于夷,齐人以归。\n夷者何?齐地也。齐地则其言齐人以归何?夫人薨于夷,则齐人以归。夫人薨于夷,则齐人曷为以归?桓公召而缢杀之。楚人伐郑。八月,公会齐侯、宋公、郑伯、曹伯、邾娄人于朾。\n\n……

Довідка, а не основа перекладу

Запропоновані переклади

Завантаження...

Кіт із банкою для донатів

Підтримка проєкту Winds4UA

Кошти йдуть на розвиток і технічну підтримку проєкту, оплату сервера та домену. І на каву розробнику · без неї воно якось не пишеться.

Підтримати Куди йдуть кошти