宋 Song · 文 Prose
伶官传序
Preface to The Biography of the Actors
呜呼！
盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉！
原庄宗之所以得天下，与其所以失之者，可以知之矣。
Meaning
With a sigh, the essay opens by asserting that the rise and fall of states lies not in Heaven's mandate but in human affairs. It announces that tracing the Later Tang emperor Zhuangzong's gain and loss of the realm will prove this. The piece thus sets up a historical argument warning rulers to diligence and vigilance.
唉！国家兴盛衰亡的道理，虽然说是天命，难道不也是人事造成的吗！推究后唐庄宗之所以取得天下，与之所以失掉天下的原因，就可以明白这个道理了。
Appreciation
The art is its 'open with question, close with judgment' argumentative structure, lofty from the start. The whole is led by the sigh 'Alas,' fusing historical brush with literary feeling, judgment within chanting—later critics call it 'one chant three sighs, deeply the spirit of the Shiji.' The phrasing alternates parallel and prose; 'though called Heaven's mandate, is it not also human affairs' advances by retreating, waves arising.
【白话串讲】 欧阳修写《伶官传序》：“呜呼！盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉”。后唐庄宗“系燕父子以组，函梁君臣之首”——“其意气之盛，可谓壮哉”。后来“一夫夜呼，乱者四应”，“仓皇东出”——“至于誓天断发，泣下沾襟，何其衰也”——“忧劳可以兴国，逸豫可以亡身”——他叹庄宗的兴亡。 【意象与手法】 本文是《新五代史·伶官传》前的史论文字，是欧阳修史论的典范。艺术上最突出的是「以问起、以断收」的论说结构：开篇设问立纲，高屋建瓴；通篇以「呜呼」的感叹领起，将史笔与文情熔于一炉，寓论断于唱叹之中，后世评家所谓「一唱三叹，深得《史记》神髓」；句式骈散相间，「虽曰天命，岂非人事哉」以退为进，波澜顿生。 【情感与主旨】 主旨是「忧劳可以兴国，逸豫可以亡身」——国家的兴衰系于人事而非天命，警示当权者须居安思危、戒奢以俭，是欧阳修借五代史事为宋王朝立下的鉴戒，也是其「明王道、正人心」史学思想的具体体现。 【名句点睛】 「盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉」为全篇立论之句，以退为进、以问作断，成为后世论兴亡者反复援引的经典表述；「呜呼」二字领起，更开宋人史论以情驭理、感慨淋漓之先河。
Background
The 'Preface to the Biography of the Actors' is Ouyang Xiu's preface to the 'Biography of the Actors' in his privately compiled 'New History of the Five Dynasties.' Ouyang Xiu (1007–1072), courtesy name Yongshu, styles Zuiweng and Liuyi Jushi, of Yongfeng, Jizhou, was a Northern-Song statesman, man of letters, and historian, one of the 'Eight Masters of Tang and Song,' with Han Yu, Liu Zongyuan, and Su Shi; his prose style is plain and fluent, winding and complete, opening a new manner. During the Huangyou era of Renzong he privately compiled the 'New History of the Five Dynasties' to differ from Xue Juyi's official 'Old History of the Five Dynasties,' finished in late life; its historiographic aim is 'clear praise-and-blame, history as mirror,' deeply the Spring and Autumn brush. Later Tang's Zhuangzong Li Cunxu was the founding ruler of Later Tang in the Five Dynasties; his father Li Keyong on his deathbed gave him three arrows, charging revenge; Cunxu roused himself, finally destroyed Yan and Liang, founded Later Tang, but after enthronement indulged in pleasure and favored actors, ending in betrayal and his own death, the state perishing. The 'Biography of the Actors' records how Zhuangzong's favor of actors (court entertainers) brought ruin, and this preface is its program, using Zhuangzong's one success and one failure in gaining and losing the realm to argue the profound truth that a state's rise and fall lies in human affairs not Heaven's mandate. Ouyang Xiu lived in the Northern-Song peaceful age, witnessing the accumulating ills and frequent border troubles of Renzong's court, thus used the Five-Dynasties chaos as warning for his own age, imbued with deep anxiety; he advocated 'writing carries the Way, Way and writing equally,' and this preface using history as mirror and feeling governing principle is the double crystal of his historiography and literary view.
《伶官传序》是欧阳修为其私撰史书《新五代史·伶官传》所作的小序。欧阳修（1007—1072），字永叔，号醉翁、六一居士，吉州永丰人，北宋政治家、文学家、史学家，「唐宋八大家」之一，与韩愈、柳宗元、苏轼并称，其文风平易流畅、纡徐委备，开一代新风。欧阳修于宋仁宗皇祐年间私撰《新五代史》，以别于薛居正官修的《旧五代史》，书成于晚年，其史学宗旨在于「褒贬分明、以史为鉴」，深得《春秋》笔法之旨。后唐庄宗李存勖是五代时期后唐的开国君主，其父李克用临终以三矢遗之，嘱其报仇；存勖发愤图强，终于灭燕、灭梁，建立后唐，称帝后却沉溺享乐、宠信伶人，终致众叛亲离，身死国灭。《伶官传》即记载庄宗宠幸伶官（宫廷艺人）以致败亡的史实，而此序为其纲领，借庄宗得天下与失天下的一成一败，论述国家兴亡不在天命而在人事的深刻道理。欧阳修身处北宋承平之世，亲历仁宗朝积弊渐生、边患频仍的局面，故借五代乱世兴亡为当代立戒，寄寓深沉的忧患意识；他主张文以载道、文道并重，此序以史为鉴、以情驭理，正是其史学观与文学观的双重结晶。
Art
This preface is a fine piece of Song historical essay; its art can be seen in structure, method, and phrasing. In structure, the whole opens with the sigh 'Alas,' seizing attention, shrouding the whole in historical vicissitude's grief; then 'the principle of rise and fall, though called Heaven's mandate, is it not also human affairs' argues, first retreating with 'though called' to admit Heaven's mandate, then pressing with 'is it not' to nail the topic on 'human affairs,' one relax one tighten, the argument sharp; closing with 'tracing the reason why Zhuangzong gained the realm, and why he lost it, one may know this' points the evidence and ends the first paragraph, setting the program for the later narration of Zhuangzong's deeds, the transition between argument and narrative seamless. In method, Ouyang Xiu deeply merges the Spring and Autumn praise-blame aim with the Shiji chant-sigh spirit: 'Alas,' 'zai,' 'yi' and other function words recur, making argument carry feeling, historical essay become literature; later critics' 'one chant three sighs' is the settled verdict on its emotional resonance; 'gained the realm' opposes 'lost the realm,' 'Heaven's mandate' opposes 'human affairs,' forming a clear binary structure, making the abstract rise-fall principle concrete. In phrasing, parallel and prose alternate: 'the principle of rise and fall, though called Heaven's mandate, is it not also human affairs' uses prose for bone, tone cadent; 'tracing...why he gained...and why he lost' uses long sentences to spread, expansive; 'one may know this' closes in short sentence, decisive forceful; the whole rises and falls amid long-short, parallel-prose changes.
此序是宋人史论中的精品，其艺术特色可从结构、笔法、句式三端析之。结构上，全文以「呜呼」一声长叹起笔，先声夺人，将历史兴亡的悲慨笼罩全篇；继以「盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉」立论，先用「虽曰」退让一步，承认世有天命之说，再用「岂非」反问紧逼，将论题钉死在「人事」二字上，一张一弛，论锋凌厉；末以「原庄宗之所以得天下，与其所以失之者，可以知之矣」点出论据、收束首段，为下文铺叙庄宗事迹立下总纲，全段议论与叙事之间的过渡自然无痕。笔法上，欧阳修深得《春秋》褒贬之旨与《史记》唱叹之神的结合：「呜呼」「哉」「矣」等虚词反复运用，使议论带情、史论成文，后世评家谓其「一唱三叹」，正是对此文情韵的定评；「得天下」与「失天下」对举，「天命」与「人事」对举，形成鲜明的二元结构，使抽象的兴亡之理变得具体可感。句式上，骈散相间：「盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉」以散句立骨，语气顿挫；「原……之所以……与其所以……者」以长句铺陈，舒展有致；「可以知之矣」以短句收束，斩截有力，整篇文章在长短、骈散的变化中起伏生姿。
Allusions
Though the essay piles no allusions, it is deeply rooted in Chinese historical culture's soil. First, the rise-fall proposition is the eternal theme of Chinese historiography: since the Shangshu 'the Yin mirror is not far,' Jia Yi's 'On the Faults of Qin' ('not practicing benevolence, thus the attack-defense situation reversed'), each age's writers sought the cause of dynastic rise-fall in human affairs; Ouyang's argument is the continuation and sublimation of this tradition, its 'Heaven's mandate vs human affairs' directly answering the Shiji's 'probing heaven-man relation' historiographic question. Second, the 'Heaven's mandate vs human affairs' debate originates in pre-Qin: Confucius rarely spoke of mandate but stressed human affairs, Mencius held 'timing not as good as terrain, terrain not as good as human harmony,' Xunzi advocated 'governing Heaven's mandate and using it'; Ouyang's 'is it not also human affairs' is exactly the Confucian tradition of stressing human affairs, lightly Heaven's mandate, carried into historiography. Third, the material of Zhuangzong's gain and loss itself contains the ancient precept 'toil and care can prosper a state, ease and indulgence can ruin a body,' traceable to the Zuozhuan 'in peace remember danger,' the Zhouyi 'in safety not forgetting danger,' and echoing Mencius 'born in sorrow, die in ease'; Ouyang turns these precepts into explanation of concrete history, giving traditional wisdom life in new context. Fourth, the writing of 'actors' calamity' also hints the perennial warning tradition of 'beauty ruins the state' and 'near the sycophant, far the worthy,' linking the ruler's personal failing to the dynasty's fall—the concretization of 'the Yin mirror is not far.' The whole uses allusion without trace, yet its cultural blood runs through ancient and present—exactly Ouyang's 'Liuyi grace' of broad and implicit.
此文虽不堆砌典故，却深植于中国历史文化的土壤。其一，「盛衰之理」的兴亡命题，是中国史学的永恒主题：自《尚书》「殷鉴不远」、贾谊《过秦论》「仁义不施而攻守之势异也」以来，历代论者皆致力于从人事中寻绎朝代兴亡之由，欧阳修此论正是这一传统的继续与升华，其「天命人事之辨」直接回应了《史记》以来「究天人之际」的史学追问。其二，「天命」与「人事」之辨源于先秦：孔子罕言命而重人事，孟子主「天时不如地利，地利不如人和」，荀子倡「制天命而用之」，欧阳修以「岂非人事哉」断之，正是儒家重人事、轻天命的传统在史学中的贯彻。其三，庄宗得天下与失天下的素材本身，即蕴含着「忧劳兴国、逸豫亡身」的古训，可上溯至《左传》「居安思危」、《周易》「安而不忘危」的忧患意识，亦可遥接孟子「生于忧患，死于安乐」之说；欧阳修将这些古训化为对具体史事的解释，使传统智慧在新的历史语境中获得生命。其四，「伶官」之祸的书写，又暗合历代「女色误国」「近佞远贤」的警戒传统，将君主个人之失与王朝覆亡相连，是「殷鉴不远」观念的具体化。全文于用典处不露痕迹，而文化血脉贯通古今，正是欧阳修「六一风神」博雅蕴藉的体现。
Commentary
The 'Preface to the Biography of the Actors' enjoys extremely high later evaluation, seen as a model of historical essay. In historiography, though Ouyang's private 'New History' was criticized by later historians (Wang Mingsheng, Qian Daxin) for 'unfeeling judgments' for its over-strict praise-blame, this preface's insight arguing rise-fall by human affairs is always praised; its verdict 'toil and care can prosper a state, ease and indulgence can ruin a body' is acknowledged as the most incisive summary of the Five-Dynasties experience and a outstanding representative of the Song 'history as mirror' spirit. In literature, this essay with four-hundred-odd characters holds an open-and-close, vertical-and-horizontal momentum; opening with 'Alas,' writing in chant-sigh, phrasing parallel-prose alternating, it became the model of Song prose's 'winding and complete, feeling-and-flavor both excellent' style; Ming's Gui Youguang and Qing's Tongcheng school both took it as guwen norm, calling it 'pregnant with the Shiji,' 'spirit like Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan'; with Su Xun's 'On the Six Kingdoms' and Su Zhe's 'On the Six Kingdoms' it forms the 'three wonders of Song historical essay,' and excels especially in emotional resonance. In thought, the proposition 'Heaven's mandate vs human affairs' through this essay's exposition entered the heart, becoming an unavoidable coordinate for later writers on rise-fall; 'toil and care prosper, ease and indulgence ruin' rose from historical essay to universal warning maxim, widely used in politics and life. Long selected in middle-school texts, its majestic argument, lush literary feeling, and deep thought let each generation gain historical awakening and literary pleasure—the perfect realization of Ouyang's 'writing carries the Way' ideal.
《伶官传序》在后世享有极高评价，被视为史论文的典范之作。就史学言，欧阳修私撰《新五代史》虽因褒贬过严而遭后世史家（如王鸣盛、钱大昕）批评「不情之论」，然此序以人事论兴亡的卓识，却历来为人称道，其「忧劳可以兴国，逸豫可以亡身」的论断，被公认为对五代乱世经验最精辟的总结，也是宋人「以史为鉴」精神的突出代表。就文学言，此文以四百余字的小序而含开阖纵横之势，开篇以「呜呼」领起、以唱叹行文、以骈散相间造句，成为宋文「纡徐委备、情韵兼胜」风格的典范，明代归有光、清代桐城派皆奉之为古文圭臬，谓其「胎息《史记》」「神似韩柳」；此文与苏洵《六国论》、苏辙《六国论》并为宋代史论三绝，而情韵之胜尤冠其首。就思想言，「天命人事之辨」的命题经此文的阐发而深入人心，成为后世论兴亡者无法绕开的思想坐标；「忧劳兴国、逸豫亡身」更由史论升华为普遍的警示箴言，广泛运用于政治与人生领域。此文长期入选中学语文教材，其立论之雄、文情之茂、思想之深，使每一代读者都能从中获得历史的惊醒与文学的享受，是欧阳修「文以载道」理想的完美实现。
Prosody
Line by line
呜呼！盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉！
Alas! The principle of rise and fall, though called Heaven's mandate, is it not also human affairs!
唉！国家兴盛衰亡的道理，虽然说是天命，难道不也是人事造成的吗！
Alas! The law of rise and fall — though men call it heaven's will, is it not entirely human effort!
开篇三句是全文的立论之纲，气势夺人。首以「呜呼」感叹词起笔，未见其论而先闻其叹，把对历史兴亡的深沉悲慨一下子推到读者面前，奠定了全文情韵充沛的基调；这一「呜呼」并非无病呻吟，而是欧阳修通观五代兴亡、目睹当世积弊之后的真情流露，是「以情驭理」的自觉选择。次以「盛衰之理，虽曰天命，岂非人事哉」立论，妙在一个「虽曰」、一个「岂非」：「虽曰天命」先顺着世俗之说退让一步，承认天命之说古已有之，避免直接论辩；「岂非人事哉」随即以反问紧逼，语气由缓转急，论锋直指「人事」，一退一进之间，论点被钉得牢不可破。这种「以退为进」的设问法，既见论者之从容，又见其自信，是议论文开篇立论的经典范式。三句之中，「呜呼」传情、「虽曰」让步、「岂非」反问，情、理、势三者兼备，为全文定下「寓论断于唱叹」的基调，也为下文考究庄宗得天下与失天下的史实立下总纲。
The opening three lines are the thesis of the whole, the bearing overpowering. First the exclamation alas, before the argument the sigh is heard, pushing the deep grief for historical rise and fall at once before the reader, laying the tone of feeling-rich eloquence; this alas is no affected groan, but Ouyang Xiu's true outpouring after surveying the Five Dynasties' rise and fall and witnessing the ills of his own age, the conscious choice of feeling driving reason. Then the law of rise and fall — though men call it heaven's will, is it not entirely human effort! sets the thesis, the beauty in the one though and the one is-not: though it is heaven's will first yields to the worldly saying, granting that the doctrine of fate is ancient, avoiding the direct debate; is it not human effort then presses in the rhetorical question, the tone from slow to urgent, the argument's edge aimed straight at human effort, one retreat one advance, the thesis nailed unshakable. This question-and-answer of the retreat-to-advance shows the arguer's ease and his confidence, the classic model of the essay's opening thesis. Within the three lines, alas carries feeling, though concedes, is-not questions, feeling, reason, and force all complete, laying the tone of the argument embedded in the chant, and the outline for the below examination of Emperor Zhuangzong's winning and losing the empire.
原庄宗之所以得天下，与其所以失之者，可以知之矣。
Tracing the reason why Zhuangzong of Later Tang gained the realm, and why he lost it, one may know this.
推究后唐庄宗之所以取得天下，与之所以失掉天下的原因，就可以明白这个道理了。
Trace how Emperor Zhuangzong won the empire, and how he lost it; by this one may know the truth.
此句承接立论，点出论据并收束首段，是全文由论入史的枢纽。「原」字意为推究、考原，以一字领起，明确宣告下文将追本溯源，考究庄宗成败之由；「之所以得天下，与其所以失之者」将「得」与「失」对举，用「与其」勾连，暗示成败之间必有关联，为后文「忧劳可以兴国，逸豫可以亡身」的对比论述预埋伏笔；「可以知之矣」以斩截的语气作结，谓只要考究这段历史，「盛衰在人事而非天命」的道理便昭然若揭。「知之」二字，既是对立论的反证承诺，也是对读者的召唤——历史不是遥远的陈述，而是可以鉴照当下的明镜。在结构上，此句把「天命人事」的抽象命题落实到「庄宗得失」的具体史事上，使下文「世言晋王之将终也，以三矢赐庄宗」的叙事有了明确的指向；句末「矣」字的肯定语气，与开篇「呜呼」的感叹遥相呼应，一叹一断，首段在情感与逻辑的双重完满中收束。
This line inherits the thesis, names the evidence, and closes the first paragraph, the hinge of the essay's turn from argument to history. The word trace means to examine and trace, leading with one character, plainly declaring that what follows will trace the source, examining Zhuangzong's success and failure; how Emperor Zhuangzong won the empire, and how he lost it sets the winning and the losing in parallel, linked by the compared, hinting that between success and failure there must be a bond, storing ground for the later comparison of worry and toil can revive the state, ease and pleasure can ruin the man; by this one may know the truth closes in the decisive tone, saying that once this history is examined, the law that rise and fall lie in human effort not fate will be clear. The two words know it are at once the promised proof of the thesis and the summons to the reader — history is no distant recital, but the mirror that reflects the present. In structure, the line grounds the abstract proposition of fate versus human effort in the concrete history of Zhuangzong's gain and loss, giving the later narrative of the dying Prince of Jin giving Zhuangzong three arrows a clear direction; the affirmative tone of the final echoing the opening alas, one sigh one judgment, the first paragraph closing in the fullness of feeling and logic.
Study
Word focus
Related Reading
Su Xun's 'On the Six Kingdoms' and the 'Preface to the Biography of the Actors' are both twin jewels of Song historical essay, both using ancient history to argue for the present. 'On the Six Kingdoms' argues 'the fault lies in ceding to Qin,' that the six states destroyed themselves by ceding land to Qin, satirizing the Northern-Song humiliating diplomacy toward Liao and Xia; the 'Preface' argues 'toil and care can prosper, ease and indulgence can ruin,' warning the court through Later Tang's Zhuangzong gain-loss lesson. Both use history as mirror, make a point through the topic, with sharp argument and earnest feeling; the difference: Su Xun's essay is vertical-and-horizontal, rowdy and激越, like a strategist's formation; Ouyang's preface is winding and complete, one chant three sighs, like a lofty man's discourse—one vigorous one warm, exactly the two-style contrast of Song prose. Read together, they show how the Song 'history as mirror' anxiety bred the peak of Chinese historical-essay literature.
苏洵《六国论》与《伶官传序》同为宋代史论双璧，皆借古史立论以鉴当世。《六国论》以「弊在赂秦」立说，论六国以割地赂秦而自取灭亡，讽刺北宋对辽、夏的屈辱外交；《伶官传序》以「忧劳兴国、逸豫亡身」立论，借后唐庄宗得失天下的教训警示当朝。二者皆以史为鉴、借题发挥，论锋犀利而情辞恳切；差异在于苏洵之论纵横捭阖、排宕激越，如兵家布阵，欧阳修之序纡徐委备、一唱三叹，如高人论道——一雄健一温厚，恰成宋文两大风格的对照。二文合观，可见宋人「以史为鉴」的忧患意识如何催生了中国史论文学的高峰。
朋党论·节选 On Faction (excerpt) 欧阳修 · 同出欧阳修之手，同以「人事」立论的政论 Both by Ouyang Xiu, both argumentative essays founded on 'human affairs''On Faction' and the 'Preface to the Biography of the Actors' are both by Ouyang Xiu, one political essay one historical essay, yet their spirit communicates. 'On Faction' refutes the 'factions ruin the state' argument, proposing the famous distinction 'the gentleman bands by shared Way, the petty man by shared profit,' defending the reformists like Fan Zhongyan; its argument logic is tight, citing history to prove the present, and the 'Biography Preface's' historiographic insight 'rise-fall by human affairs' is its inside-and-outside—both firmly believe a state's order and chaos hinge on human affairs (whether men are well-used, governance diligent), not unknowable Heaven's mandate. The 'Preface' warns through Zhuangzong's favor of actors and ruin, hinting 'near the worthy, far the petty'; 'On Faction' positively argues the gentleman's band is rightful—one positive one negative, together forming Ouyang's complete political thought. Read together, they show Ouyang's 'writing carries the Way' practice, and how his realist concern as statesman permeates his historical and political essays.
《朋党论》与《伶官传序》同出欧阳修之手，一为政论一为史论，而精神相通。《朋党论》驳「朋党误国」之论，提出「君子以同道为朋，小人以同利为朋」的著名区分，为范仲淹等革新派辩护，其论辨逻辑严密、引史证今，与《伶官传序》「以人事论兴亡」的史识互为表里——两者都坚信国家的治乱兴衰系于人事（用人是否得当、为政是否勤勉），而非不可知的天命。《伶官传序》以庄宗宠伶亡国为戒，暗含「亲贤臣、远小人」之意；《朋党论》则正面论证君子之党正当其用，一正一反，共同构成欧阳修政治思想的完整表达。二文合观，可见欧阳修「文以载道」的创作实践，也可见其作为政治家的现实关怀如何渗透进史论与政论的字里行间。