第一次出场，是三个字：「石也。」《韩非子·和氏》开头：「楚人和氏得玉璞楚山中，奉而献之厉王。厉王使玉人相之。玉人曰：『石也。』王以和为诳，而刖其左足。」一块还没剖开的璞，一个玉人的判断，一只左脚。这一篇写这块玉在文本里的三次出场；三次都有出处，但都不许串成一条线。
一、卞和：两次刖足
两献，两刖，句子几乎一样：「及厉王薨，武王即位。和又奉其璞而献之武王。武王使玉人相之。又曰：『石也。』王又以和为诳，而刖其右足。」同一个判断，同一种处置：左足之后是右足。本页不写玉人是谁、怎么相、凭什么说是石头，本篇也不补——两页都没有。
第三次是哭。「武王薨，文王即位。和乃抱其璞而哭于楚山之下，三日三夜，泪尽而继之以血。」王听说了，派人去问：「天下之刖者多矣，子奚哭之悲也？」和答：「吾非悲刖也，悲夫宝玉而题之以石，贞士而名之以诳，此吾所以悲也。」——我不是为刖足哭，是为宝玉被标成石头、贞士被叫作骗子。于是「王乃使玉人理其璞而得宝焉，遂命曰『和氏之璧』」。
二、这块玉在《韩非子》里是论据
这一层必须写死：卞和的故事在《韩非子》里不是楚国档案，是一段议论的开头。故事一完，韩非马上转：「夫珠玉，人主之所急也。和虽献璞而未美，未为主之害也，然犹两足斩而宝乃论，论宝若此其难也。」——连人主最急的珠玉，都要砍掉两只脚才被承认；然后他把话头接到「法术之士」身上：「有道者之不僇也，特帝王之璞未献耳」，再举吴起枝解于楚、商君车裂于秦。所以本篇只把卞和那段当故事引，韩非的论证标明是论证，不混进「楚史」。
而从「命曰和氏之璧」到它出现在赵国，中间是空的。《韩非子》这一页到此转入议论，再没提这块玉；《史记》那边只有一句「赵惠文王时，得楚和氏璧」——一个「得」字，来路不明。怎么从楚到赵、经过谁的手、是不是就是卞和那一块，两页都不说。本篇明写：不知道，也不补。
三、赵国的朝议
「秦昭王闻之，使人遗赵王书，原以十五城请易璧。」赵王与大将军廉颇诸大臣商量：给吧，怕秦城拿不到、白受骗；不给吧，怕秦兵来。计未定，宦者令缪贤荐了蔺相如。相如的分析是：「秦强而赵弱，不可不许。」王问：「取吾璧，不予我城，奈何？」相如答：「秦以城求璧而赵不许，曲在赵。赵予璧而秦不予赵城，曲在秦。」于是有了那句承诺：「王必无人，臣愿奉璧往使。城入赵而璧留秦；城不入，臣请完璧归赵。」
四、章台：睨柱
献璧一段，动作很密：「秦王坐章台见相如，相如奉璧奏秦王。秦王大喜，传以示美人及左右，左右皆呼万岁。」相如看出秦王无意偿城，走上前说：「璧有瑕，请指示王。」王把璧递给他，他「因持璧却立，倚柱，怒发上冲冠」，说：臣以为布衣之交尚不相欺，何况大国；赵王为这块璧斋戒五日、拜送书于庭，是「严大国之威以修敬」；如今大王见臣礼节甚倨，得璧又「传之美人，以戏弄臣」——「臣观大王无意偿赵王城邑，故臣复取璧。大王必欲急臣，臣头今与璧俱碎于柱矣！」接着「相如持其璧睨柱，欲以击柱」。
秦王怕璧碎，连忙「辞谢固请」，叫有司拿出地图，「指从此以往十五都予赵」。相如估量这是诈，便提出条件：「和氏璧，天下所共传宝也……今大王亦宜斋戒五日，设九宾于廷，臣乃敢上璧。」秦王答应斋戒五日，把相如安置在广成传舍。相如则「使其从者衣褐，怀其璧，从径道亡，归璧于赵」——璧先回去了。
结局也照录：秦王斋五日后设九宾礼，相如到场，说「秦自缪公以来二十余君，未尝有坚明约束者也」，璧已归赵；「臣知欺大王之罪当诛，臣请就汤镬」。秦王与群臣「相视而嘻」，左右想把相如拉走，秦王说：杀了相如也得不到璧，不如厚待他。于是「卒廷见相如，毕礼而归之」。末句一行交代：「秦亦不以城予赵，赵亦终不予秦璧。」
五、三处不许合成一条线
两块材料不是一回事。《韩非子·和氏》是战国议论里的寓言：卞和献璞、受刑、哭山、理璞得宝，全在证明「论宝若此其难」。《史记·廉颇蔺相如列传》是汉代史书的叙事：秦赵争一块叫「和氏璧」的玉，蔺相如把它送回赵国。两页相通的只有一个名字和「楚」字——《史记》说「得楚和氏璧」，没说这块就是卞和献的那一块。所以本篇分三层写：卞和的故事（韩非子）、赵国「得」玉一句（史记）、秦赵十五城的争夺（史记），不合成「一块玉的流传史」。
两页不给的也列清：璧的尺寸、玉质、重量，都没有；「十五城」是秦「请易」的开价，不是对璧的估价，本篇不拿它折算；「价值连城」这类成语的来历不写；也不写「诚信」「外交智慧」这类道德评语。站内写佩玉的篇目讲的是身上的礼，写问鼎的篇目讲的是铜器——这一篇只写一块玉在几段文字里被叫作什么：先被叫作「石」，再被叫作「天下所共传宝」，最后一行是「秦亦不以城予赵，赵亦终不予秦璧」。三次都不是玉自己说话。
延伸阅读：家臣：一个大夫家里的朝廷，反过来扣住了主人 · 乐府：八百二十九个人，四百四十一个被裁掉 · 虎符：一半在君，一半在将
参考来源与延伸阅读
- 《韩非子·和氏》（维基文库本，未与点校本复核） — The whole of the Bian He story in one paragraph: 'a man of Chu, He, got a jade in the rough in the Chu mountains and presented it to King Li. King Li had the jade-cutter look at it; the jade-cutter said: It is a stone. The king took He for a deceiver and cut off his left foot. When King Li died and King Wu came to the throne, He again presented the rough jade; the jade-cutter again said: It is a stone; and his right foot was cut off. When King Wu died and King Wen came to the throne, He clasped the rough jade and wept at the foot of the Chu mountains for three days and three nights, until his tears dried and blood came after them' (楚人和氏得玉璞楚山中……泣盡而繼之以血); the king's question and He's answer ('I do not grieve for the cutting — I grieve that a precious jade is labelled a stone, and a true man is called a deceiver'); and the ending, 'the king had the jade-cutter cut and polish the rough stone and got the treasure from it, and it was named the He family jade' (王乃使玉人理其璞而得寶焉，遂命曰和氏之璧). The rest of the chapter is Han Fei's argument — that a treasure is only judged after two feet are cut, and that men of law and method fare likewise, with Wu Qi and Lord Shang as examples — and that argument is marked as argument here, not as Chu history.
- 《史记》卷八十一〈廉颇蔺相如列传〉（维基文库本，未与点校本复核） — The Qin-Zhao episode, used as a separate layer: 'in the time of King Huiwen of Zhao they got the He family jade of Chu. King Zhao of Qin heard of it and sent a letter offering fifteen cities in exchange' (趙惠文王時，得楚和氏璧……原以十五城請易璧); Lin Xiangru's undertaking, 'if the cities enter Zhao the jade stays in Qin; if not, I ask to return the jade whole to Zhao' (城入趙而璧留秦；城不入，臣請完璧歸趙); the audience at the Zhang terrace, the jade passed round to the beauties, 'the jade has a flaw — let me point it out to Your Majesty', the retreat to the pillar with hair bristling, 'my head will be smashed with the jade against this pillar' (臣頭今與璧倶碎於柱矣), the demand for five days' fasting and nine guests in the court, the servant in coarse clothes carrying the jade home by a side road (使其從者衣褐，懷其璧，從徑道亡，歸璧於趙), and the close, 'Qin never gave the cities to Zhao, and Zhao never gave the jade to Qin' (秦亦不以城予趙，趙亦終不予秦璧). The page marks variant characters with editorial -{…}- brackets (於, 舍, 復, 髮), which are transcription marks and are not quoted.
