|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
魯穆公問於子思曰：「吾聞龐氏之子不孝，其行奚如？」子思對曰： 「君子尊賢以崇德，舉善以觀民。若夫過行，是細人之所識也，臣不知也。」子思出，子服厲伯入見。 〔問〕龐氏子，子服厲伯對曰：「其過三，皆君之所未嘗聞。」自是之後，君貴子思而賤子服厲伯也。
或曰：魯之公室，三世劫於季氏，不亦宜乎？明君求善而賞之，求姦而誅之， 其得之一也。故以善聞之者，以說善同於上者也；以姦聞之者，以惡姦同於上者也，此宜賞譽之所（力）〔及〕也。 不以姦聞，是異於上而下比周於姦者也，此宜毀罰之所及也。今子思不以過聞而穆公貴之，厲伯以姦聞而穆公賤之。 人情皆喜貴而惡賤，故季氏之亂成而不上聞，此魯君之所以劫也。且此亡王之俗，取魯之民所以自美，而穆公獨貴之，不亦倒乎？
文公出亡，獻公使寺人披攻之蒲城，披斬其袪，文公奔翟。惠公即位， 又使攻之惠竇，不得也。及文公反國，披求見。公曰：「蒲城之役，君令一宿，而汝即至； 惠竇之難，君令三宿，而汝一宿，何其速也？」披對曰：「君令不二。除君之惡，〔惟〕恐不堪。 蒲人、翟人，余何有焉？今公即位，其無蒲、翟乎？且桓公置射鉤而相管仲。」君乃見之。
或曰：齊、晉絕祀，不亦宜乎？桓公能用管仲之功，而忘射鉤之怨，文公能聽寺人之言， 而棄斬袪之罪，桓公、文公能容二子者也。後世之君，明不及二公；後世之臣，賢不如二子。 不忠之臣以事不明之君，君不知，則有燕操、子罕、田常之賊；知之則以管仲、寺人自解。君必不誅， 而自以為有桓、文之德，是臣讎而明不能燭，多假之資，自以為賢而不戒，則雖無後嗣，不亦可乎？ 且寺人之言也，直飾君令而不貳者，則是貞於君也。死君（後）〔復〕生臣不愧而（復）〔後〕為貞。 今惠公朝卒而暮事文公，寺人之不貳何如？
人有設桓公隱者，曰：「一難，二難，三難，何也？」桓公不能對，以告管仲。 管仲對曰：「一難也，近優而遠士。二難也，去其國而數之海。三難也，君老而晚置太子。」 桓公曰：「善。」不擇日而廟禮太子。
或曰：管仲之射隱不得也。士之用不在近遠，而俳優侏儒，固人主之所與燕也。 則近優而遠士，而以為治，非其難者也。夫處（世）〔勢〕而不能用其有，而悖不去國， 是以一人之力禁一國。以一人之力禁一國者，少能勝之。明能照遠姦而見隱微，必行之令， 雖遠於海，內必無變。然則去國之海而不劫殺，非其難者也。楚成王置商臣以為太子， 又欲置公子職，商臣作難，遂弒成王。公子宰，周太子也，公子根有寵，遂以東州反，分而為兩國。 此皆非晚置太子之患也。夫分勢不二，庶孽卑，寵無藉，雖處大臣，晚置太子可也。然則晚置太子， 庶孽不亂，又非其難也。物之所謂難者，必借人成勢而勿〔使〕侵害己，可謂一難也。貴妾不使二后， 二難也。愛孽不使危正適，專聽一臣而不敢隅君，此則可謂三難也。
葉公子高問政於仲尼，仲尼曰：「政在悅近而來遠。」哀公問政於仲尼， 仲尼曰：「政在選賢。」齊景公問政於仲尼，仲尼曰：「政在節財。」三公出，子貢問曰： 「三公問夫子政一也，夫子對之不同，何也？」仲尼曰：「葉都大而國小，民有背心， 故曰『政在悅近而來遠』。魯哀公有大臣三人，外障距諸侯四鄰之士，內比周而以愚其君， 使宗廟不掃除，社稷不血食者，必是三臣也，故曰『政在選賢』。齊景公築雍門，為路寢， 一朝而以三百乘之家賜者三，故曰『政在節財』。」
或曰：仲尼之對，亡國之言也。（恐）〔葉〕民有倍心，而（誠）說之「悅近而來遠」， 則是教民懷惠。惠之為政，無功者受賞，而有罪者免，此法之所以敗也。法敗而〔政〕亂， 以亂政治敗民，未見其可也。且民有倍心者，君上之明有所不及也。不紹葉公之明， 而使之悅近而來遠，是舍吾勢之所能禁而使與（不）〔下〕行惠以爭民，非能持勢者也。 夫堯之賢，六王之冠也。舜一（從而咸包）〔徙而成邑〕，而堯無天下矣。有人無術以禁下， 恃為舜而不失其民，不亦無術乎？明君見小姦於微，故民無大謀；行小誅於細，故民無大亂。 此謂「圖難於其所易也，為大者於其所細也」。今有功者必賞，賞者不得君，力之所致也； 有罪者必誅，誅者不怨上，罪之所生也。民知誅（罰）〔賞〕之皆起於身也，故疾功利於業， 而不受賜於君。「太上，下智有之」。此言太上之下民無說也，安取懷惠之民？上君之民無利害， 說以「悅近來遠」，亦可舍已。
哀公有臣外障距內比周以愚其君，而說之以「選賢」，此非功伐之論也， 選其心之所謂賢者也。使哀公知三子外障距內比周也，則三子不一日立矣。哀公不知選賢， 選其心之所謂賢，故三子得任事。燕子噲賢子之而非孫卿，故身死為僇；夫差智太宰嚭而愚子胥， 故滅於越。魯君不必知賢，而說以選賢，是使哀公有夫差、燕噲之患也。明君不自舉臣，臣相進也； 不自賢，功自徇也。論之於任，試之於事，課之於功，故群臣公政而無私，不隱賢，不進不肖。 然則人主奚勞於選賢？
景公以百乘之家賜，而說以「節財」，是使景公無術（使智◇）〔以知富〕之侈， 而獨儉於上，未免於貧也。有君以千里養其口腹，則雖桀、紂不侈焉。齊國方三千里， 而桓公以其半自養，是侈於桀、紂也；然而能為五霸冠者，知侈儉之地也。為君不能禁下而自禁者謂之劫， 不能飾下而自飾者謂之亂，不節下而自節者謂之貧。明君使人無私，以詐而食者禁；力盡於事， 歸利於上者必聞，聞者必賞；汙穢為私者必知，知者必誅。然故忠臣盡忠於（方）公，民士竭力於家， 百官精剋於上，侈倍景公，非國之患也。然則說之以節財，非其急者也。
夫對三公一言而三公可以無患，知下之謂也。知下明則禁於微， 〔禁於微〕則姦無積，姦無積則無比周，無比周則公私分，公私分則朋黨散， 朋黨散則無外障距內比周之患。知下明則見精沐，見精沐則誅賞明，誅賞明則國不貧， 故曰：一對而三公無患，知下之謂也。
鄭子產晨出，過（朿）〔東〕匠之閭，聞婦人之哭，撫其御之手而聽之。 有間，遣吏執而問之，則手絞其夫者也。異日，其御問曰：「夫子何以知之？」子產曰： 「其聲懼。凡人於其親愛也，始病而憂，臨死而懼，已死而哀。今哭已死，不哀而懼，是以知其有姦也。」
或曰：子產之治，不亦多事乎？（必姦）〔姦必〕待耳目之所及而後知之， 則鄭國之得姦者寡矣。不任典成之吏，不察參伍之政，不明度量，恃（毒）〔盡〕聰明， 勞智慮，而以知姦，不亦無術乎？且夫物眾而智寡，寡不勝眾，智不足以徧知物，故（則）因物以治物。 下眾而上寡，寡不勝眾者，言君不足以徧知臣也，故因人以知人。是以形體不勞而事治， 智慮不用而姦得。故宋人語曰：「一雀過羿，〔羿〕必得之，則羿誣矣。以天下為之羅， 則雀不失矣。」夫知姦亦有大羅，不失其一而已矣。不循其理，而以己之胸察為之弓矢， 則子產誣矣。《老子》曰：「以智治國，國之賊也。」其子產之謂矣。
秦昭王問於左右曰：「今時韓、魏孰與始強？」左右對曰：「弱於始也。」 「今之如耳、魏齊孰與曩之孟（常）〔嘗〕、芒卯？」對曰：「不及也。」王曰： 「孟（常）〔嘗〕、芒卯率強韓、魏猶無柰寡人何也。」左右對曰：「甚然。」中期推琴而對曰： 「王之料天下過矣。夫六晉之時，知氏最強，滅范、中行而從韓、魏之兵以伐趙，灌以晉水， 城之未沈者三板。知伯出，魏宣子御，韓康子為驂乘。知伯曰：『始吾不知水可以滅人之國， 吾乃今知之。汾水可以灌安邑，絳水可以灌平陽。』魏宣子肘韓康子，康子踐宣子之足， 肘足接乎車上，而知氏分於晉陽之下。今足下雖強，未若知氏；韓、魏雖弱，未至如其〔在〕晉陽之下也。 此天下方用肘足之時，願王勿易之也。」
或曰：昭王之問也有失，左右、中期之對也有過。凡明主之治國也，任其勢。 勢不可害，則雖強天下無柰何也，而況孟（常）〔嘗〕、芒卯、韓、魏能柰我何？其勢可害也， 則不肖如〔如〕耳、魏齊，及韓、魏猶能害之。然則害與不侵，在自恃而已矣，奚問乎？ 自恃其不可侵，〔則〕強與弱奚其擇焉？失在不自恃，而問其柰何也，其不侵也幸矣。 申子曰：「失之數而求之信，則疑矣。」其昭王之謂也。
知伯無度，從韓康、魏宣而圖以水灌滅其國。 此知伯之所以國亡而身死，頭為飲柸之故也。今昭王乃問孰與始強，其畏有水人之患乎。 雖有左右，非韓、魏之二子也，安有肘足之事？而中期曰「勿易」，此虛言也。且中期之所官， 琴瑟也。絃不調，弄不明，中期之任也，此中期所以事昭王者也。中期善承其任，未慊昭王也， 而為所不知，豈不妄哉？左右對之曰「弱於始」與「不及」則可矣，其曰「甚然」則諛也。 申子曰：「治不踰官，雖知不言。」今中期不知而尚言之。故曰：昭王之問有失，左右、中期之對皆有過也。
管子曰：「見其可，說之有證；見其不可，惡之有形。賞罰信於所見， 雖所不見，其敢為之乎？見其可，說之無（說）證；見其不可，惡之無形。賞罰不信於所見， 而求所不見之外，不可得也。」
或曰：廣廷嚴居，眾人之所肅也。宴室獨處，曾、史之所僈也。觀人之所肅， 非行情也。且君上者，臣下之所為飾也。好惡在所見，臣下之飾姦物以愚其君，必也。 明不能燭遠姦，見隱微，而待之以觀飾行，定賞罰，不亦弊乎？
或曰：管仲之所謂言室滿室、言堂滿堂者，非特謂遊戲飲食之言也， 必謂大物也。人主之大物，非法則術也。法者，編著之圖籍，設之於官府，而布之於百姓者也。 術者，藏之於胸中，以偶眾端而潛御群臣者也。故法莫如顯，而術不欲見。是以明主言法， 則境內卑賤莫不聞知也，不獨滿於堂；用術，則親愛近習莫之得聞也，不得滿室。而管子猶曰： 「言於室滿室，言於堂滿堂。」非法術之言也。
Chapter XXXVIII. Criticism of the Ancients, Series Three
1Duke Mu of Lu once asked Tzŭ-ssŭ, saying, "I have heard that the son of the Chien family in the village of P`ang 2 is not dutiful. How is his conduct?" In reply Tzŭ-ssŭ said, "The superior man esteems the worthy and thereby exalts the virtuous. He promotes the good and thereby encourages 3 the people. In the case of misconduct, it is recognized by small men. Thy servant does not know anything about his conduct at all." After Tzŭ-ssŭ had gone out, Tzŭ-fu and Li-pai went in to interview the Duke. Then Duke Mu again asked about the conduct of the son of the Chien family in the village of P`ang. In reply Tzŭ-fu and Li-pai said, "He has three defects, all of which your Highness has never heard about." Thenceforth, the ruler respected Tzŭ-ssŭ but despised Tzŭ-fu and Li-pai.
Some critic says: Was it unreasonable that the ruling family of Lu was menaced by the Chi Clan successively for three generations? The enlightened ruler searches for good men and rewards them. He searches for wicked men and punishes them. He search is one. Therefore, who reports of good men agrees with the superior on the approval of good deeds; who reports of wicked men agrees with the superior on the dislike of bad deeds. Both equally deserve reward and honour. Who does not report of wicked men, is an opponent of the superior and a partisan of the wicked men. He deserves disgrace and punishment. Now, Tzŭ-ssŭ did not report of any defect of the son, whereas Duke Mu respected him. Li-pai reported of the wickedness of the son, whereas Duke Mu despised him. It is human nature, however, that everybody loves respect and dislikes being despised. Naturally, even when the rebellious plot of the Chi Clan was mature, nobody reported of it to the superior. This was the reason for which the Ruler of Lu was eventually molested. Verily, it is the beaten track of the sovereigns 4 of declining states, which was appreciated by the men of Tsou and Lu. 5 Was it absurd that Duke Mu esteemed it in particular?
When Duke Wên fled into exile, Duke Hsien sent eunuch, P`i, to assault him at Rush City. P`i only succeeded in cutting a sleeve off his coat. Then Duke Wên escaped to Chieh. When Duke Hui ascended the throne, he also sent P`i to assault Duke Wên by the side of the Wei River. 6 But he could not get at the Duke. After the return of Duke Wên to his native country, P`i petitioned for an audience with the Duke. Thereupon, the Duke said, "Before the assault at Rush City, His Highness had ordered you to stay one night on the way, but you went straight there. Before the catastrophe by the side of the Wei River, His Highness had ordered you to stay three nights on the way, but you spent one night only. Why were you so quick?" In reply P`i said, "The ruler's order must not be disobeyed. To eliminate the ruler's enemy I was afraid of my inability. At that time Your Highness was merely a man of Rush or a man of Chieh, with whom I had no relationship whatever. Now that Your Highness has ascended the throne, would there be no memory of the events at Rush and in Chieh? Indeed, Duke Huan even forgot the shooting of the ribbon-hook of his crown and appointed Kuan Chung premier." Hearing this, the Duke granted him an audience.
Some critic says: That festivals to the memory of the ancestors of the Ch`is and the Chins were finally stopped, was perfectly reasonable. Duke Huan could make use of Kuan Chung's meritorious services and forgot the grudge against the shooting of the ribbon-hook. Duke Wên could listen to the eunuch's saying and ignored the crime of cutting off his sleeve. Thus, Dukes Huan and Wên could tolerate the two men. Rulers of subsequent generations, however, were not as enlightened as these two Dukes while ministers of subsequent generations were not as worthy as these two men. When disloyal ministers were serving unintelligent rulers, if the rulers did not notice their disloyalty, then there would appear such traitors as Ts`ao 7 of Yen, Tzŭ-han, and T`ien Ch`ang; if they noticed their disloyalty, then the ministers would justify their misconduct with the actions of Kuan Chung and the eunuch as precedents, so that the rulers would not censure them and assumed themselves to be as virtuous as Dukes Huan and Wên. In this manner, the ministers owed the rulers 8 grudges in secret, but the rulers were not intelligent enough to eliminate the dark matters. If the rulers vested the ministers with more powers while pretending to worthiness themselves and taking no precaution against any eventuality, was it not reasonable that their posterity was exterminated? Moreover, the saying of the eunuch was too ostentatious. Who does not disobey the ruler's order, is said to be faithful to the ruler. However, unless the minister never feels ashamed of his conduct even when the dead ruler comes to life again, he is not truly faithful. Now that Duke Hui died at dawn, the eunuch turned to serve Duke Wên at dusk, how about his principle of nondisobedience?
Once somebody put a riddle to Duke Huan, saying, "The first difficulty, the second difficulty, and the third difficulty. What are they?" Unable to solve the riddle, Duke Huan asked Kuan Chung to do it. In reply Kuan Chung said, "The first difficulty is due to the ruler's intimacy with actors and remoteness from scholars and warriors; the second, due to his absence from the state capital and frequent visit to the seaside; and the third, due to the choice of the Crown Prince late in the ruler's old age." "Right," remarked Duke Huan. Without choosing a lucky day, he celebrated in the ancestral shrine the installation of the Crown Prince.
Some critic says: Kuan Chung's solution of the riddle was not to the point. The serviceability of the scholars and warriors does not rest with their distance from the ruler. Actors and clowns are from the beginning supposed to accompany the lord of men at every feast. If so, then to keep actors near and the scholars and warriors far and thereby maintain political order would not be any difficulty at all. Again, who is in the position and not able to make the best use of his authorities but counts on his constant presence at the state capital, means to suppress wickedness throughout the whole country with one person's strength. If the ruler attempts to suppress wickedness throughout the whole country with his own strength only, then he can hardly succeed. If his intelligence is able to illuminate distant crooks and disclose vicious secrets, and if he is certain to apply decrees to such cases, then though he travels far away to the seaside, there will be no disorder at home. If so, then to leave the state capital for the seaside and thereby invite neither menace nor murder, would constitute no difficulty at all. As regards the third difficulty, King Ch`êng of Ch`u first made Shang-ch`êng Crown Prince, and later thought of making Prince Chih Crown Prince, wherefore Shang-ch`êng caused a disturbance and finally murdered King Ch`êng. Similarly, Prince Tsai 9 was the Crown Prince of Chou, but Prince Kên won the ruler's favour, caused a rebellion in the eastern part of Chou, 10 and split the country into two. In these cases the calamity was not due to the late installation of the crown prince. If the ruler is not double-dealing in matters of distinction and position, keeps bastards in low status, and grants his favourites no special request, then though he waits till an old age, the late installation of the crown prince is practicable. If so, then to install the crown prince late and thereby incur no turmoil from bastards, would constitute no difficulty at all. The so-called difficulties are: to let people accumulate their influences and not to let them trespass against the ruler, which constitutes the first difficulty; to favour concubines but not let them rival the wife, which constitutes the second difficulty; and, to love bastards but not to let them jeopardize the heir apparent, and to trust one minister exclusively and see that he dare not rank with the ruler himself, which can be called the third difficulty.
When the Duke of Sheh, Tzŭ-kao, asked Chung-ni about government, Chung-ni said, "The way of good government is to content the near and attract the distant." 11 When Duke Ai asked Chung-ni about government, Chung-ni said, "The way of good government is to select worthies for office." When Duke Ching of Ch`i asked Chung-ni about government, Chung-ni said, "The way of good government is to economize expenditure." After the three Dukes had gone out, Tzŭ-kung asked, "The question raised to Master by the three Dukes about government was the same one, but why did Master reply to them differently?" Chung-ni said, "In Sheh the capital is too big for the country while the people have the rebellious mind. Therefore, I said, `The way of good government is to content the near and attract the distant'. Duke Ai of Lu has three chief vassals, who spurn envoys from other feudal lords and the neighbouring countries and join one another in befooling their master. It must be these three ministers who will stop the festivals of the ancestral shrine and remove the sacrifices from the Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain. Therefore I said, `The way of good government is to select worthy men for office.' Duke Ching of Ch`i constructed the Yung Gate, built the Roadbed Tower, and in one morning rewarded three officials each with a fief of one hundred chariots. Therefore, I said, `The way of good government is to economize expenditure.' "
Some critic says: The reply of Chung-ni was a state-ruining saying. Notwithstanding that the Sheh people had the rebellious mind, he advised the ruler to content the near and attract the distant, whereby he encouraged the people to cherish gratitude to the ruler for his favours. To be sure, the government by favour rewards men of no merit and absolves criminals of guilt. This is the reason why the law is broken. If the law is broken, government will fall into confusion. To govern a spoilt people with confused regulations is never practicable. Moreover, if the people have the rebellious mind, it is because the ruler's insight has fallen short of certain objects. Now, instead of persuading 12 the Duke of Sheh to extend his insight, Chung-ni advised him to content the near and attract the distant. In this way he advised the ruler to discard what his position is able to prohibit and struggle with his subordinates 13 to win the hearts of the people by conferring favours. Thereby he will not be able to maintain his influence. Indeed, in worthiness Yao was the first one of the six rulers, 14 but wherever Shun went, people flocked around him, till Yao had no more influence in All-under-Heaven. Suppose there is a ruler who has no way of preventing his subordinates from misbehaving but counts on their imitation of Shun and expects not to lose the hearts of the people. Is he not tactless? The enlightened ruler sees an evil in the bud, wherefore the people cannot plot any large-scale rebellion. As he inflicts small punishments for minor offences, the people cannot cause any serious disturbance. This means "to contemplate a difficulty when it is easy and manage a great thing when it is small." 15 Now, if men of merit are always rewarded, the rewarded do not feel grateful 16 to the ruler, because the reward is due to their effort. If men guilty of offences are always punished, the punished bear no grudge against the authorities, because the punishment is due to their misconduct. As the people understand that both punishment and reward 17 are due to their own deeds, they will strive to harvest merits and profits in their daily work and will not hope for undue gifts from the ruler. "Of the greatest ruler, the people simply know the existence." 18 This means that under the greatest ruler the people have no undue joy. Then where can be found people bearing gratitude to the ruler? The subjects of the greatest ruler receive neither undue profit nor undue injury. Therefore, the persuasion to content the near and attract the distant should be set at nought.
As Duke Ai had ministers who spurned visitors from outside and formed juntas at home in deceiving the ruler, Chung-ni persuaded him to select worthies for office. By worthies he meant not men who would exert their strength and render meritorious services, but those whom the ruler judged to be worthy. Now, supposing Duke Ai knew that the three ministers spurned visitors from outside and formed juntas at home, then the three men could not continue misbehaving one day longer. It was because Duke Ai did not know how to select worthies for office but simply selected those men he judged to be worthy that the three men could have charge of state affairs. However, Tzŭ-k`uai of Yen considered Tzŭ-chih worthy and disapproved the character of Sun Ch`ing with the result that he was murdered and became a laughing-stock of the world. Likewise, Fu-ch`a regarded Chancellor P`i as wise and Tzŭ-hsü as stupid with the result that he was extinguished by Yüeh. Thus, the Ruler of Lu did not necessarily know worthy men, but Chung-ni persuaded him to select worthy men, whereby he would drive him to the disaster of Fu-ch`a and K`uai of Yen. Verily, the enlightened ruler does not have to promote ministers himself, for they advance according to their meritorious services. 19 He does not have to select 20 worthies himself, for they make their appearances 21 according to their meritorious services. He appoints them to various posts, examines them in their works, and judges them according to their results. Therefore, all officials have to be fair and just and never self-seeking. Neither obscuring the worthy nor promoting the unworthy, what worry does the lord of men have about the selection of worthy men?
As Duke Ching rewarded officials each with a fief of one hundred chariots, Chung-ni persuaded him to economize expenditure, whereby he advised him to have no way of enjoying pleasures and luxuries but remain personally frugal. In consequence, the country would fall into poverty. Suppose there is a ruler who supports himself with the income from the area of one thousand li square. Then even Chieh and Chow could not be more extravagant than he. Now, the Ch`i State covers an area of three thousand li square. With half of its income Duke Huan supported himself. In this manner he was more extravagant than Chieh and Chow. Yet he could become the first one of the Five Hegemonic Rulers because he knew the respective spheres of frugality and extravagance. To be a ruler of men who cannot 22 restrain his subjects but has to restrain himself instead, is called "suffering"; to be unable to reform his subjects and have to reform himself instead, is called "confusion"; and, not to economize in the expenditure of his subjects but to economize in his own expenditure, is called "poverty". The enlightened ruler makes people public-spirited, stops men who earn their livelihood by means of deception, and always hears about those who exert their strength in public enterprises and contribute profits to the authorities. Whenever heard about, the men of merit are rewarded. Likewise, he always knows those who are corrupt and self-seeking. Whenever known, the wicked men are punished. If so, 23 then loyal ministers will exert their spirits of loyalty for public causes, gentry and commoners will apply their strength to the welfare of their families, and all officials will be assiduous and deny themselves in serving the superior. Therefore, the extravagance of the enlightened ruler, be it twice as much as that of Duke Ching, will constitute no menace to the state. If so, the persuasion to economize expenditure was not an urgent need of Duke Ching.
Indeed, a single reply to the three Dukes that would enable them to get rid of all worries should be "Know your inferiors". If the ruler knows the inferiors well, then he can nip an evil in the bud. If evils are nipped in the bud, no villainy will be accumulated. If no villainy is accumulated, no junta will be formed. If no junta is formed, public welfare and private interest will be distinguished from each other. If public welfare and private interest are distinguished from each other, all partisans will disperse. If the partisans disperse, there will be no trouble-makers spurning visitors from outside and forming wicked juntas inside. Moreover, when the ruler knows his inferiors well, he will discover all their minute details. 24 When all their minute details are disclosed, censure and reward will be clarified. When censure and reward are clarified, the country will not be poor. Hence the saying: "A single reply that would enable the three Dukes to get rid of all worries should be `Know your inferiors'."
One morning when Tzŭ-ch`an of Chêng went out and passed through the quarters of eastern craftsmen, he heard a woman crying. Therefore, he held the coachman's hand still and listened to the crying. Meanwhile, he sent out an official to arrest her. After examining her, he found out that she had strangled her husband with her own hands. Another day the coachman asked, "Master, how could you tell that she had killed her husband?" "Her voice was fearful," said Tzŭ-ch`an. "As a rule, people react to their beloved in the following ways: When the beloved has just fallen ill, they are worried about the illness; when he or she is dying, they feel fearful; after the death, they feel sad. Now that the woman crying over her dead husband was not sad but fearful, I could tell there was villainy behind it."
Some critic says: Was Tzŭ-ch`an's way of government not burdensome? The culprit was found out only after she had fallen within the reaches of the premier's ears and eyes. If so, very few culprits could be found out in the Chêng State. Not employing judicial officials, not carefully observing the system of three units and basic fives, 25 and not clarifying rules and measures, but solely depending on the exertion of his auditory and visual sagacity and the exhaustion of his wisdom and reason for detecting culprits, was he not tactless? Verily, things are many; wise men, few. As the few are no match for the many, the wise are not sufficient to know all the things. Therefore, regulate things with things. The inferior are many; the superior, few. As the few are no match for the many, the ruler alone is not sufficient to know all the officials. Therefore, govern men with men. In this way, without damaging his features and his body, the ruler administers state affairs successfully; without making use of his wisdom and reason, he can find out culprits. Hence follows the proberb of the Sungs, saying "Yi would be unreasonable if he claimed his ability to shoot down every sparrow passing by him. Supposing All-under-Heaven became a net, then no sparrow would be missed". To comb the culprits, the ruler must have a large net, so that none of them will be missed. Not studying these principles but using his own guess-work as bows and arrows, Tzŭ-ch`an was unreasonable. Thus, Lao Tzŭ said, "Who attempts to govern the state with wisdom, will eventually betray the country." 26 How applicable this was to Tzŭ-ch`an's case!
King Chao of Ch`in asked the chamberlains, saying, "How is the present strength of Han and Wey compared with their former strength?" In reply they said, "They are now weaker than before." "How are Ju êrh and Wey Ch`i at present compared with Mêng Ch`ang 27 and Mang Mao in the past?" "The former are not as great as the latter," replied the chamberlains. Then the King said, "Mêng Ch`ang and Mang Mao led the strong forces of Han and Wey, but could do nothing against me. Now, they put such unable men as Ju êrh and Wey Ch`i in command of the weak forces of Han and Wey to attack Ch'in. Clearly enough, they will not be able to do anything against me." 28 In response they said, "That is very true." However, Musician Chung Ch`i put his lute aside and said in reply: "Your Majesty is mistaken in estimating the situation of All-under-Heaven. Indeed, at the time of the Six Chins, the Chih Clan was the strongest among all. After destroying the Fan and the Chung-hang Clans, they took the troops of Han and Wey along to attack Chao. They inundated the capital of Chao with the water from the Chin River, till only six feet 29 square of land inside the city was not flooded. One day, Earl Chih went out with Viscount Hsüan of Wey as the charioteer and Viscount K`ang of Han in charge of the extra team. On the way, Earl Chih said, `Never before have I known that water can destroy enemies' states. I have just come to know it. The water of the Fêng River can inundate the city of An-i 30 ; and the water of the Chiang River can inundate the city of P'ing-yang. 31 Hearing this remark, Viscount Hsüan of Wey pushed the elbow of Viscount K`ang of Han while Viscount K`ang stepped on Viscount Hsüan's foot. Soon after the elbow was pushed and the foot was stepped on in the carriage, the possessions of the Chih Clan were divided beneath the walls of Chin-yang. Now, Your Majesty, though strong, is not yet as powerful as the Chih Clan. Han and Wey, though weak, are not yet as helpless as the people besieged at Chin-yang. 32 To-day is the very moment when All-under-Heaven push their elbows and step on their feet. May Your Majesty, therefore, not look down upon them!"
Some critic says: King Chao's question was mistaken; the replies by the chamberlains and Chung-ch`i were wrong. As a rule, the enlightened sovereign in governing the state holds fast to his position. As long as his position is not injured, even though the forces of All-under-Heaven combine against him, they could do nothing against him. Then how much less could Mêng Ch`ang, Mang Mao, Han, and Wey do against Ch`in? However, if the position can be injured, then even unworthy men like Ju êrh and Wey Ch`i and the weak forces of Han and Wey can be detrimental to it. Such being the case, violability and inviolability both rest on nothing but the reliability of one's own position. Why did he raise the question then? If the sovereign relies on the inviolability of his own position, he minds no enemy whether strong or weak. If he cannot rely on his own position but keeps asking about the strength of his enemies, suffering no invasion will be a godsend to him. Shên Tzŭ said, "Who loses sight of calculations and looks to people's words for bases of belief, will for ever be in doubt," which was applicable to King Chao's case.
Earl Chih had no rules of self-restraint. Thus, while taking Viscounts K`ang of Han and Hsüan of Wey along, he thought of flooding and ruining their countries with water. This was the reason why Earl Chih had his country destroyed, himself killed, and his skull made into a drinking cup. Now, when King Chao asked if enemies were stronger than they had been before, there was no worry about his flooding lands. Though he had the chamberlains around, they were not the same as the Viscounts of Han and Wey. Then how could there be any elbow-pushing and foot-stepping intrigues? Nevertheless, Chung-ch`i said, "Do not look down upon them!" This was an empty saying. Moreover, what Chung-ch`i took charge of was harps and lutes. Were the strings not harmonious and the notes not clear, it would be his duty to fix them. In this post Chung-ch`i 33 served King Chao. He was willing to enter upon the duties of that post. Yet before he as yet proved satisfactory in his official capacity to King Chao, he spoke on what he did not know. Was he not thoughtless? The chamberlains' replies, "Both are weaker now than before," and, "The former are not as great as the latter," were fair, but their last reply, "That is very true," was certainly flattery. Shên Tzŭ said, "The way to order is not to overstep the duties of one's post and not to speak about people's business though aware of it." Now, Chung-ch`i did not know politics but spoke on it. Hence the saying: "King Chao's question was mistaken: the replies by the chamberlains and Chung-ch`i were wrong."
Kuan Tzŭ said, "When the ruler approves the minister's conduct, he manifests evidences 34 of liking him; when he disapproves the minister's conduct, he produces facts of disliking him. If reward and punishment accord with what is seen, the minister will dare do no wrong even in unseen places. Suppose when the ruler sees the minister's conduct approvable, of liking him he manifests no evidence; when he sees the minister's conduct not approvable, of disliking him he produces no fact. Then if reward and punishment do not accord with what is seen, it is impossible to expect the minister to do good at unseen places."
Some critic says: Public grounds and sublime shrines are places where all behave with respect; dark rooms and solitary quarters are places where even Tsêng Shan and Shih Ch`in become undisciplined. To observe people when they behave respectfully is not to be able to get at the realities of them. Moreover, in the presence of the ruler and superior every minister and inferior is forced to polish his manners. If both approval and disapproval rest on what is seen, it is certain that ministers and inferiors will disguise wicked things and thereby befool their masters. If the ruler's own insight cannot illuminate distant crooks and discern hidden secrets and thereby guard against them, to fix reward and punishment by observing disguised deeds is certainly harmful.
Kuan Tzŭ said, "Whose words said inside the private room prevail upon everybody in the room, and whose words said inside the public hall prevail upon everybody in the hall, he can be called ruler of All-under-Heaven." 35
Some critic says: What Kuan Chung meant by the so-called words which were said inside the room and prevailed upon everybody in the room and those which were said inside the hall and prevailed upon everybody in the hall, was not restricted to talks given in sport and play or after drinking and eating, but inclusive of serious discussions of important business. The important business of the lord of men is either law or tact. The law is codified in books, kept in governmental offices, and promulgated among the hundred surnames. The tact is hidden in the bosom and useful in comparing diverse motivating factors of human conduct and in manipulating the body of officials secretly. Therefore, law wants nothing more than publicity; tact abhors visibility. For this reason, when the enlightened sovereign speaks on law, high and low within the boundaries will hear and know it. Thus, the speech prevails not only upon everybody in the hall. When he applies his tact, none of his favourites and courtiers will notice it at all. Thus, it cannot display itself all over the room. Nevertheless, Kuan Tzŭ insisted on saying, "The words said in the private room prevail upon everybody in the room; the words said in the public hall prevail upon everybody in the hall," which is not an utterance of the spirit of law and tact at all.
2. 龐##氏. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê Wang Ch`ung's "Refutation of Han Fei Tzŭ" has 橺 in place of ###.
3. 觀 should be 勸.
4. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 王 should be 主.
5. 取魯之民. With Hirazawa 取 should read 鄒. By the men of Tsou and Lu the author evidently meant Confucius and his immediate descendants and followers who were natives of the two countries.
6. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 惠竇 should be 渭濱 throughout this criticism.
7. Namely, Kung-sum Ts`ao, Tzŭ-chih being his pen-name.
8. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 君 should be supplied below 讐
9. Work XXXI has 朝 in place of 宰 (v. supra, p. 19).
10. Work XXXI has 周 in place of 州 (v. supra, p. 4).
11. Cf. Confucian Analects, Bk. XIII, Ch. XVI, 2, Legge's trans.
12. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 紹 should be 詔.
13. With Ku 不 should be 下.
14. Namely, Yao, Shun, Yü, T`ang, Wên, and Wu.
15. v. Lao Tzŭ's Tao-Teh-Ching, Ch. LXIII, 3, trans. by Carus.
16. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 得 should be 德.
17. With Ku 罰 below 誅 should be 賞.
18. v. Lao Tzŭ's Tao-Teh-Ching, Ch. XVII, 1, trans. by Carus. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 智 reads 知.
19. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 巨 above 相進 should be 功.
20. With Ku 選 should be supplied above 賢.
21. With Ku 自 above 徇 should be 相.
22. With Wang Hsien-shên 能 should be supplied below 不.
23. With Wang Hsien-shên 然故 means, 然則.
24. With Sun I-jang 精沐 seemingly should be 精悉.
25. v. supra, p. 265.
26. Cf. Tao-Teh-Ching, Ch. LXV, 2, trans. by Carus.
27. 常 should be 嘗 and so throughout this criticism.
28. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê The Book of Warring States has 今以無能之如耳魏齊，帥弱韓魏，以攻秦，其無奈寡人何，亦明矣 below the preceding sentence. I deem it necessary to supply this sentence below the preceding one.
30. The then capital of Wey.
31. The then capital of Han.
32. With Wang Hsien-shen 其 above 晉陽 is superfluous.
33. 旗 reads 期.
34. Kuan Tzŭ's "Cultivating Powers" has 徵 in place of 證.
35. Kuan Tzŭ, "On the Shepherd of the People."
|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
|Published by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia|