|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
夫韓子知以鹿馬, 喻，不知以冠履譬。使韓子不冠，徒履而朝，吾將聽其言也。加冠於首而立於朝，受無益之服，增無益之仕， 言與服相違，行與術相反，吾是以非其言而不用其法也。
然足蹈路而行，所蹈之路，須不蹈者。身須手足而動，待不動者。故事或無益，而益者須之；無效，而效者 待之。儒生，耕戰所須待也，棄而不存，如何也？ 韓子非儒，謂之無益有損，蓋謂俗儒無行操，舉措不重禮，以儒名而俗行，以實學而偽說，貪官尊榮，故不足貴。夫志潔行顯，不徇爵 祿，去卿相之位若脫躧者，居位治職，功雖不立，此禮義為業者也。國之所以存者，禮義也。民無禮義，傾國危主。
聞伯夷風者，貪夫廉，懦夫有立志；聞柳下 惠風者，薄夫敦，鄙夫寬。此上化也，非人所見。段幹木闔門不出，魏文敬之，表式其閭，秦軍聞之， 卒不攻魏。使魏無干木，秦兵入境，境土危亡。秦，強國也，兵無不勝，兵加於魏，魏國必破，三軍兵頓，流血千里。今魏文式闔門之士，卻強秦之 兵，全魏國之境，濟三軍之眾，功莫大焉，賞莫先焉。
使韓子善幹木闔門高節，魏文式之，是也；狂譎、華士之操，幹木之節也，善太公誅之，非也。使韓子非幹木之行，下魏文 之式，則幹木以此行而有益，魏文用式之道為有功；是韓子不賞功尊有益也。 論者或曰：“魏文式段幹木之閭，秦兵為之不至，非法度之功；一功特然，不可常行，雖全國有益，非所貴也。”夫法度之功者，謂何等也？養三軍之士 ，明賞罰之命，嚴刑峻法，富國強兵，此法度也。案秦之強，肯為此乎？六國之亡，皆滅於秦兵。六國之兵非不銳，士眾之力非不 勁也，然而不勝，至於破亡者，強弱不敵，眾寡不同，雖明法度，其何益哉？
太公誅二子，使齊有二子之類，必不為二子見誅之故，不清其身；使無二子之類，雖養之，終無其化。堯不誅許由，唐民不皆樔 處；武王不誅伯夷，周民不皆隱餓；魏文侯式段幹木之閭，魏國不皆闔門。由此言之，太公不誅二子，齊國亦不皆不仕。何則？清廉之行，人所 不能為也。夫人所不能為，養使為之，不能使勸；人所能為，誅以禁之，不能使止。然則太公誅二子，無益於化，空殺無辜之民。
太公 遺此法而去，故齊有陳氏劫殺之患。太公之術，致劫殺之法也；韓子善之，是韓子之術亦危亡也。 周公聞太公誅二子，非而不是，然而身執贄以下白屋之士。白屋之士，二子之類也，周公禮之，太公誅之，二子之操，孰為是者？
宋人有禦 馬者不進，拔劍剄而棄之於溝中；又駕一馬，馬又不進，又剄而棄之於溝。若是者三。以此威馬，至矣，然非王良之法也。王良登車，馬無罷駑。 堯、舜治世，民無狂悖。王良馴馬之心，堯、舜順民之意。
Chapter XXXV. Strictures on Han Fei Tse (Fei Han).
Han Fei Tse's1 system consists in propounding the law and making much of success. Worthies who do not benefit the State, he will not reward, and bad characters who do not interfere with the administration, he does not punish. He grants rewards as an incentive to extraordinary actions, and he relies so much on criminal law, that he makes use of capital punishment. When speaking of the Literati, he says that they eat, but do not sow, and likens them to voracious grubs. 2 Discussing the question of usefulness, he compares them with a deer and a horse. A horse resembling a deer fetches a thousand chin.3 There are horses on earth worth so much, but no deer costing a thousand chin. Deer are useless, horses are useful. The Literati are like the deer, the active officials like the horse. 4
Han Fei Tse knows very well how to make use of the parable of the deer and the horse, but not that of the cap and the shoe. Provided that Han Fei Tse presented himself at court only in his shoes and without a cap, I would listen to his words. But he will appear at court with his cap on his head. He uses a useless article of dress, and thereby increases the number of the useless scholars. His words do not agree with his dress, and there is a want of harmony between his theory and his practice. Therefore I condemn his words, and reject his method.
There is nothing more trying to the body of an individual and less profitable to it than kneeling and prostrating one's self. If Han Fei Tse, when meeting any one, does not make obeisance, and in the presence of his sovereign or his father does not show his respect, he does not do any harm to his body, but these ceremonies must be gone through out of respect for one's parents. These rules of propriety are very important and cannot be neglected. While they are being observed by any one, his body does not become fat thereby, and when he disregards them, his body does not become weak nor decay.
If he speaks of utility, then propriety and righteousness are not like eating and drinking. Would Han Fei Tse, in case he was granted the previlege of eating in the presence of his sovereign or his father, dare to do so without first bowing? Such a homage shown to a superior would be a manifestation of propriety and righteousness, but no benefit to the body. Yet after all Han Fei Tse would not do away with it, nor would he reject propriety and righteousness in view of a temporary profit. The Literati are propriety and righteousness, the agriculturists and warriors are eating and drinking. He who exalts agriculture and war, and despises the men of letters, would reject propriety and righteousness, and seek eating and drinking.
When propriety and righteousness are neglected, the moral laws lose their force, there is confusion in the higher and the lower spheres, and the Yin and the Yang principles become disorganised. The dry and the wet seasons do not come in proper time then, the grain does not grow, and the people die of starvation. The agriculturists have nothing to till, and the soldiers can do no fighting.
5 [Tse Kung desired to abolish the sacrificial sheep announcing the new moon. Confucius said, "T se, you care for the sheep, I care for propriety."] Tse Kung disliked to immolate the sheep, whereas Confucius apprehended a disregard of propriety.
If old dykes are removed as useless, an inundation will be the necessary consequence, and if the old ceremonies are abolished as good for nothing, one may be sure of a revolution. The Literati in this world are the old dykes of propriety and righteousness. When they are there, they are of no direct use, but their absence is fatal.
From olden times schools have been erected, where the foundation is laid for power and honour. Officials have been appointed, and officers nominated. The officials cannot be suppressed, and the true doctrine cannot be rejected. The Literati are the officers in charge of the true principles. If they are considered to be useless and therefore suppressed, the true principles are lost simultaneously. These principles bring about no direct results, but man requires them for his achievements.
When the foot walks on a path, this trodden path must not walk itself. The body has hands and feet; to move they require what remains unmoved. Thus things are perhaps useless, but the useful ones require them, they themselves have no direct effect, yet to those which have they are indispensable. Peasants and soldiers stand in need of the Literati, how could they be rejected and not be retained? Han Fei Tse denounces the scholars, saying that they are no use, and only do harm. He has in view the vulgar scholars, who do not exert themselves, nor in their dealings take account of propriety. They are scholars by name only, but by practice vulgar persons. They profess true science, but what they say is wrong, and they are hunting after official honours and titles. Consequently they cannot be held in esteem. Those who have a pure heart and whose conduct does not shun the light, do not strive for rank and emoluments. They would repudiate the position of a minister or a secretary of State, as if they were throwing away an old boot. Although they have not the same success as those who hold office and fill a post, their domain is propriety and righteousness. That which preserves a State, is propriety and righteousness. If the people do not practice these two virtues, they will overthrow the State and ruin their prince.
Now, the scholars do pay regard to propriety, and love justice. In so far as they become the leaders of those fellows who are devoid of propriety, and incite those lacking justice, people do good, and learn to love their sovereign. That is also an advantage.
Upon hearing of the fame of Po Yi6 the greedy became disinterested, and the weak, resolute, and hearing of the renown of Liu Hsia Hui7 the narrow-minded became generous, and the mean, liberal. The conversion was more extraordinary than had ever been witnessed by man before. Tuan Kan Mu closed his door and did not go out. Prince Wên of Wei used to bow, when passing his house, to show his respect. When the army of Ch`in heard of it, they suddenly did not invest Wei.8 Had Wei not had Tuan Kan Mu, the soldiers of Ch`in would have invaded its territory and made a waste of it, for Ch`in was a powerful country, whose soldiers were ever victorious. Had they been let loose upon Wei, the kingdom of Wei would have gone to pieces. Its three armies would have been defeated, and the blood would have run over a thousand Li. Now a scholar closeted in his house and honoured by Wên of Wei, averted the troops of powerful Ch`in and saved the land of the Wei kingdom. His deserts in succouring the three armies could not have been greater, and nobody was worthier of a reward.
In Ch`i there were living two scholars of the highest standard, called K`uang Chüeh and Hua Shih, two brothers. In their stern justice they did not bend their will, and refused to serve him whom they did not regard as their master. When T`ai Kung9 was invested with Ch`i, he had the two men executed at the same time for inveigling the masses in Ch`i, setting them the example of not taking service with their ruler. Han Fei Tse approves of this on the ground that the two scholars were of no use and doing mischief. 10 However, K`uang Chüeh and Hua Shih were of the same type as Tuan Kan Mu. When T`ai Kung put them to death, no disaster had yet happened which they might have averted. The marquis Wên of Wei honoured Tuan Kan Mu, and subsequently he warded off powerful Ch`in and rescued Wei, a deed unparalleled forsooth. If Han Fei Tse acknowledges the high standard of Tuan Kan Mu, who shut himself up, and also admits that Wên of Wei was justified in honouring him, he is all right. But the conduct of K`uang Chüeh and Hua Shih was as virtuous as that of Tuan Kan Mu. Therefore it is wrong to approve of the penalty inflicted by T`ai Kung Now, if Han Fei Tse disapproves of the conduct of Tuan Kan Mu, and objects to the marquis of Wei honouring him, it must be born in mind that Tuan Kan Mu by his conduct was very useful, and that the marquis of Wei honoured him on account of his merit. Thus Han Fei Tse would not reward merit, nor give credit to the useful.
Some one might urge that the respect shown by the marquis to the dwelling place of Tuan Kan Mu and the subsequent nonarrival of the troops of Ch`in is not the result of administration, but of a single act, which cannot be always repeated and which, though instrumental in saving the State, does not deserve so much praise. But what is to be understood by administration? The maintenance of troops, the promulgation of the edicts concerning rewards and punishments, a stern criminal law, a strict discipline, and measures to increase the national wealth and the military strength, all that is administration. Would Ch`in with her strength mind it? The Six 11 States were all wiped out by the troops of Ch`in. The soldiers of the Six States were courageous enough, and the onslaught of their armies not without vigour, yet not only did they not vanquish, but were utterly defeated at last, because they were not of equal force and inferior in numbers. Their administration might have been ever so evident, it was of no avail.
If boys annoyed Mêng Pên12 and, when he was roused to anger, would fight with him, sword in hand, they would certainly court defeat, being no match for him. Had the boys upon Mêng Pên becoming angry, soothed him by great politeness and reverence, he would not have been capable of doing harm to them. Ch`in's position towards Wei is analogous to that of Mêng Pên and the boys. The administration of Wei would certainly not have frightened Ch`in, just as Mêng Pên would not run away from the boys when wielding their swords. The honour and the respect shown to scholars and to the homes of worthies would be more than the politeness and reverence of the boys.
The weak will have recourse to virtue, whereas those who have a strong army, will use their power. Because Ch`in had such a strong army, nothing could withstand her power. If they held back their troops, and recalled their men, and did not infest Wei, it was out of respect for Tuan Kan Mu and as a mark of esteem for the marquis of Wei. The honouring of worthies is an administrative measure of weak States and a means to increase the might of the powerless. How can it be said that this is not the result of administration?
Han Kao Tsu had the intention to depose the heir-apparent. The empress Lü Hou in her distress summoned Chang Tse Fang13 to ask his advice. Chang Tse Fang suggested that the crown-prince should reverently meet the Four Grey Beards, 14 and present them with rich gifts. When Kao Tsu saw this, he changed his mind, and the prince was saved. Had Han Fei Tse advised Lü Hou, that the best offensive were strong remonstrances, and the best defensive, energy, and that in this manner the prince would be safe, he would, on the contrary, have brought about his own death, not to speak of his deposition. The deep reverence of the crown-prince towards the four old men changed Han Kao Tsu's design. Just so the respect shown by the Marquis Wên of Wei to Tuan Kan Mu's home warded off the troops of powerful Ch'in.
The government of a State requires the cultivation of two things, of virtue and of strength. Virtue is cultivated by maintaining famous men, whereby one shows one's ability to honour worthies. Strength is developed by keeping strong men, which shows that one knows how to use soldiers. Then we may say that all the civil and military measures are in operation, and that virtue and strength are sufficient. In the international intercourse, a State may win the other side by virtue, or repel it by force. If, in its foreign relations, it makes virtue its basis, and at the same time keeps a strong force, those who esteem virtue, will be on good terms with it without fighting, whereas those who do not care for virtue, will keep aloof for fear of military complications.
King Yen of Hsü15 practised benevolence and justice, and thirty-two States sent envoys to his court overland. When powerful Ch`u heard of this, it despatched its troops, and destroyed him. King Yen of Hsü possessed virtue, but had no strength in readiness. One cannot solely rely on virtue to govern a State, nor straightway resort to force to ward off an enemy. In Han Fei Tse's system there is no room for the cultivation of virtue, whereas King Yen of Hsü did not rely on strength. Both their views were one-sided and contradictory. King Yen came to grief, because he was powerless, and we may be sure that Han Fei Tse would have to suffer for want of virtue.
Human nature is pure or impure, selfish or disinterested, and people act accordingly. In the same manner plants and trees consist of different substances, which cannot change again. K`uang Chüeh and Hua Shih did not take office in Ch`i, as Tuan Kan Mu did not become an official in Wei. Their nature was pure and unselfish, they did not long for wealth or honour, criticised their times, and disliked this world. Their sense of justice prevented them from taking office inconsiderately. Even if they had not been executed, they would not have had followers. T`ai Kung put them to death, and Han Fei Tse thinks him quite right. But that would be denying that men have their special natures, and plants and trees their special substances.
T`ai Kung beheaded the two scholars. Provided that there were people like them in Ch`i, they would certainly not have desisted from purifying their hearts, because the two were put to death, and if there were none, no training would have made them such. Yao did not execute Hsü Yu,16 yet the people of T`ang17 did not all live in nests. Wu Wang did not kill Po Yi, yet the people of Chou did not starve in solitude, and, when Marquis Wên of Wei had honoured Tuan Kan Mu's dwelling-place, the people of Wei did not all close their doors. Consequently, even if T`ai Kung had not executed the two men, the people of Ch`i would not all have disdained the official career, for people cannot assume integrity and disinterestedness at will. What people are unable to do, they cannot be induced to do, and all training and exhorting is in vain. Conversely what they can do, they cannot be hindered from doing, even executions are no preventive. Therefore the execution of the two scholars by T`ai Kung was not calculated to bring about improvement, it was a useless murder of innocent persons.
Han Fei Tse would not approve of rewards without merit or of death without guilt. T`ai Kung killed innocent men, yet Han Fei Tse assents to it, ergo his theory admits the assassination of the innocent. Those who persist in not taking office, have not necessarily some real guilt, yet T`ai Kung put them to death. If people, who had become officials, had no merit, would T`ai Kung be willing to reward them? Rewards must be given to merit, and punishment meted out to the guilty. If T`ai Kung did not reward officials without merit, then his execution of innocent men, who did not want to become officials, was unjust. Han Fei Tse's approval is a mistake.
Moreover, people who do not become officials generally have an unselfish character and few desires, whereas those who would like to take office, are greedy of profit. As long as desires and the thought of gain are not ingrafted in one's heart, one looks upon rank and salary as dung and dirt. The disinterested are extremely thrifty, the extravagance of the ambitious knows no bounds, and therefore their desires do not even recoil from their sovereign. Among the rebelling officials of ancient times those with pure and unselfish motives have been very few. The ambitious will make themselves conspicuous, and the haughty will risk their lives. For all the laurels won they aspire to a great reward, and in their immoderation covet princely dignity.
T`ai Kung left his system behind, and subsequently Ch`i was the scene of the violent murder perpetrated by the Ch`ên family. 18T`ai Kung's system led to robbery and murder. Han Fei Tse praises it, which shows that his own theory is also very dangerous. When Chou Kung heard of the execution of the two men by T`ai Kung, he expressed his disapproval, and did not think him right. 19 Personally he took gifts and condescended to present them to scholars living in poor huts. 20 These scholars living in poor huts were like the two men. Chou Kung honoured them, and T`ai Kung put them to death. Whose action was the right one?
In Sung there was a charioteer. A horse refused to go on. He thereupon drew his sword, cut its throat, and threw it into a ditch. He then tried another horse, which also would not go. Again he cut its throat, and threw it into a ditch. This he repeated thrice. It was a very strong measure to break the obstinacy of horses, but it was not the way of Wang Liang. When he stepped into a carriage, there was no horse stubborn or restive. During the reign of Yao and Shun, the people were not rebellious. Wang Liang knew how to touch the hearts of the horses, just as Yao and Shun influenced the popular feelings.
Men have the same nature, but there are different kinds of horses. Wang Liang could manage these different kinds, whereas T`ai Kung could not get along with scholars, who were all of the same nature. Chou Kung's kindness towards the poor scholars corresponds to Wang Liang's horse-breaking. T`ai Kung's execution of the two scholars is like the throat-cutting of the man of Sung.
If Han Fei Tse were called upon to decide between the methods of Wang Liang and the man of Sung, he would certainly be in favour of Wang Liang and against the man of Sung. Wang Liang preserved the horses, the man of Sung destroyed them. The destruction of horses is not as good as their preservation. Thus it is better that people should live than that they should die. Should Han Fei Tse be against Wang Liang, he would be on a level with the man of Sung by destroying good people. If he be against the man of Sung, it must be borne in mind that the latter's method is the same as that of T`ai Kung. By condemning the man of Sung and upholding T`ai Kung, Han Fei Tse would show that he cannot discriminate between right and wrong.
The government of a State is like governing an individual. If in governing an individual grace and virtue are seldom resorted to, but much bodily injury is inflicted, friends and partisans will make themselves scarce, lest disgrace should befall them. If the principles of governing an individual are extended to the government of a State, this government must be based on virtue. Han Fei Tse solely relies on criminal law to govern the world. That would mean that he who governs an individual, must trust to the infliction of injuries. Does Han Fei Tse not know that to place reliance on virtue is the best way?
He holds that the world is depraved, that things have changed for the worse, and that the general feelings are base and mean. Therefore in working out a system his only thought is penal law. However, the world is not deficient in virtue, as a year is not deprived of its spring. Would he who contends that owing to its depravity the world cannot be governed by virtue, assert also that a year full of troubles does not generate in spring?
A wise ruler governs a country as Heaven and Earth create all things. In a year of troubles they do not omit spring, and a wise ruler does not discard virtue, because the world is degenerated. Confucius said, 21 "Those people were the cause of the steady progress of the three dynasties!" 22
The time of King Mu of Chou23 can be called one of decay. He attempted to govern with criminal law, but the result was confusion, and no glory was won. The Marquis of Fu remonstrated with him, and the king became attached to virtue, and enjoyed his kingdom for a long time. His deeds were handed down to posterity. King Mu's administration first led to disorder, but at last to order, not because his mind was beclouded first, and his talents came forth later on, but because he at first relied on Ch`ih Yu's24 criminal law, and only subsequently followed the advice of the Marquis of Fu. In governing individuals, one cannot do without mercy, in governing a State one cannot neglect virtue, and in creating things spring cannot be left out. Why does Han Fei Tse wish to rely on law and capital punishment alone?
25 [Duke Mu of Lu26 asked Tse Sse27 saying, "I have heard that P`ang Hsien is no filial son. How is his unfilial conduct?"
Tse Sse replied, "A prince honours the virtuous to exalt virtue, and raises the good to admonish the people. As regards faults, only common people know about that, not I."
When Tse Sse had left, Tse Fu Li Po saw the prince, who questioned him about P`ang Hsien's filial conduct also. Tse Fu Li Po rejoined, "Your Highness has not yet heard about all his misdeeds."
Afterwards the prince held Tse Sse in esteem and despised Tse Fu Li Po.] When Han Fei Tse heard of it, he censured duke Mu on the ground that a wise ruler ought to search for scoundrels and punish them. Tse Sse would not speak about rascality, which Tse Fu Li Po did. Therefore, in Han Fei Tse's belief, the latter deserved honour, and the former contempt. Since Duke Mu esteemed Tse Sse and despised Tse Fu Li Po, he did not divide honour and contempt in the right way, hence Han Fei Tse's adverse criticism.
Han Fei Tse lays the greatest stress upon administration. If a man does good, the administration rewards him, if he does evil, it punishes him. Even if good and evil do not transpire, they fall under strict rules. Yet merely hearing of a bad deed, one cannot punish at once, as hearing of a good one, one cannot rashly reward it. It is therefore not in keeping with the theory of Han Fei Tse to blame a man for not having denounced wickedness. Suppose Han Fei Tse heard of a good action, he would certainly make investigations first and, in case some merit were brought to light thus, he would grant a reward. Upon the mere news of some good deed, one does not reward indiscriminately, for not every remark is reliable. Therefore it makes no difference, whether we hear of good actions or not. Hearing of goodness, one does not rashly reward, and upon hearing of wickedness, one does not punish forthwith. Hearing of goodness, one must first investigate, and hearing of badness, one must make inquiries. Provided some merit is discovered, then a reward may be given, and, if there is evidence, a penalty may be determined. Rewards and punishments are not given upon mere hearsay or vague appearances, before the truth is found out, and as long as they are not given, goodness and badness are not determined. Therefore there must be a method to establish them, and it is not right to require that one must have heard the thing with one's own ears.
28 [Tse Ch`an of Chêng29 went out one morning, and passed the house of Tung Chiang, where he heard the cries of his wife. He grasped the hand of his attendant, and listened. After a while, he directed his officers to arrest the woman, and sue her for having murdered her husband with her own hand.
The next day his attendant asked him, "Sir, how did you know all this?"
Tse Ch`an replied, "Her voice was not moved. When people learn that those they love dearly are sick, they become depressed, when death approaches, they get alarmed, and, after death, give vent to their grief. This woman bewailed her dead husband, but in lieu of being grieved she was frightened. Thence I knew that she had committed a crime."]
Han Fei Tse expressed his disapproval and said 30 [, "Was not Tse Ch`an a busy body?"
If a crime could only be known, when we perceive it with our own eyes or ears, very few cases would be disclosed in Chêng. And would it not be a lack of method, if the city police could not be trusted to possess the necessary insight for examining the conduct of the smaller congregations of the community, and if one had to use all own's intelligence and mental power to discover such cases?"]
Han Fei Tse is justified in blaming Tse Ch`an, but he is wrong in his adverse comments on Duke Mu. The lack of grief of the woman is like the unfilial conduct of P`ang Hsien. Han Fei Tse objects to Tse Ch`an relying merely on his eyes and ears to get information about crimes, but, on the other hand, wishes that Duke Mu should have made inquiries to determine the guilt of P`ang Hsien. Tse Ch`an had no recourse to the city police, and determined the truth from what he heard. Duke Mu did not place confidence in the police either, and attained the same result by his inquiries. Hearsay and inquiries are about the same thing. Neither trusted the police, or made investigations among the citizens. From Tse Fu Li Po's answer it is impossible to learn the truth, just as from the crying of the woman one cannot arrive at a cogent conclusion. If under such circumstances one orders the officers to arrest and try a person, one cannot find out the truth thereby. But how is it possible not to order the officers to make investigations and to charge a person with a crime without any inquiries merely upon the word of Tse Fu Li Po?
Han Fei Tse says 31 [, Tse Sse did not mention faults, and Duke Mu honoured him. Tse Fu Li Po spoke of crimes, and Duke Mu despised him. Human nature is such, that all people like honour and are displeased with contempt.
When the Chi family 32 made trouble, it was not brought to the knowledge of the sovereign, and consequently the princes of Lu were robbed of their power.] Were they robbed, because they did not make a wise use of the laws and administration or, because they did not hear of the wicked designs in time? If the administration is wisely organised, wickedness has no field where it might grow, although it be not heard of, whereas in case the administration is not wise, the searching after criminals is like digging a well, and then trying to stop it with one hand.
If a chariot-driver without a bridle sees a horse, it will run away, and he has no coercive means. Should, however, Wang Liang33 have come near with reins in his hand, no horse would have had the desire to bolt. He knew the method of driving horses. Now, nothing is said about the princes of Lu having no method, but it is mentioned that they did not hear of the treasonable designs, nothing is said about their looking after the government, but it is emphasized that they did not understand the feelings of the people. Han Fei Tse's attack on Duke Mu does not tally with the tendency of his theory.
Tse Sse did not speak of P`ang Hsien's unfilial conduct, therefore Duke Mu honoured him. Han Fei Tse blames him, saying that "a wise ruler looks out for the good to reward and for rascals to punish them." 34 ---Unfilial persons have a very limited intellect. For want of insight, they know no propriety, and follow their desires and propensities just like beasts and birds. One may call them bad, but to call them rascals is not correct. Rascals are good in outward appearance, but bad inwardly, or "they show a stern exterior, and are inwardly weak," 35 and in their doings imitate the good to get on in their career. They smile to their superiors--- how could they be unfilial?---but they do wicked things, which make them worthy of capital punishment. P`ang Hsien can be said to have been unfilial, but not a rascal. If Han Fei Tse calls him so, he ignores the true meaning of this word.
Han Fei Tse says: 36 ---["If silk fabrics are so common, that ordinary people do not desire them, and if gold can be cast into a hundred coins without robber Chê snatching it away, then we can speak of a manifestation of law."] People do not dare to infringe it. If the law is manifest in a State, robbers are afraid to break it, and do not venture to bring about unforeseen calamities. They hide their vicious thoughts in their hearts, and dare not transgress the penal law, being in awe of it. If the law is known and dreaded, there is no need for investigating rascality, or inquiring after wickedness among the citizens. If the law is imposing, people are not vicious, if it is not, they commit many a felony. Now Han Fei Tse does not speak of the severe penalties and the awe-inspiring law of a wise sovereign, but that he is on the look-out for miscreants to punish them. If he says that he looks out for miscreants, the law is not awe-inspiring, so that people offend against it. In the world much more attention is paid to the persecution of criminals than to upholding the respect of the law. Therefore Han Fei Tse's remarks do not agree with the law.
When the water of a creek is let out, those who know that it can drown a man, do not attempt to stop the current, but they keep boats and oars in readiness. They know the nature of the water, that its rush cannot be checked, and that it would certainly drown a man. When a subject or a son is bent upon committing a misdeed against his sovereign or his father, they are like the water which drowns a man. Now, Han Fei Tse does not inform us, which precautions might be taken against the crime, but takes exception that it is not known or heard of. This would be nothing else than not to prepare the necessary implements for the water, and merely to wish to learn, as soon as possible, that the water is drowning somebody. Being drowned by water one cannot hold the water accountable, but is oneself guilty of having neglected the necessary precautions.
When a sovereign is robbed by a subject, he himself has neglected the law. Preparing against drowning, one does not dam in the fountain-head, and in guarding oneself against an attack, one does not look out for the misdemeanours of the subjects. Han Fei Tse stands in need of self-instruction on these points.
The nature of water is stronger than fire, but pour the water into a kettle, it will boil, but not gain the upper hand. A sovereign is like fire, a subject like water, administration is the kettle. Fire does not seck the misdeeds of water. Thus a prince ought not to search for the faults of his subjects.
1. On the Taoist philosopher Han Fei Tse see p. 170.
2. In Chapt. 19, No. 49, p. 1 of Han Fei Tse's work. The chapter is entitled the: "Five kinds of voracious grubs."
3. An ancient coin or a monetary unit whose value is doubtful.
4. Cf. Han Fei Tse XIII, 5v.
5. Analects III, 17.
6. Cf. p. 168 Note 2.
7. The posthumous designation of Chan Huo, 6th and 7th cent. b.c., who was magistrate of the Liu-hsia district in Lu and famous for his virtue.
8. Ch`in desisted from its invasion of Wei in 399 b.c., because the Wei State was so flourishing under the Marquis Wên, who honoured the worthies and literati. Vid. Shi-chi chap. 44, p. 3v.
9. Cf. p. 172. T`ai Kung was the first duke of Ch`i.
10. Han Fei Tse XIII, 5 speaks only of K`uang Chüeh being put to death by T`ai Kung, not of Hua Shih.
11. See p. 278 Note 1.
12. Cf. p. 380 Note 4.
13. The same as Chang Liang, the helpmate of Han Kao Tsu. Cf. p. 235.
14. Four recluses, who during the troubles attending the overthrow of the Ch`in dynasty had taken refuge into the mountains near Hsi-an-fu.
15. From Han Fei Tse chap. 19, p. 2v. we learn that Yen was the sovereign of a small State covering 500 square li in Han-tung (Hupei). King Wên of Ch`u, 688-675 b.c., fearing the growing power of the virtuous Yen---Han Fei Tse speaks of 36 States which were allied to him---destroyed the Hsü State. Huai Nan Tse XIII, 14v. also refers to Yen and mentions that 32 States were his allies.
16. A legendary hermit of the time of the emperor Yao, reported to have lived in a nest in a tree.
17. Yao's principality.
18. In 481 b.c.Ch`ên Hêng alias T`ien Ch`êng Tse murdered the sovereign of Ch`i, a descendant of T`ai Kung. The Ch`ên family had assumed the name T`ien in Ch`i. Cf. Shi-chi chap. 32, p. 24v. and chap. 36, p. 7.
19. Vid. Han Fei Tse XIII, 5.
20. Cf. p. 489.
21. Analects XV, 24.
22. The depravity of the people cannot have been as great as Han Fei Tse presumed, for otherwise the progress made during the three dynasties:---Hsia, Shany, and Chou could not have been accomplished.
23. 1001-946 b.c.
24. A legendary person said to have lived at the time of the Emperor Huang Ti. He rebelled against the latter, and was defeated. Some say that he was a prince, who terrorised the people, others that he was a minister of Huang Ti.
25. Quoted with some slight alterations from Huai Nan Tse chap. 16, p. 1.
26. 408-375 b.c.
27. His full name is K`ung Tse Sse or K`ung Chi, the grandson of Confucius, to whom the Chung-yung, the "Doctrine of the Mean" is ascribed.
28. Han Fei Tse chap. 16, p. 5. The text slightly differs.
29. Tse Ch`an is the style of Kung Sun Ch`iao, a famous minister of the Chêng State, 581-521 b.c., who compiled a penal code.
30. Loc. cit. p. 5v.
31. Han Fei Tse chap. 16, p. 1.
32. During the 6th cent. b.c. the Chi family, a side branch of the ducal house of Lu, engrossed the power in Lu and almost superseded the reigning princes. Confucius openly condemned their usurpation. Cf. p. 395.
33. See above p. 440.
34. Han Fei Tse loc. cit.
35. Analects XVII, 12.
36. Han Fei Tse chap. 19, p. 4.
|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
|Published by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia|