|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
晉文公將與楚人戰，召舅犯問之，曰：「吾將與楚人戰，彼眾我寡，為之柰何？」 舅犯曰：「臣聞之：繁禮君子，不厭忠信；戰陣之閒，不厭詐偽。君其詐之而已矣。」文公辭舅犯， 因召雍季而問之，曰：「我將與楚人戰，彼眾我寡，為之柰何？」雍季對曰：「焚林而田，偷〔取〕多獸， 後（不）必無獸；以詐遇民，偷取一時，後必無復。」文公曰：「善。」辭雍季，以舅犯之謀與楚人戰以敗之。 歸而行爵，先雍季而後舅犯。群臣曰：「城濮之事，舅犯謀也。夫用其言而後其身，可乎？」文公曰： 「此非（君）〔若〕所知也。夫舅犯言，一時之權也；雍季言，萬世之利也。」仲尼聞之，曰： 「文公之霸也，宜哉！既知一時之權，又知萬世之利。」
或曰：雍季之對，不當文公之問。凡對問者，有因問小大緩急而對也。 所問高大，而對以卑狹，則明主弗受也。今文公問「以少遇眾」，而對曰「後必無復」， 此非所以應也。且文公不知一時之權，又不知萬世之利。戰而勝，則國安而身定， 兵強而威立，雖有後復，莫大於此，萬世之利奚患不至？戰而不勝，則國亡兵弱， 身死名息，拔拂今日之死不及，安暇待萬世之利？待萬世之利，在今日之勝；今日之勝， 在詐於敵；詐敵，萬世之利而已。故曰：雍季之對，不當文公之問。且文公又不知舅犯之言。 舅犯所謂「不厭詐偽」者，不謂詐其民，（請）〔謂〕詐其敵也。敵者，所伐之國也； 後雖無復，何傷哉？文公之所以先雍季者，以其功耶？則所以勝楚破軍者，舅犯之謀也； 以其善言耶？則雍季乃道其「後之無復」也，此未有善言也。舅犯則以兼之矣。 舅犯曰「繁禮君子不厭忠信」者，忠，所以愛其下也；信，所以不欺其民也。夫既以愛而不欺矣 ，言孰善於此？然必曰「出於詐偽」者，軍旅之計也。舅犯前有善言，後有戰勝。 故舅犯有二功而後論，雍季無一為而先賞。「文公之霸，不亦宜乎？」仲尼不知善賞也。
歷山之農者侵畔，舜往耕焉，朞年，甽畝正。河濱之漁者爭坻，舜往漁焉， 朞年而讓長。東夷之陶者器苦窳，舜往陶焉，朞年而器牢。仲尼歎曰：「耕、漁與陶，非舜官也， 而舜往為之者，所以救敗也。舜其信仁乎！乃躬藉處苦而民從之。故曰：聖人之德化乎！」
或問儒者曰：「方此時也，堯安在？」其人曰：「堯為天子。」「然則， 仲尼之聖堯柰何？聖人明察在上位，將使天下無姦也。今耕漁不爭，陶器不窳，舜又何德而化？ 舜之救敗也，則是堯有失也。賢舜，則去堯之明察；聖堯，則去舜之德化，不可兩得也。
楚人有鬻楯與矛者，譽之曰：『〔吾〕楯之堅，〔物〕莫能陷也。』又譽其矛曰： 『吾矛之利，於物無不陷也。』或曰：『以子之矛陷子之楯，何如？』其人弗能應也。 夫不可陷之楯與無不陷之矛，不可同世而立。今堯、舜之不可兩譽，矛楯之說也。
且舜救敗，朞年已一過，三年已三過。舜有盡，壽有盡，天下過無（以）已者；〔以〕有盡逐無已，所止者寡矣。 賞罰使天下必行之，令曰：『中程者賞，弗中程者誅。』令朝至暮變，暮至朝變，十日而海內畢矣， 奚待朞年？舜猶不以此說堯令從己，乃躬親，不亦無術乎？
管仲有病，桓公往問之，曰：「仲父病，不幸卒於大命，將奚以告寡人？」 管仲曰：「微君言，臣故將謁之。願君去豎刁，除易牙，遠衛公子開方。易牙為君主〔味〕， 〔君〕惟人肉未嘗，易牙烝其子首而進之。夫人（惟）情莫不愛其子，今弗愛其子，安能愛君？ 君妬而好內，豎刁自宮以治內。人情莫不愛其身，身且不愛，安能愛君？（聞）開方事君十五年， 齊、衛之間不容數日行，棄其母，久宦不歸。其母不愛，安能愛君？臣聞之：矜偽不長，蓋虛不久。 願君去此三子者也。」管仲卒死，桓公弗行。及桓公死，蟲出（尸）〔戶〕不葬。
或曰：管仲所以見告桓公者，非有度者之言也。所以〔去〕豎刁、易牙者， 以不愛其身，適君之欲也。曰「不愛其身，安能愛君？」然則臣有盡死力以為其主者， 管仲將弗用也？曰「不愛其死力，安能愛君？」是〔欲〕君去忠臣也。且以不愛其身，度其不愛其君， 是將以管仲之不能死公子糾度其不死桓公也，是管仲亦在所去之域矣。
明主之道不然，設民所欲以求其功， 故為爵祿以勸之；設民所惡以禁其姦，故為刑罰以威之。慶賞信而刑罰必，故君舉功於臣，而姦不用於上。 雖有豎刁，其柰君何？且臣盡死力以與〔君市〕，君垂爵祿以與臣市。君臣之際，非父子之親也， 計數之所出也。君有道，則臣盡力而姦不生；無道，則臣上塞主明而下成私。管仲非明此度數於桓公也， 使去豎刁，一豎刁又至，非絕姦之道也。
且桓公所以身死蟲流出（尸）〔戶〕不葬者，是臣重也。 臣重之實，擅主也。有擅主之臣，則君令不下究，臣情不上通。一人之力能隔君臣之間，使善敗不聞， 禍福不通，故有不葬之患也。
明主之道：一人不兼官，一官不兼事；卑賤不待尊貴而進（論）， 大臣不因左右而見，百官脩通，群臣輻湊；有賞者君見其功，有罰者君知其罪。見知不悖於前， 賞罰不弊於後，安有不葬之患？管仲非明此言於桓公也，使去三子，故曰：管仲無度矣。
襄子圍於晉陽中，出圍，賞有功者五人，高赫為賞首。張孟談曰： 「晉陽之事，赫無大功，今為賞首，何也？」襄子曰：「晉陽之事，寡人國家危，社稷殆矣。 吾群臣無有不驕侮之意者，惟赫子不失君臣之禮，是以先之。」仲尼聞之曰：「善賞哉，襄子！ 賞一人而天下為人臣者莫敢失禮矣。」
或曰：仲尼不知善賞矣。夫善賞罰者，百官不敢侵職，群臣不敢失禮。 上設其法，而下無姦詐之心。如此，則可謂善賞罰矣。使襄子於晉陽也，令不行，禁不止， 是襄子無國，晉陽無君也，尚誰與守哉？今襄子於晉陽也，知氏灌之，（曰）〔臼〕竈生龜， 而民無反心，是君臣親也。襄子有君臣親之澤，操令行禁止之法，而猶有驕侮之臣，是襄子〔失〕罰也。 為人臣者，乘事而有功則賞。今赫僅不驕侮，而襄子賞之，是失賞也。明主賞不加於無功，罰不加於無罪。 今襄子不誅驕侮之臣，而賞無功之赫，安在襄子之善賞也？故曰「仲尼不知善賞」。
晉平公與群臣飲，飲酣，乃喟然歎曰：「莫樂為人君，惟其言而莫之違。」 師曠侍坐於前，援琴撞之。公披衽而避，琴壞於壁。公曰：「太師誰撞？」師曠曰：「今者有小人言於側者， 故撞之。」公曰：「寡人也。」師曠曰：「啞！是非君人者之言也。」左右請除之。公曰：「釋之，以為寡人戒。」
或曰：平公失君道，師曠失臣禮。夫非其行而誅其身，君之於臣也；非其行， 則陳其言，善諫不聽，則遠其身者，臣之於君也。今師曠非平公之行，不陳人臣之諫，而行人主之誅， 舉琴而親其體，是逆上下之位，而失人臣之禮也。夫為人臣者，君有過則諫，諫不聽，則輕爵祿以待之， 此人臣之禮（義）也。今師曠非平公之過，舉琴而親其體，雖嚴父不加於子，而師曠行之於君，此大逆之術也。 臣行大逆，平公喜而聽之，是失君道也。故平公之迹不可明也，使人主過於聽而不悟其失；師曠之行亦不可明也， 使姦臣襲極諫而飾弒君之道。不可謂兩明，此為兩過。故曰：平公失君道，師曠亦失臣禮矣。
或曰：桓公不知仁義。夫仁義者，憂天下之害，趨一國之患，不避卑辱， 謂之仁義。故伊尹以中國為亂道，為宰（于）〔干〕湯；百里奚以秦為亂道，〔為〕虜（于）〔干〕穆公。 皆憂天下之害，趨一國之患，不辭卑辱，故謂之仁義。今桓公以萬乘之勢，下匹夫之士，將欲憂齊國， 而小臣不行，見小臣之忘民也。忘民不可謂仁義。仁義者，不失人臣之禮，不敗君臣之位者也。 是故四封之內，執（會）〔禽〕而朝名曰臣，臣吏分職受事名曰萌。今小臣在民萌之眾，而逆君上之欲， 故不可謂仁義。仁義不在焉，桓公又從而禮之。使小臣有智能而遁桓公，是隱也，〔宜刑〕； 若無智能而虛驕矜桓公，是誣也，宜戮。小臣之行，非刑則戮。桓公不能領臣主之理，而禮刑戮之人。 是桓公以輕上侮君之俗教於齊國也，非所以為治也。故曰：桓公不知仁義。
或曰：郄子言，不可不察也，非分謗也。韓子之所斬也，若罪人， 〔則〕不可救，救罪人，法之所以敗也，法敗則國亂。若非罪人，則〔不可〕勸之以徇， 勸之以徇，是重不辜也，重不辜，民所以起怨者也，民怨則國危。郄子之言，非危則亂， 不可不察也。且韓子之所斬若罪人，郄子奚分焉？斬若非罪人，則已斬之矣，而郄子乃至， 是韓子之謗已成，而郄子且後至也。夫郄子曰「以殉」，不足以分斬人之謗，而又生殉之謗。 是子言分謗也？昔者紂為炮烙，崇侯、惡來又曰斬涉者之脛也，奚分於紂之謗？且民之望於上也甚矣， 韓子弗得，且望郄子之得之也；今郄子俱弗得，則民絕望於上矣。故曰：郄子之言非分謗也，益謗也。 且郄子之往救罪也，以韓子為非也，不道其所以為非，而勸之「以殉」，是使韓子不知其過也。 夫下使民望絕於上，又使韓子不知其失，吾未得郄子之所以分謗者也。
桓公解管仲之束縛而相之。管仲曰：「臣有寵矣，然而臣卑。」公曰： 「使子立高、國之上。」管仲曰：「臣貴矣，然而臣貧。」公曰：「使子有三歸之家。」 管仲曰：「臣富矣，然而臣。」於是立以為仲父。霄略曰：「管仲以賤為不可以治（國）〔貴〕， 故請高、國之上；以貧為不可以治富，故請三歸；以為不可以治親，故處仲父。管仲非貪，以便治也。」
或曰：今使臧獲奉君令詔卿相，莫敢不聽，非卿相卑而臧獲尊也，主令所加， 莫敢不從也。今使管仲之治，不緣桓公，是無君也。國無君，不可以為治。若負桓公之威， 下桓公之令，是臧獲之所以信也，奚待高、國、仲父之尊而後行哉？當世之行事、都丞之下徵令者， 不辟尊貴，不就卑賤。故行之而法者，雖巷伯信乎卿相；行之而非法者，雖大吏詘乎民萌。 今管仲不務尊主明法，而事增寵益爵，是非管仲貪欲富貴，必闇而不知術也。故曰：管仲有失行，霄略有過譽。
或曰：昔者齊桓公兩用管仲、鮑叔，成湯兩用伊尹、仲虺。夫兩用臣者國之憂， 則是桓公不霸，成湯不王也。湣王一用淖齒而（手）〔身〕死乎東廟，主父一用李兌，減食而死。 主有術，兩用不為患；無術，兩用則爭（爭）事而外市，一則專制而劫弒。今留無術以規上， 使其主去兩用一，是不有西河、鄢、郢之憂，則必有身死減食之患，是樛留未有善以知言也。
Chapter XXXVI. Criticisms of The Ancients, Series One
1When Duke Wên of Chin was about to fight the Ch`u forces, he summoned Uncle Fan 2 and asked him: "We are about to fight the Ch`us. They are many. We are few. What shall we do?" In reply Uncle Fan said: "Thy servant has heard, in observing the rules of strict etiquette, gentlemen never become weary of loyalty and faithfulness; in engaging enemies at the battlefield, they never disapprove the measures of deception and falsification. May Your Highness deceive them by all means!" After sending out Uncle Fan, Duke Wên summoned Yung Chi and asked him: "We are about to fight the Ch`us. They are many. We are few. What shall we do?" In reply Yung Chi said: "If you burn the forest and go hunting, you will temporarily have much game, but there will be no more animals left afterwards. If you adopt the measure of deception in dealing with people, you may have the advantage for a time, but the same measure can never be repeated afterwards." "Right," said Duke Wên. Then he sent Yung Chi out. However, by applying Uncle Fan's stratagem, he engaged the Ch`us and defeated them. After his victorious return, when he conferred ranks, he ranked Yung Chi first and Uncle Fan next. Thereupon the body of officials said: "The victory at Ch`êng-po was due to Uncle Fan's stratagem. Is it right to take his advice and put him in the second place?" In response Duke Wên said: "This is not what you, gentlemen, understand. To be sure, what Uncle Fan suggested was a temporary expediency; whereas what Yung Chi advised was an everlasting advantage." Hearing about this, Chung-ni said: "How reasonable it must be that Duke Wên became Hegemonic Ruler! He knew both the temporary expediency and the everlasting advantage."
Some critic 3 says: Yung Chi's reply did not suit Duke Wên's question. As a rule, who replies to a question must make out the objective, and give his reply according to whether the object of the question is either big or small, urgent or lenient. If the objective of the question is high and big but the reply is low and narrow, the enlightened sovereign will not accept it. Now Duke Wên asked Yung Chi how to face the many with the few, but Yung Chi replied, "The same measure can never be repeated afterwards." Thereby the reply was not to the point of the question. On the other hand, Duke Wên himself did not understand either a temporary expediency or an everlasting advantage. If he won the war at all, he could safeguard his country and stabilize his position while his army would become strong and his prestige would be enhanced. Therefore, even though there might be another war much greater than this, why should he worry that he would not gain another everlasting advantage? If he lost the war, the country would decline and the army would become weak while he would die broken-hearted and lose his fame. Thus, if he could hardly evade the impending death of the present, how could he have time to wait for an everlasting advantage? The everlasting advantage rested with the present victory. The present victory depended upon deception 4 of the enemies. In short, the deception of enemies implied an everlasting advantage. Hence the saying: "Yung Chi's reply did not suit Duke Wên's question." Furthermore, Duke Wên did not understand Uncle Fan's suggestion. By saying, "Gentlemen never disapprove the measure of deception and falsification," Uncle Fan did not mean that they approved the deception of their own people, but meant that they approved the deception of their enemies. After all, enemies belonged to the country they were attacking. Even though the same could not be repeated, what harm would there be in adopting the measure of deception? Did Duke Wên rank Yung Chi first for Yung Chi's meritorious service? The victory over Ch`u and the defeat of the enemies were due to Uncle Fan's stratagem, however. Did he do that for Yung Chi's virtuous advice? Yung Chi only said, "The same measure could never be repeated," which involved no virtuous word at all. As regards Uncle Fan's saying, it involved both a merit and a virtue. Uncle Fan said: "In observing the rules of strict etiquette, gentlemen never become weary of loyalty and faithfulness." By remaining loyal they love their subordinates; by remaining faithful they do not deceive their people. Thus, he advocated the measure of love and nondeception. What saying could be more virtuous than this? However, he had to suggest the measure of deception and falsification because it was based on strategical consideration. Thus, Uncle Fan uttered a virtuous saying at the beginning and waged a victorious war in the end. Accordingly, he had two merits, but was ranked second. Yung Chi had none but was rewarded first. "How reasonable it must be that Duke Wên became Hegemonic Ruler!" Chung-ni, when making such a remark, did not know the right way to reward people.
Once upon a time, farmers of the Li Mountains trespassed on each other's fields. Thereupon Shun went there and tilled among them. In the course of one year, all the boundary ridges of the fields became correct. Another time fishermen living by the Yellow River disputed about small shoals. Thereupon Shun went there and fished among them. In the course of one year they came to make concessions to elders. The potters in the Eastern Barbaric Land made very poor earthenware. Thereupon Shun went there and made earthenware among them. In the course of one year, the earthenware they made became substantial. With admiration Chung-ni said: "Neither tillage nor fishing nor earthen industry was Shun's official duty. Yet he went to pursue such kinds of work in order thereby to save the fallen. How benevolent a man Shun was! He experienced all hardships himself, till the people followed his example. Hence the saying `Great is, indeed, the moral influence of the sage!'"
Somebody asked the literati, "At that time where was Yao?" "Yao was then the Son of Heaven," they replied. "If so, why did Chung-ni regard Yao as saintly? The saintly man, being clear-sighted and seated on the throne, was supposed to purge All-under-Heaven from wickedness, make 5 the tillers and fishermen stop disputing, and allow no poor earthenware to be made. In that case, how could Shun exercise his moral influence at all? If Shun had to save the fallen, Yao must have had faults. Therefore, if one considers Shun worthy, he disproves the clear-sightedness of Yao; if he considers Yao saintly, he disproves the moral influence of Shun. He can not praise both of them."
Once there was a man of Ch`u selling shields and halberds. In praising his shields he said, "My shields are so solid that nothing can penetrate them." Again, in praising his halberds, he said, "My halberds are so sharp that they can penetrate anything." In response to his words somebody asked, "How about using your halberds to pierce through your shields?" To this the man could not give any reply. Indeed, impenetrable shields and absolutely penetrative halberds cannot stand together at the same time. Now both Yao and Shun cannot be praised at the same time just as the halberds and the shields are mutually incompatible. 6
Moreover, in saving the fallen, Shun stopped one fault in a year and three faults in three years. The length of Shun's 7 life was limited, but the faults in All-under-Heaven were unlimited in number, If he attempted to remove the unlimited number of faults in the limited length of his life, what he could stop in his life would be very little. Contrary to this, reward and punishment make laws enforcible throughout All-under-Heaven. Suppose there is issued an order to the effect that who conforms to the law shall be rewarded and who does not conform to the law shall be punished. Then, if the order arrives in the morning, the people will change by the evening; if it arrives in the evening, they will change by the morning. In the course of ten days everybody within the seas will change. Why should the ruler wait a year then? However, Shun, instead of persuading Yao of this idea to make the people follow his orders, experienced all hardships himself. Was he not tactless?
Furthermore, to experience hardships personally and thereby transform the people afterwards was difficult even for Yao and Shun; whereas to make use of one's august position and thereby correct 8 the people is easy even for an average sovereign. When about to govern All-under-Heaven, if the ruler discards what is easy to the average sovereign and extols what was difficult to Yao and Shun, it is still practicable to assist him in political administration.
When Kuan Chung was ill, Duke Huan called on him and asked, "Uncle Chung is now ill. Should he unfortunately pass away by the decree of fate, what advice will he bequeath to me?" In reply Kuan Chung said: "Without Your Highness's asking, thy servant intended to address a memorial. Will Your Highness dismiss Shu Tiao, remove Yi Ya, and alienate the Wei Prince K`ai-fang. When Yi Ya was the chef of Your Highness, because Your Highness had never tasted human flesh, he purposely steamed his son's head and served it. 9 Indeed, it is human nature that everybody loves his own son. Now that he did not love his son, how could he love his master? Similarly, as Your Highness was jealous and fond of women, Shu Tiao castrated himself in order thereby to manage the harem. It is human nature that everyone loves his body. If he did not love his body, how could he love his master? K`ai-fang has served Your Highness for fifteen years. The distance between Ch`i and Wei takes only a few days' walk. Yet he left his mother at home and has never been home to see her during his long-term service. If he does not love his mother, how can he love his master? Thy servant has heard, `Forced hypocrisy 10 never lasts long; covered falsehood is soon uncovered.' May Your Highness remove these three men!" After the death 11 of Kuan Chung, Duke Huan never carried his advice into practice. In consequence, when Duke Huan died, he was left unburied, till worms crawled outdoors. 12
Some critic says: What Kuan Chung suggested to Duke Huan was not what an upholder of legal standards ought to have said. His reason for suggesting the removal of Shu Tiao and Yi Ya was that in order to meet the demands of their master they stopped loving themselves. "If they did not love themselves," said he, "how could they love their master?" If so, then ministers who exert their strength to death for the sake of their sovereign, Kuan Chung would never take into service, saying, "If they did not love their lives and physical forces, how could they love their master?" This means that he wanted the ruler to remove loyal ministers. Moreover, if you infer their not loving their master from their not loving themselves, you will also infer Kuan Chung's inability to die for the sake of Duke Huan from his inability to die for the sake of Prince Chiu. This means that Kuan Chung himself also fell under the rule of removal.
The way of the enlightened sovereign is not the same, however. He establishes what the people want and thereby gets meritorious services from them, wherefore he bestows ranks and emoluments to encourage them. Similarly, he establishes what the people dislike and thereby prohibits them from committing villainy, wherefore he inflicts censure and punishment to overawe them. As bestowal and reward are sure and censure and punishment are definite, the ruler can raise ministers of merit and no crook can join governmental service. Then, even though there are crooks like Shu Tiao and Yi Ya, what can they do against the ruler? Moreover, ministers exert their strength to death to comply with the ruler's need; the ruler confers ranks and emoluments to comply with the minister's want. Thus, the relationship of ruler and minister is not as intimate as the bond of father and son; It is an outcome of mutual calculations. 13 If the ruler follows the right way, ministers will exert their strength and no crook will appear. If he misses the right way, ministers will delude the sovereign on the one hand and accomplish their selfish designs on the other. Now, Kuan Chung did not explain these rules 14 to Duke Huan. Supposing he successfully made him remove one Shu Tiao, another Shu Tiao would certainly appear. It was not the way to exterminate crooks.
Furthermore, that Duke Huan died and worms crawled outdoors while the corpse lay unburied, was because his ministers were too powerful. The ministers being overpowerful resulted in their manipulation of the sovereign. Were there sovereign-manipulating ministers, then the ruler's decrees could not take effect downward among the inferiors and the true information about the ministers would not travel upward to the superior. Thus, one man's power could block the communication between ruler and minister, and make success and failure unknown to the ruler and good and bad news not transmitted to him. Hence followed the calamity of leaving the corpse unburied.
According to the way of the enlightened sovereign, nobody can hold any additional office; no office involves any extra duty; the low and humble do not have to depend upon the favour of the high and noble for distinction 15 ; chief vassals do not have to count on the courtiers in order to interview the sovereign; all officials can communicate their ideas to the throne; all ministers concentrate upon the interest of the country; the ruler sees the meritorious service rendered by the rewarded and knows the criminal offence committed by the punished; in seeing and knowing he is not mistaken; and in matters of reward and punishment he is not unjust. Were this the case, how could there arise the calamity of leaving his corpse unburied? Instead of explaining this principle to Duke Huan, however, Kuan Chung advised him to remove the three men. Hence the saying: "Kuan Chung upheld no legal standard."
Viscount Hsiang stood a long siege in Chin-yang. After the siege was raised he rewarded five men for their distinguished services, among whom Kao Ho was ranked at the top. Thereupon Chang Mêng-t`an said: "During the siege at Chin-yang, Ho rendered no great meritorious service. Why does Your Highness now confer the first reward upon him?" In reply Viscount Hsiang said: "During the crisis at Chin-yang my country and family were in peril and the Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain was jeopardized. All my officials showed a contemptuous attitude to me, but Ho alone never broke the etiquette between ruler and minister. This is the reason why I rank him at the top." Hearing about this, Chung-ni said: "How well he rewarded people! Because Viscount Hsiang conferred the first reward upon one man, all ministers in All-under-Heaven dared not break etiquette."
Some critic says: Chung-ni did not know the right way of rewarding people. Indeed, if the superior knows the right way of rewarding and punishing people, all officials dare not override their commissions; no minister dares to break etiquette; the superior enacts the law; and the subjects have no crooked mind. Were this the case, he could be considered skilful in rewarding and punishing people. Suppose while Viscount Hsiang was in Chin-yang his orders took no effect and his prohibitions stopped nothing. This would mean that Viscount Hsiang had no country and Chin-yang had no ruler. Then with whom could he defend the city? Now, while Viscount Hsiang was besieged in Chin-yang, though the Chih Clan inundated the city till frogs made their nests inside the mortars and ovens, yet the people had no rebellious mind. Thus were ruler and minister attached to each other. Notwithstanding that Viscount Hsiang enjoyed the intimate relationship between ruler and minister and that he had the legal authority of issuing effective orders and enforcible prohibitions, if there still remained arrogant ministers, it must have been because he missed the right way of punishing people. If ministers render meritorious services in the hour of need, they deserve reward. Now that solely because Ho had never been arrogant, Viscount Hsiang rewarded him, he certainly missed the right way of rewarding people. The enlightened sovereign neither bestows reward upon men of no merit nor inflicts punishment upon innocent people. Now that Viscount Hsiang did not punish arrogant ministers but rewarded Ho for no meritorious service, where could be found his right way of rewarding people? Hence the saying: "Chung-ni did not know the right way of rewarding people."
Once Duke P`ing of Chin held a carousal with the body of officials. When half-seas-over, he heaved a sigh and said, "Nothing is more pleasant to the ruler of men than the obedience of his lords." In response to this, Musician K`uang, seated in the front, raised the harp and threw it at the Duke. Immediately the Duke spread out the lapel in front of his coat and avoided it. The harp made a hole in the wall. Then the Duke said, "Whom did the Grand Tutor intend to strike?" "Just now," replied the Musician K`uang, "some small man by my side played upon words. Therefore, I threw the harp at him." "It was I," said the Duke. "Alas!" exclaimed Musician K`uang. "It was not what the ruler of men should have said." The attendants asked permission to plaster 16 the broken wall. The Duke said, "Leave it there as a constant admonition to me." 17
Some critic says: Duke P`ing missed the way of the ruler: Musician K`uang broke the ministerial etiquette. Indeed, to censure the person when disapproving his action is the ruler's measure against the minister. To address a memorial when disapproving the ruler's action and withdraw from the government if the remonstration is not followed, is the minister's attitude to the ruler. Now that Musician K`uang disapproved Duke P`ing's action but did not address any ministerial remonstration against it, and, instead, performed the censure as the lord of men would do by raising the harp to strike the Duke's body, he reversed high and low positions and broke the ministerial etiquette. Indeed, who is minister, if the ruler has any fault, should remonstrate against it, and, if the remonstration is not followed, should make light of his title and emolument and leave 18 him. This is the ministerial etiquette. 19 Now, Musician K`uang, on disapproving Duke P`ing's fault, raised the harp to strike his body. Even a severe father would not inflict such punishment upon his son, but Musician K`uang inflicted it upon his master. This was an act of high treason. When the minister committed high treason, Duke P`ing was glad to listen to him. Thereby he missed the way of the ruler. Thus the step taken by Duke P`ing was unjustifiable, for it would make the lord of men listen too much to ministers but never realize their faults. Likewise the action taken by Musician K`uang was unjustifiable, for it would make wicked ministers abuse exorbitant remonstration and justify the art of regicide. They cannot both be 20 reasonable. They constitute two faults. Hence the saying: "Duke P`ing missed the way of the ruler; Musician Ku`ang broke the ministerial etiquette."
At the time of Duke Huan of Ch`i there was a private scholar named Hsiao-ch`ên Chi. Duke Huan paid him three visits but could not see him. Then Duke Huan said: "I have heard, `The commoner, unless he makes light of rank and emolument, has no way to keep off the sovereign of ten thousand chariots; the sovereign of ten thousand chariots, unless he is fond of benevolence and righteousness, has no way to condescend to associate with the commoner.' " Accordingly, he went five times and was finally able to see him.
Some critic says: Duke Huan did not know benevolence and righteousness. Indeed, who is benevolent and righteous worries about the evil of All-under-Heaven and rushes at the calamity of the whole country regardless of his personal humility and disgrace, is called benevolent and righteous. For example Yi Yin regarded the Central States as disorderly and therefore became a cook in order thereby to ingratiate 21 himself with King T`ang; and Pai-li Hsi regarded Ch`in as disorderly and therefore became a captive in order thereby to ingratiate 22 himself with Duke Mu. Both worried about the evil of All-under-Heaven and rushed at the calamity of the whole country regardless of their personal humility and disgrace. Hence they have been called benevolent and righteous. Now, Duke Huan from the position of a ruler of ten thousand chariots condescended to associate with a commoner and thereby intended to eradicate the worry of the Ch`i state, but Hsiao-ch`ên refused him an interview. 23 This 24 meant that Hsiao-ch`ên took no notice of the welfare of the people. Who takes no notice of the welfare of the masses, cannot be called benevolent and righteous. A benevolent and righteous person would neither break the ministerial etiquette nor confuse the positions of ruler and minister. For this reason, within the four boundaries those who bring birds 25 to visit the court are called vassals." When vassals and officials differentiate their duties and attend to their respective posts, then they are called "subjects." Now, Hsiao-ch`ên, mingling among the mass of subjects, acted contrary to the wish of the ruler and therefore could not be called benevolent and righteous. While benevolence and righteousness were not found in him, Duke Huan condescended to pay him his respects. Suppose Hsiao-ch`ên had wisdom and talent and purposely avoided Duke Huan. Then his action meant retirement from useful life, wherefore he ought to be punished. If he had neither wisdom nor talent but made all kinds of pretences and behaved arrogantly toward Duke Huan, it meant fraud, for which he should be executed. Thus, Hsiao-ch`ên for his action should have been either penalized or executed. However, Duke Huan, unable to grasp the principle governing the relations between sovereign and subject, paid his repects to a man deserving penalty and execution. Thereby Duke Huan inculcated upon the people in the Ch`i State the habit of slighting the superior and insulting the ruler. It is not the way to political order. Hence the saying: "Duke Huan did not know benevolence and righteousness."
At the battle of Mt. Mi-chi, when Han Hsien-Tzŭ was about to execute a man, Ch`i Hsien-tzŭ went in a carriage to save the man. Upon his arrival the man had already been executed. Ch`i Tzŭ, accordingly, said, "Why is the execution not used as a warning to the masses?" Then his servants said, "Didn't you intend to save the man?" In response Ch`i Tzŭ said, "How dare I not share the fault for executing an innocent man?"
Some critic says: Ch`i Tzŭ's saying must be carefully scrutinized. Were the man executed by Han Tzŭ guilty, then he could not be saved. Saving the criminal would break the law. Should the law be broken, the country would fall into confusion. If the victim was not guilty, then Ch`i Tzŭ should not have advised 26 Han Tzŭ to use the unjust execution as a warning to the masses. To use the unjust execution as a warning would double the injustice. Doubling the injustice would arouse popular resentment. Should the people become resentful, the country would be endangered. Thus the saying of Han Tzŭ would cause the country either danger or confusion. It must be carefully scrutinized. Moreover, were the man executed by Han Tzŭ not guilty, then what blame could Ch`i Tzŭ share? Suppose the victim was not guilty. Then since Ch`i Tzŭ arrived after the execution, it meant that after the fault of Han Tzŭ had been completed, Ch`i Tzŭ arrived on the scene. Indeed, Ch`i Tzŭ said, "Use the execution as a popular warning!" Because he could not share the fault of executing an innocent man, he brought about the fault of using the unjust execution as a popular warning. In this way the saying of Ch`i Tzŭ was not to share the original fault but to bring about a new fault. 27 Of old, when Chow inflicted the punishment of climbing a roasting pillar, Chung Hou and Wu Lai said, "Cut the shins of waders!" How could these two men share the fault of Chow then? Moreover, the hope of the masses for justice from the authorities was very urgent. If they could not get it from Han Tzŭ, they would hope to get it from Ch`i Tzŭ. Now that they could not get it from Ch`i Tzŭ, either, they would give up their hope in the authorities. Hence the saying: "The saying of Ch`i Tzŭ was not to share the original fault but to bring about a new fault." Furthermore, Ch`i Tzŭ went to save the man because he thought Han Tzŭ was not right. Yet instead of telling Han Tzŭ that he was wrong, he advised him to use the unjust execution as a popular warning, whereby he made Han Tzŭ not realize his fault. Verily he made the people give up hope in the authorities and, besides, made Han Tzŭ not realize his fault. Thus, I have not yet found the way Ch`i Tzŭ could share the fault of Han Tzŭ.
After Duke Huan had untied the bonds of Kuan Chung and appointed him premier, Kuan Chung said: "Thy servant has enough favour, but is low in rank." "I will raise you above the Kaos and Kuos," said the Duke. Meanwhile, Kuan Chung said, "Thy servant is noble but poor." "You shall have the wealth of the Building of Three Returns," said the Duke. "Thy servant is now wealthy," said Kuan Chung, "but still very distant in relation to the ruling family." Thereupon the Duke made him Uncle Chung. 28 Commenting on this, Hsiao Lüeh said: "Kung Chung, considering a humble man unable to govern the noble 29 asked the ruler to raise him above the Kaos and Kuos. Considering a poor man unable to govern the wealthy, he asked for the wealth of the Building of Three Returns. Finally, considering a man distant in relation to the ruling family unable to govern the close relatives of the ruler, he asked for the title of Uncle Chung. In so doing, Kuan Chung was not greedy, but wanted to provide his government with facilities."
Some critic says: Now suppose bondmen and bondwomen by the ruler's order summon nobles and ministers. Then nobody dares to disobey them. Not that the nobles and ministers are low in rank and the bondmen and bondwomen are high, but that nobody dares to disobey the sovereign's decree. Now, suppose Kuan Chung's government did not rely on Duke Huan's authority. Then it would have no sovereign. Without a sovereign, no country could by any means be governed. If he acted under Duke Huan's authority and issued decrees in his name, he could be trusted as the bondmen and bondwomen were. Why was it necessary for him to have the rank of the Kaos and the Kuos and the title of Uncle Chung before he enforced his rule over the country? The petty officials and local magistrates of the present age, on enforcing the orders of their superiors, neither except the high and noble nor apply them to the low and humble only. As long as the enforcement is legal, even business eunuchs in the court would be trusted by nobles and ministers. If the enforcement is illegal, even high officials would have to give way to ignorant people. Now that Kuan Chung, instead of striving to elevate the prestige of the sovereign and clarify the law, simply attended to the increase of personal favour and the promotion of his rank, if he was not covetous of wealth and nobility he must have been stupid and ignorant of the right tact. Hence the saying: "Kuan Chung had misbehaved himself; Hsiao Lüeh overestimated him."
King Hsüan of Han asked Chiu Liu, "I want to employ both Kung-chung and Kung-shu simultaneously. Is it practicable?" In reply Chiu Liu said: "Formerly Wey employed both Lou Yüan and Chieh Huang and, as a result, lost the Western River. Likewise, Ch`u employed both the Chaos and the Chings and, as a result, lost the districts of Yen and Ying. Now, if Your Majesty employs both Kung-chung and Kung-shu, both will certainly dispute about affairs and cultivate private friendships with foreign countries. Then the state will, doubtless, have worries."
Some critic says: Of old, Duke Huan of Ch`i employed both Kuan Chung and Pao Shu while King T`ang, the successful, employed both Yi Yin and Chung Hui. If the simultaneous employment of two able men would cause the state worries at all, then Duke Huan could not become Hegemonic Ruler and T`ang, the Successful, could not become King. Contrary to this, King Min entrusted Cho Ch`ih alone with all state affairs and, in consequence, had himself murdered in the Easter Shrine. Likewise, the Father Sovereign entrusted Li Tai with all state affairs and, in consequence, had his food reduced till he starved to death. If the sovereign is tactful at all, the simultaneous employment of two able men will beget no worry. If he is tactless, the simultaneous employment of two able men will create disputes about affairs and private frienships with foreign countries and the employment 30 of only one man will result in autocracy, intimidation, and regicide. Now, Liu had no tact to rectify the policy of the sovereign. Instead, he advised him not to employ two men at the same time but to entrust one alone with the state affairs. As a result if the sovereign had no worry about territorial losses such as the losses of the Western River and the Yen and Ying districts, he would certainly suffer such disasters as regicide and starvation to death. Thus, Liu was 31 not yet skilful in giving advice to his master.
2. Tzŭ-fan was the pen-name of Hu Yen who was a maternal uncle of Duke Wên. Therefore, Hu Yen was frequently called Uncle Fan.
3. By "some critic" Han Fei Tzŭ apparently meant himself.
4. With Wang Hsien-shen 詐於 should be 於詐.
5. With Wang Wei 今 should be 令.
6. v. infra, Work XL, p. 203.
7. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 有盡 below 舞 is superfluous.
8. With Ku 驕 should be 矯.
9. v. Work VII, p. 50, and Work X, p. 89.
10. With Yü Yüeh 矜偽 should be 務偽.
11. With Wang Hsien-shen 卒 above 死 is superfluous.
12. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 尸 should be 戶 and so throughout the criticism.
13. The ruler calculates the strength exerted by the minister; the minister calculates the emolument bestowed by the ruler.
14. With Wang Hsien-ch`ien 數 below 度 is superfluous.
15. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 進 above 論 is superfluous.
16. With Lu Wên-shao 除 should be 凃.
17. Wang Hsien-shen suspected that there were hiatuses below this passage.
18. With Wang Hsien-shen 待 should be 去.
19. With Wang 義 below 禮 is superfluous.
20. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 謂 below 不可 is superfluous.
21. With Ku 于 above 湯 should be 干.
22. With Ku 于 above 穆公 should be 干.
23. With Wang Hsien-shen 行 above 見 should be 得.
24. Wang proposed the supply of 是 above 小臣.
25. 執會. Hirazawa's edition has 禽 in place of 會. The Waseda University Press edition regarded 會 as a mistake for 禽. Alfred Forke mistook 執禽 for 執擒 in Work L. (v. infra, p. 306, f.3).
26. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 則 above 勸 should be 不可.
27. With Yü Yüeh 是子言分謗也 should be 是郤子之言, 非分謗也，益謗也
28. v. supra, Work XXXIII, p. 80.
29. With Wang Wei 國 should be 貴.
30. Ku Kuang-ts`ê proposed the supply of 用 below —.
31. With Wang Hsien-shên 有 below 未 should be 為.
|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
|Published by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia|