University of Virginia Library

Chapter XXXVI

CRITICISMS OF THE ANCIENTS, SERIES ONE[1]

When 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.