University of Virginia Library

Chapter XXXIX

CRITICISMS OF THE ANCIENTS,
SERIES FOUR[1]

Once Sun Wên-tzŭ of Wei visited the court of Lu. When
the Duke was going up a flight of steps, he also went up at
the same time. Thereupon Shu-sun Mu-tzŭ rushed forward
and said, "At every conference of the feudal lords, His
Highness never walks behind the Ruler of Wei. Now, you
are not walking one step behind our Ruler while our Ruler
does not notice the fault. Will you go a little bit more
slowly?" Yet Sun Tzŭ neither had any word to say nor
showed any sign of reform. When Mu-tzŭ withdrew from
the party, he said to people, "Sun Tzŭ will go to ruin. Being
a failing minister, he would not walk behind a ruler. Committing
a fault, he would not reform himself. This is the
basic factor of ruin."

Some critic says: When Sons of Heaven lost the way of
government, feudal lords replaced[2] them. For example,
T`ang and Wu replaced Chieh and Chow. When feudal
lords lost the way of government, high officers replaced them.
For example, high officers in Ch`i and Chin replaced their
rulers. Were the minister replacing the ruler doomed to ruin,
then T`ang and Wu could not become rulers and the new
ruling dynasties in Ch`i and Chin[3] could not be established.
Now, Sun Tzŭ in Wei rivalled his ruler in power but never
became a minister in Lu. If any minister turns ruler, it is

because the original ruler has lost the reins of government.
Therefore, notwithstanding that Sun Tzŭ had gained the
reins of government, Mu-tzŭ warned the minister having the
gain, of ruin instead of warning the ruler suffering the loss, of
ruin. Thus, Mu-tzŭ was not clear-sighted at all. Indeed, Lu
could not punish the envoy from Wei while the Ruler of Wei
was not enlightened enough to know the unreformable
minister. Though Mu-tzŭ had found these two faults, how[4]
could he foretell Sun Tzŭ's ruin? The way he ruined his
status as minister[5] was the way he broke the ministerial
etiquette and thereby acquired the power of the ruler.[6]

Some other critic says: Minister and ruler have their
respective duties. If the minister can rob the ruler of the
throne, it is because they have over-ridden each other's duties.
Therefore, if the ruler takes what is not his due, the masses
will take it away from him. If the minister declines his due
and takes it afterwards, the people will give it back to him.
For this reason, Chieh sought after the girls of Min-shan and
Chow made request for Pi Kan's heart with the immediate
result that All-under-Heaven were thereby estranged from
them. Likewise, T`ang had to change his personal name and
Wu received punishment[7] , wherefore everybody within the
seas obeyed them. Similarly, Viscount Hsüan[8] of Chao fled
to the mountains and Viscount T`ien Ch`êng took refuge
abroad. In consequence, however, the peoples of Ch`i and

Chin followed them. Such being the case, T`ang and Wu
could become kings and the new ruling dynasties of Ch`i and
Chin could be established, not because they usurped the
throne first and then took what was their due, but because
they first took what was their due and later proceeded to the
throne. Now that Sun Wên-tzŭ never took what was his due
but behaved himself like a ruler, he opposed the principle of
justice and violated the doctrine of propriety. To oppose the
principle of justice causes the failure of affairs; to violate the
doctrine of propriety causes the accumulation of the people's
grudge. Why did the critic take no notice of the impending
calamity of failure and destruction?

Yang Hu of Lu schemed to attack the Three Huans, failed
in the campaign, and fled to Ch`i. There Duke Ching paid
him great respects. Against such a measure Pao Wên-tzŭ
remonstrated with him, saying, "It is not practicable.
Yang Hu had been in favour with the Chi Clan but attempted
to attack[9] Chi-sun because he was covetous of their wealth.
Now that Your Highness is wealthier than Chi-sun and Ch`i
is larger than Lu, Yang Hu will exert all his deceitful tricks."
Duke Ching, accordingly, imprisoned Yang Hu.

Some critic says: If the millionaire's son is not benevolent,
it is because everybody is by nature anxious to gain profit.
Duke Huan was the first of the Five Hegemonic Rulers, but
in struggling for the throne, he killed his elder brother because
the profit was great. The relationship between minister and
ruler is not even as intimate as that between brothers. If
through the accomplishment of intimidation and murder one
can rule over the state of ten thousand chariots and enjoy the

great profit, then who among the body of officials will not do
the same as Yang Hu? To be sure, every plan, if delicately
and skilfully carried out, will succeed, and, if crudely and
clumsily carried out, is bound to fail. The ministers do not
cause any disturbance because they are not yet well prepared.
If the ministers all have the mind of Yang Hu which the ruler
does not notice, their plan must be delicate and skilful. Contrasted
with them, Yang Hu was known to be covetous of
the rule over All-under-Heaven and schemed to attack his
superior, wherefore his plan must have been crude and
clumsy. Instead of advising Duke Ching to censure the
astute ministers of Ch`i, Pao Wên-tzŭ advised him to censure
clumsy Hu. Thus, his persuasion was unreasonable. Whether
the ministers are loyal or deceitful, it all depends upon the
ruler's action. If the ruler is enlightened and strict, all the
ministers will be loyal to him. If the ruler is weak and stupid,
then all ministers will be deceitful. To be well informed of
secrets is called "enlightened"; to grant no pardon is called
"strict". Pao Wên-tzŭ did not know the astute ministers of
Ch`i but wanted to censure the plotter of a disturbance in Lu.
Was this not absurd?

1 With Ku Kuang-ts`ê below [OMITTED] should be supplied
[OMITTED].

Some other critic says: Benevolence and covetousness do
not inhere in the same mind. For instance, Prince Mu-i
declined the throne of Sung offered by his brother, whereas
Shang-ch`ên of Ch`u murdered his royal father in order to
get the throne. Ch`ü-chih of Chêng passed the reins of
government over to his younger brother, whereas Duke Huan
of Lu murdered his elder brother, Duke Yin. The Five
Hegemonic Rulers practised the policy of annexing weaker

states with Duke Huan,[10] as example. If so, all of them
observed no code of fidelity and integrity. Moreover, if the
ruler is enlightened, all the officials will be loyal. Now,
Yang Hu plotted a disturbance in Lu, failed, and fled to Ch`i.
If the authorities of Ch`i did not censure him, they would be
doing the same as taking over an unsuccessful trouble-maker
from Lu. If the ruler were enlightened, he would know[11] that
by censuring Yang Hu an impending civil disturbance could
be prevented. This is the right way of disclosing an evil in
the bud. According to an old saying, "Every feudal lord
must consider his friendship with other states as more
important than with any private individual." If the Ruler of
Ch`i was strict at all, he would never overlook the guilt of
Yang Hu. This is the practice of giving no pardon. If so,
to censure Yang Hu would be the way to make the body of
officials loyal. Who took no notice of the astute ministers
of Ch`i but neglected the punishment of a culprit already
guilty of treason in Lu, blamed a person before he as yet
committed any offence but refused to censure a man evidently
convicted of felony, was thoughtless, indeed. Therefore, to
punish the criminal guilty of treason in Lu and thereby both
over-awe the crooked-minded ministers of Ch`i and cultivate
terms of friendship with the Clans of Chi-sun, Mêng-sun,
and Shu-sun, Pao Wên's persuasion was by no means absurd
as alleged by the preceding critic.

When Chêng Pai was about to appoint Kao Chü-mi high
officer, Duke Chao, then the heir apparent, disliked him and

remonstrated firmly with his father. His father, however,
would not listen. After Duke Chao's accession to the throne,
Kao Chü-mi, afraid of being killed by the new ruler,
murdered Duke Chao on the day of the Golden Rabbit[12]
and established his younger brother, Prince Wei,[13] on the
throne. Gentlemen of that time gave comment on the events,
saying, "Duke Chao knew the right man to dislike." Prince
Yü said, "How murderous Kao Pai must be! His revenge
for a dislike was too much."

Some critic says: Prince Yü's remark was absurd. Duke
Chao met the disaster because he was too late in revenging
himself on his enemy. If so, Kao Pai died late because
his revenge for a dislike was too serious. Indeed, the enlightened
ruler does not manifest his indignation. For, if
he manifests his indignation at any minister, then the guilty
minister[14] will rashly scheme to carry out his plot. If so, the
lord of men will fall into danger. For instance, during the
carousal at the Spiritual Tower, the Ruler of Wei was angry
at Ch`u Shih but did not censure him. In consequence,
Ch`u Shih caused a disturbance. Again, when Prince
Tzŭ-kung tasted the turtle soup, the Ruler of Chêng was
angry at him but did not punish him. In consequence,
Tzŭ-kung murdered him.

The gentleman's remark on Duke Chao's knowledge of
the right man to dislike did not mean that the dislike was too
serious, but that in spite of his clear knowledge as such he
never inflicted punishment upon the man till finally he died
at the hands of the man. Therefore, the saying, "He knew
the right man to dislike," exposed the powerlessness of Duke
Chao. As a ruler of men, he not only failed to foresee an
impending danger, but also failed to prevent and suppress it.
Now, Duke Chao displayed his dislike for Kao Chü-mi but
suspended the conviction of his crime and did not censure
him. Thereby he made Chü-mi bear him a grudge, fear
capital punishment, and risk his own fortune. In consequence,
the Duke could not evade murder. Thus, Kao Pai's[15] revenge
for dislike was natural and never too serious.

Some other critic says: Who over-compensates for an
evil, would inflict a big punishment for a small offence. To
inflict a big punishment for a small offence is an eccentric
action by the criminal court. It constitutes a worry to the
court. The menace arises not from the criminals already[16]
punished but from the number of enemies thereby made.
For instance, Duke Li of Chin destroyed three Ch`is,[17] wherefore
the Luans and the Chung-hangs caused a disturbance;
Tzŭ-tu of Chêng executed Pai-hsüan, wherefore Shih-ting
started a trouble; and the King of Wu chastised Tzŭ-hsü,
wherefore Kou-chien of Yüeh became Hegemonic Ruler.
Such being the case, that the Ruler of Wei was banished and
the Duke of Chêng was murdered, was not because Ch`u Shih
had not been executed and Tzŭ-kung had not been punished,

but because the rulers had the angry colour when they
should not have expressed their indignation, and they had
the mind to punish them when they were not in the position
to punish them. In fact, when they were angry at the two
crooks, if the punishment of them would not go against
public opinion, there would be no harm in manifesting their
indignation. Indeed, to blame a minister before the accession
and wait to punish him for the previous offence after the
accession was the reason why Duke Hu of Ch`i was destroyed
by Tsou Ma-hsü. Thus, even the ruler's manifestation of his
anger at the minister has evil after-consequences; how much
more so should be the minister's manifestation of his anger at
the ruler? If it was not right to censure the minister, then to
strive to realize his wish would be the same as to make enemies
with All-under-Heaven. If so, was it unreasonable that he
was murdered?

At the time of Duke Ling of Wei, Mi Tzŭ-hsia was in
favour with him in the Wei State. One day, a certain clown,
when seeing the Duke, said, "The dream of thy servant has
materialized, indeed." "What did you dream?" asked the
Duke. "Thy servant dreamt of a cooking stove," replied[18] the
clown, "on seeing your Highness." "What? As I understand,"
said the Duke in anger, "who sees the lord of men in
dreaming, dreams of the sun. Why did you see a cooking
stove in your dream of me?" The clown then said, "Indeed,
the sun shines upon everything under heaven while nothing
can cover it. Accordingly, who sees the lord of men in
dreaming, dreams the sun. In the case of a cooking stove,
however, if one person stands before it, then nobody from

behind can see. Supposing someone were standing before
Your Highness, would it not be possible for thy servant to
dream of a cooking stove?" "Right" said the Duke and,
accordingly, removed Yung Ch`u, dismissed Mi Tzŭ-hsia,
and employed Ssŭ-k`ung Kou.

Some critic says: The clown did very well in making a
pretext of dreaming of a cooking stove and thereby rectifying
the way of the sovereign, whereas Duke Ling did not fully
understand the clown's saying. For to remove Yung Ch`u,
dismiss Mi Tzŭ-hsia, and employ Ssŭ-k`ung Kou, was to
remove his favourites and employ a man he regarded as
worthy. For the same reason, Tzŭ-tu of Chêng regarded
Ch`in Chien as worthy, he was deluded; Tzŭ-k`uai regarded
Tzŭ-chih as worthy, he was deluded. Indeed, who dismisses
his favourites and employs men he considers worthy, cannot
help allowing the "worthies" to stand before him. If an
unworthy man stands before the sovereign, he is not sufficient
to hurt the sovereign's sight. Now, if the Duke in no wise
increased his wisdom[19] but allowed an astute man to stand
before him, he would certainly endanger himself.

Some other critic says: Ch`ü Tao tasted water-chestnuts,
King Wên tasted calamus pickles. The two worthies did
taste them, though both were not delicious tastes. Thus,
what man tastes is not necessarily delicious. Duke[20] Ling of
Chin liked Shan Wu-hsü, K`uai of Yen regarded Tzŭ-chih
as worthy. The two rulers did esteem them, though neither
was an honest man. Thus, who is regarded by the ruler as

worthy, is not necessarily worthy. To regard an unworthy
man as worthy and take him into service, is the same as to
employ a favourite. However, to regard a real worthy as
worthy and raise him, is not the same[21] as to employ a favourite.
For this reason, King Chuang of Ch`u raised Sun-shu[22] Ao,
wherefore he became Hegemonic Ruler; Hsing[23] of Ying
employed Fei Chung, wherefore he went to ruin. Both these
Kings employed men they considered worthy but harvested
entirely opposite results. K`uai of Yen, though he raised a
man he considered worthy, did the same as employing a
favourite. Whether or not the Ruler of Wei was making the
same mistake, who could be sure? Before the clown saw
Duke Ling, the Duke, though deluded, did not know he was
being deluded. It was only after the clown had interviewed
him that he came to know the deception. Therefore, to
dismiss the deluding ministers was to increase his wisdom.[24]
The preceding critic said[25] : "If the ruler, without increasing
his wisdom, allows any astute man to stand before him, he
will fall into danger." Now that the Duke had increased his
wisdom by dismissing two deceitful men, though the new
man he employed might stand before him, he never would
be jeopardized.