University of Virginia Library

BOOK FIFTEEN

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.

Chapter XXXVII

CRITICISMS OF THE ANCIENTS, SERIES TWO[1]

Duke Ching passed by the house of Yen Tzŭ and said,
"Your residence is small and close by the market. Pray move
your home to the Garden of Yü-chang." Repeating his
bows, Yen Tzŭ declined the offer, saying, "The home of thy
servant[2] , Ying, is poor and dependent on the market for
daily supplies. As every morning and evening we have to
run to the market, we cannot live too far away from the
place." Duke Ching laughed and said, "If your family is
used to shopping at the market, do you know the prices
of goods?" At that time Duke Ching was busy inflicting
many punishments. Therefore, Yen Tzŭ replied, "The
shoes of the footless men are dear; the ordinary shoes cheap."
"Why?" asked the Duke. "Because there are many punishments
of foot-cutting," replied Yen Tzŭ. Astonished thereat,
Duke Ching changed his colour and said, "Am I as cruel as

that?" Meanwhile he abolished five articles under the criminal
law.

Some critic says: Yen Tzŭ's making dear the shoes of footless
men was not sincere. He simply wanted to utilize the
words to eliminate the number of punishments. This was the
calamity of his ignorance of the bases of political order.
Indeed, punishments equivalent to crimes are never too many;
punishments not equivalent to crimes are never too few.[3]
Instead of informing the ruler about the punishments that
were not equivalent to crimes, Yen Tzŭ persuaded him that
the punishments were too many. This was the calamity of
his tactlessness. When defeated troops are censured, though
the punishments number hundreds and thousands, yet they
still keep running away. When penalties for settling order
out of confusion are inflicted, though the punishments seem
innumerable, yet the culprits are still not exterminated.
Now that Yen Tzŭ never considered whether or not the
punishments were equivalent to the crimes but took their
extraordinary number as the basis of his remark, was his
counsel not absurd? Verily, who spares weeds and reeds,
hurts the ears of the rice-plants; who tolerates thieves and
robbers, injures good citizens. Similarly, to loosen censure
and punishment and give pardons and favours, is to benefit
the crooks and injure the good. It is not the way to attain
political order.

Once Duke Huan of Ch`i was drunk and dropped his
crown. Feeling disgraced thereby, he did not hold court for
three days. Kuan Chung said, "This is not what the ruler
of a state should feel disgraced by. Why does Your Highness

not wipe away such disgrace by means of good government?"
"Right," replied the Duke, and, accordingly, opened the
granaries and gave aid to the poor, and made a thorough
investigation of the convicts and let out the misdemeanants.
In the course of three days, the people began to sing his
praises, saying:

Some critic says: Kuan Chung wiped away Duke Huan's
disgrace among small men but displayed his disgrace before
superior men.[4] To make Duke Huan open the granaries,
give aid to the poor, investigate the convicts, and let out
the misdemeanants, was not righteous and not able to wipe
away the disgrace. Granting it to be a righteous act, Duke
Huan and neglected such righteousness that he dropped his
crown, and then began to act righteously. If so, the righteous
act was done because Duke Huan had neglected[5] righteousness
rather than because he had dropped his crown. Thus,
though he might have wiped away the disgrace of dropping
the crown among small men, yet he had already left the
disgrace of neglecting[6] righteousness before gentlemen.
Moreover, to open the granaries and give aid to the poor
was to reward men of no merit; to investigate the convicts
and let out the misdemeanants was to inflict no punishment
upon offenders. Indeed, if men of no merit are rewarded,
then the people will enjoy the godsends and hope for the
same from the sovereign; if offenders are not punished,

then the people will take no warning and become liable to
misconduct. This is the root of confusion. How could it
wipe away any disgrace at all?

In bygone days, King Wên invaded Yü, defeated Chü,
and took Fêng. After he had waged these three campaigns,
King Chow came to dislike him. Afraid thereof, he offered
to present the King with the land to the west of the Lo River
and the country of the Red Soil, altogether one thousand li
square in area, and asked him to abolish the punishment of
climbing the roasting pillar. Thereat All-under-Heaven were
delighted. Hearing about this, Chung-ni said: "How
benevolent King Wên was! By making light of a country
of one thousand li square, he asked for the abolishment of
the punishment of climbing the roasting pillar. How wise
King Wên was! By offering the land of one thousand li
square, he won the hearts of All-under-Heaven."

Some critic says: Chung-ni thought King Wên was
wise. Was he not mistaken? Indeed, the wise man knows the
unlucky and dangerous zone and can avoid it, so that he never
suffers the calamity himself. Suppose the reason why King
Wên was disliked by Chow was his inability to win the hearts
of the people. Then though he might seek to win the hearts
of the people in order thereby to dispel Chow's dislike, yet
Chow would dislike him the more because he made a great
success in winning the hearts of the people. Besides, he made
light of his territory and thereby won the hearts of the people,
which would double Chow's suspicion of him. No wonder,
he was fettered in jail at Yu-li. The saying of the elder of
Chêng, "Have personal experience of the Way of Nature,
do not do anything, and reveal nothing," would be the most
suitable warning to King Wên. It is the way to incur nobody's

suspicion. Thus, Chung-ni in regarding King Wên as wise
fell short of this saying.

Duke P`ing of Chin asked Shu Hsiang, saying: "Formerly
Duke Huan of Ch`i called nine conferences of the
feudal lords and brought All-under-Heaven under one rule.
Was that due to the abilities of the ministers or the ability
of the ruler?" In reply Shu Hsiang said, "Kuan Chung was
skilful in cutting the shape of the dress; Pin Hsü-wu was
skilful in sewing[7] the seams of the dress; and Hsi Pêng
was skilful in decorating the dress with plaits and bindings.
When the dress was ready, the ruler took it and wore it. The
dress-making was thus due to the minister's abilities. What
ability did the Ruler have?" Thereat Musician K`uang lay
down upon the harp and laughed. "Grand Tutor, why are
you laughing?" asked the Duke. "Thy servant," replied
the Musician K`uang, "is laughing at the reply Shu Hsiang
has given to Your Highness. As a rule, who ministers to a
ruler is like a cook synthesizing the five tastes and serving the
food to the master. If the master refuses to eat it, who dare force
him? May thy servant compare the ruler to farming soil
and ministers to grass and trees. The soil must be fertile
before grass and trees grow big. Similarly, the Hegemony of
Duke Huan was due to the ruler's ability. What abilities did
the ministers have?"

Some critic says: The replies of both Shu Hsiang and
Musician K`uang were equally eccentric views. Verily, to
bring All-under-Heaven under one rule and call nine conferences
of the feudal lords was a brilliant achievement.
However, it was neither entirely due to the ability of the
ruler nor entirely due to the abilities of the ministers.

Formerly, Kung Chi-ch`i served Yü, Hsi Fu-ch`i served
Ts`ao. Both ministers were so wise that their words always hit
the truth of affairs and the execution of the counsels could
always harvest successful results. Yet why did Yü and Ts`ao
go to ruin? It was because they had able ministers but no
able rulers. Likewise, Ch`ien Shu[8] served Yü,[9] but Yü
went to ruin; then he served Ch`in, which attained Hegemony.
Not that Ch`ien Shu was stupid in Yü and wise in
Ch`in, but that serving under an able ruler was different from
serving under an unable ruler.[10] Therefore, Hsiang's saying
that the success was due to the abilities of the ministers
was not true.

Formerly, Duke Huan built two markets inside the palace
and two hundred gates of harems between them. Everyday
he wore no hat and took drives with women. After he got
Kuan Chung, he became the first of the Five Hegemonic
Rulers.[11] After he lost Kuan Chung, he got Shu Tiao with
the result that following his death worms crawled outdoors[12]
while the corpse still lay unburied. If success was
not due to the ability of the minister, Duke Huan would not
have attained Hegemony because of Kuan Chung. Were it
entirely due to the ability of the ruler, he would not have
suffered any disturbance because of Shu Tiao. Formerly,
Duke Wên was so much in love with his Ch`i wife that he
forgot the necessity to return to his native country. Therefore,

Uncle[13] Fan made a forceful remonstration with him and
thereby enabled him to go back to the Chin State. Thus,
Duke Huan brought All-under-Heaven under one rule
because of Kuan Chung while Duke Wên attained Hegemony
because of Uncle Fan. Therefore, Musician K`uang's saying
that the success was due to the ability of the ruler was also
not true. On the whole, the Five Hegemonic Rulers could
accomplish their achievements and reputations in All-underHeaven
because in every case both ruler and minister had
abilities. Hence the saying: "The replies of both Shu
Hsiang and Musician K`uang were equally eccentric views."

At the time of Duke Huan of Ch`i, once an envoy from
Chin arrived. When the chief usher asked about the kind
of treatment he should be accorded, Duke Huan thrice said,
"Ask Uncle Chung about it." Therefore the clown laughed,
saying, "How easy it is to be a ruler! First Your Highness
says, `Ask Uncle Chung!' and next also says, `Ask Uncle
Chung!' " In response Duke Huan said: "I have heard
that the ruler of men has a hard time to find right men for
office but has an easy time when making use of them. I
already had a hard time to find Uncle Chung. After having
found him, why should I not have an easy time?"

Some critic says: The reply of Duke Huan to the clown
was not what the ruler of men ought to have made. Duke Huan
thought the ruler of men must undergo the hardship of
finding right men for office. Why should finding men be a
hardship at all? Yi Yin became a cook and thereby[14]
ingratiated himself with King T`ang; Pai-li Hsi became a war
prisoner and thereby ingratiated himself with Duke Mu.

To become a war prisoner is a humiliation; to become a
cook is a disgrace. Yet because the worthy's worry about the
world is urgent, he would go through humiliation and disgrace
and thereby approach the ruler. If so, the rulers of men
should cause only the worthies no obstacle. Verily, to find
right men for office does not constitute any difficulty to the
lord of men. Moreover, to offices and commissions worthies
are appointed; with titles and bounties men of merit are
rewarded. Once offices and commissions are established and
titles and bounties are paraded, talented men will appear
of themselves. Then why should the ruler of men have any
hardship at all?

Likewise, personnel administration is not an easy thing.
The lord of men, while using men, must regulate them with
rules and measures, and compare their deeds with their words
in the way forms are compared with names. If any project
is lawful, it should be carried out; if unlawful, it should be
stopped. If the result is equivalent to the proposal, the
proposer should be rewarded; if not, he should be punished.
Rectify the ministers with forms and names, regulate the
subordinates with rules and measures. This principle should
not be neglected. Then what ease does the ruler of men have?

Thus finding men is not a hardship; using men is not
easy. Consequently, Duke Huan's saying, "The ruler has
a hard time to find men but has an easy time when using
them," was not true. Moreover, Duke Huan went through
no hardship to find Kuan Chung. Kuan Chung did not
die in the cause of loyalty to his first master, but surrendered
himself to Duke Huan. Besides, Pao Shu made light of his
own official position, gave way to the able man, and recommended
him for the post of premiership. Clearly enough,

Duke Huan's finding Kuan Chung was not any hardship
at all.

After having found Kuan Chung, how could he have an
easy time all at once? Kuan Chung was not like Duke T`an
of Chou. Duke T`an of Chou acted for the Son of Heaven for
seven years till King Ch`êng reached full age, when he returned
the reins of government to him. This was not because he
thought of the welfare of All-under-Heaven, but because
he wanted to perform his duty. Indeed, who does not usurp
the orphan's throne and thereby rule over All-under-Heaven,
never will desert the dead ruler and serve the enemy; who
deserts the dead ruler and serves the enemy, will not always
hesitate to usurp the orphan's throne and thereby rule over
All-under-Heaven; and who does not hesitate to usurp the
orphan's throne and thereby rule over All-under-Heaven,
will not hesitate to usurp the ruler's state. Now Kuan Chung
was originally a minister under Prince Chiu. Once he even
schemed to assassinate Duke Huan, but in vain. Following the
death of his old master, he served Duke Huan. Clearly
enough, in matters of submission and desertion Kuan Chung
was not as great as Duke T`an of Chou.[15] Nobody could tell
whether or not he would remain worthy.[16] Supposing he
would remain worthy, then he might do the same as King
T`ang and King Wu. T`ang and Wu were originally
ministers under Chieh and Chow respectively. Chieh and
Chow caused confusion, wherefore T`ang and Wu deprived
them of the throne. Now that Duke Huan easily stood above

Kuan Chung, he was doing the same as Chieh and Chow
did standing above T`ang and Wu. Duke Huan was in
danger then. Supposing Kuan Chung should become an
unworthy man, then he might do the same as T`ien Ch`ang.
T`ien Ch`ang was a minister to Duke Chien but murdered his
master. Now that Duke Huan stood easily above Kuan
Chung, he was doing the same as Duke Chien standing
easily above T`ien Ch`ang. Again Duke Huan was in
danger.

Thus clearly[17] enough, Kuan Chung was not as great as
Duke T`an of Chou. However, nobody could tell whether he
would do the same as T`ang and Wu or as T`ieh Ch`ang.
Should he do the same as T`ang and Wu, there would be the
danger of Chieh and Chow; should he do the same as
T`ien Ch`ang, there would be the catastrophe of Duke
Chien. After having found Uncle Chung, how could he have
an easy time all at once? Supposing Duke Huan took Kuan
Chung into service because he was sure he would never
deceive him, then he could direct ministers who were not
deceitful. However, though at one time he could direct
ministers who were not deceitful, yet as he later entrusted
Shu Tiao and I Ya with the same affairs which he had committed
to the hands of Kuan Chung with the result that worms
crawled outdoors[18] while his corpse lay unburied, it goes
without saying that Duke Huan could not tell between
ministers who would deceive the ruler and those who would
not deceive the ruler. Nevertheless, so exclusively he put
his trust in ministers when he took them into service! Hence
the saying: "Duke Huan was a stupid sovereign."

Li K`o[19] governed Central Hills. The magistrate of Hard
Paths presented his fiscal report, in which the annual revenue
appeared enormous in amount. Therefore, Li K`o said:
"Speeches, eloquent and delightful to the ear but in discord
with the cause of righteousness, are called `entrancing words.'
The revenue, enormous in amount but not due to the products
from mountains, forests, swamps, and valleys, is called `an
attractive income.' The gentleman never listens to attractive
words nor accepts any attractive income. You had better
leave your office."

Some critic says: Li Tzŭ proclaimed the theory,
"Speeches, eloquent and delightful to the ear but in discord
with the cause of righteousness, are called `attractive
words'." To be sure, the eloquence of speeches depends
upon the speaker while their delight rests with the listener.
Thus, the speaker is not the listener. What he called "discord
with the cause of righteousness" is not concerned with the
listener. It must be concerned with what is heard. The
listener must be either a rascal or a gentleman. The rascal,
having no cause of righteousness, must be unable to estimate
the speeches from the standpoint of righteousness;
whereas the gentleman, estimating them from the standpoint
of righteousness, is certainly not delighted at them. Verily,
the argument that speeches, eloquent and delightful to the
ear, are in discord with the cause of righteousness must be
an absurd saying.

The argument that a revenue enormous in amount is an
attractive income is not applicable to many cases. Li Tzŭ
did not stop corruptions early enough and let them creep into

the fiscal report. In this way he allowed criminal offences to
be accomplished. He had no way of knowing why the
revenue was enormous. If the enormous revenue was due
to a bountiful harvest, then though the amount was doubled,
what could be done about it? If in doing any kind of work
people look after the harmony of the positive and negative
factors[20] ; if in planting trees they follow the suitable periods of
the four seasons; and if at dawn and at dusk there is no suffering
from cold or heat; then revenue will be enormous. If
important duties are not obstructed by small profits; if
public welfare is not injured by private interest; if men exert
their strength to tillage; and if women devote their energies to
weaving; then revenue will be enormous. If the methods
of animal husbandry are improved, the qualities of the soil
are examined, the six animals[21] flourish, and the five cereals
abound, then revenue will be enormous. If weights and
measures are made clear; if topographical features are carefully
surveyed; and if through the utilization of boats, carts,
and other mechanical devices, the minimum amount of
energy is used to produce the maximum amount of efficiency;
then revenue will be enormous. If traffic on markets, cities,
passes, and bridges is facilitated, so that needy places are
supplied with sufficient commodities; if merchants from
abroad flock to the country and foreign goods and money
come in; if any unnecessary expenditure is cut down,
extravagant clothing and food are saved, houses and furniture
are all limited to necessities, and amusements and
recreations are never over-emphasized; then revenue will
be enormous. In these cases, the increase in revenue is
due to human effort. Granted that natural events, winds,
rain, seasons, cold, and heat are normal and the territory
remains the same, then if the people can reap the fruits
of the abundant year, then revenue will be enormous too.
Thus, human effort and heavenly support both are the main
factors of increases in revenue, but the products from
mountains, forests, swamps, and valleys are not. Verily, to
call the enormous revenue not due to the products from mountains,
forests, swamps, and valleys "an attractive income,"
is a tactless saying.

When Viscount Chien of Chao was laying siege to the
outer walls[22] of the capital of Wei, he covered himself with a
shield and a turret both made of rhinoceros-hide and stood
at a spot beyond the reach of arrow-heads. Therefrom he
beat the drum, but the warriors made no progress. Throwing
down the drumsticks, Duke Chien said, "Alas! My men are
already exhausted." In response a herald named Chu Kuo
took off his helmet and said: "Thy servant has heard, `The
ruler may be incapable, but no warrior is ever exhausted.'
In bygone days,[23] our former ruler, Duke Hsien, annexed
seventeen states, subdued thirty-eight states, and won twelve
wars, which altogether was due to his way of making use of
the people. Following the death of Duke Hsien, Duke Hui
ascended the throne. As he continued lewd, flighty, cruel,
and violent, and pleasured himself in beautiful women, the
Ch`ins invaded the country at their pleasure and came within
the distance of seventeen li from the city of Chiang, which
also was due to his way of using the people. Following the
death of Duke Hui, Duke Wên accepted the reins of government,

besieged Wei, took Yeh, and at the battle of Ch`êng-p`u
defeated the Chings five times, till he attained the highest
fame in All-under-Heaven, which also was due to his way of
using men. Thus, the ruler may be incapable, but no warrior
is ever exhausted." Accordingly, Duke Chien discarded the
shield and the turret and stood on a spot within the reach of
arrow-heads. Therefrom he beat the drum, under whose
influence the warriors fought and won a great victory.
Thereupon Duke Chien said, "One thousand armoured
chariots given to me would not be as effective as one counsel
heard from Chu Kuo."

Some critic says: The herald did not speak to the point.
He simply reminded his master that Duke Hui on account of
his personnel administration failed while Duke Wên on
account of his personnel administration attained hegemony,
but did not yet explain to him the right technique of personnel
administration. Therefore, Duke Chien should not have
discarded the shield and the turret so soon. When the father
is besieged, to slight personal safety and venture the arrowheads
is the way the dutiful son loves his father. However,
among one hundred there may be one dutiful son loving his
father to such an extent. Now that the herald thought the
people could fight even in the face of personal dangers, he
presumed that all the sons of the hundred clans[24] would serve
the superior in the same way as the dutiful son loves his father.
Such was the absurd idea of the herald. To love profit and
dislike injury is the tendency everybody has. Therefore, if
reward is big and trusted, everybody will rush at enemies
with ease. If punishment is heavy and definite, nobody[25] will

run[26] away from enemies. Among one hundred men there is
not even one who would practise high virtue and die in the
cause of loyalty to the superior, yet everybody is equally
fond of profit and afraid of punishment. Therefore, in
advising the leader of the masses not to go on the way which
they would follow by necessity but to count on such virtue
as none out of a hundred would practise, the herald was
certainly not yet aware of the right method of making use
of the people.