University of Virginia Library

BOOK SIXTEEN

Chapter XXXVIII

CRITICISM OF THE ANCIENTS, SERIES THREE[1]

Duke Mu of Lu once asked Tzŭ-ssŭ, saying, "I have heard
that the son of the Chien family in the village of P`ang[2] is
not dutiful. How is his conduct?" In reply Tzŭ-ssŭ said,
"The superior man esteems the worthy and thereby exalts
the virtuous. He promotes the good and thereby encourages[3]
the people. In the case of misconduct, it is recognized by
small men. Thy servant does not know anything about his
conduct at all." After Tzŭ-ssŭ had gone out, Tzŭ-fu and
Li-pai went in to interview the Duke. Then Duke Mu again
asked about the conduct of the son of the Chien family in the
village of P`ang. In reply Tzŭ-fu and Li-pai said, "He has
three defects, all of which your Highness has never heard
about." Thenceforth, the ruler respected Tzŭ-ssŭ but
despised Tzŭ-fu and Li-pai.

Some critic says: Was it unreasonable that the ruling
family of Lu was menaced by the Chi Clan successively for
three generations? The enlightened ruler searches for good
men and rewards them. He searches for wicked men and
punishes them. He search is one. Therefore, who reports of
good men agrees with the superior on the approval of good
deeds; who reports of wicked men agrees with the superior
on the dislike of bad deeds. Both equally deserve reward and

honour. Who does not report of wicked men, is an opponent
of the superior and a partisan of the wicked men. He deserves
disgrace and punishment. Now, Tzŭ-ssŭ did not report of any
defect of the son, whereas Duke Mu respected him. Li-pai
reported of the wickedness of the son, whereas Duke Mu
despised him. It is human nature, however, that everybody
loves respect and dislikes being despised. Naturally, even
when the rebellious plot of the Chi Clan was mature, nobody
reported of it to the superior. This was the reason for which
the Ruler of Lu was eventually molested. Verily, it is the
beaten track of the sovereigns[4] of declining states, which was
appreciated by the men of Tsou and Lu.[5] Was it absurd that
Duke Mu esteemed it in particular?

When Duke Wên fled into exile, Duke Hsien sent
eunuch, P`i, to assault him at Rush City. P`i only succeeded
in cutting a sleeve off his coat. Then Duke Wên escaped to
Chieh. When Duke Hui ascended the throne, he also sent
P`i to assault Duke Wên by the side of the Wei River.[6] But
he could not get at the Duke. After the return of Duke Wên
to his native country, P`i petitioned for an audience with the
Duke. Thereupon, the Duke said, "Before the assault
at Rush City, His Highness had ordered you to stay one
night on the way, but you went straight there. Before the
catastrophe by the side of the Wei River, His Highness had
ordered you to stay three nights on the way, but you spent
one night only. Why were you so quick?" In reply P`i
said, "The ruler's order must not be disobeyed. To eliminate

the ruler's enemy I was afraid of my inability. At that time
Your Highness was merely a man of Rush or a man of Chieh,
with whom I had no relationship whatever. Now that Your
Highness has ascended the throne, would there be no memory
of the events at Rush and in Chieh? Indeed, Duke Huan
even forgot the shooting of the ribbon-hook of his crown
and appointed Kuan Chung premier." Hearing this, the Duke
granted him an audience.

Some critic says: That festivals to the memory of the
ancestors of the Ch`is and the Chins were finally stopped,
was perfectly reasonable. Duke Huan could make use of
Kuan Chung's meritorious services and forgot the grudge
against the shooting of the ribbon-hook. Duke Wên could
listen to the eunuch's saying and ignored the crime of cutting
off his sleeve. Thus, Dukes Huan and Wên could tolerate
the two men. Rulers of subsequent generations, however,
were not as enlightened as these two Dukes while ministers
of subsequent generations were not as worthy as these two
men. When disloyal ministers were serving unintelligent
rulers, if the rulers did not notice their disloyalty, then there
would appear such traitors as Ts`ao[7] of Yen, Tzŭ-han, and
T`ien Ch`ang; if they noticed their disloyalty, then the
ministers would justify their misconduct with the actions of
Kuan Chung and the eunuch as precedents, so that the rulers
would not censure them and assumed themselves to be as
virtuous as Dukes Huan and Wên. In this manner, the
ministers owed the rulers[8] grudges in secret, but the rulers
were not intelligent enough to eliminate the dark matters. If
the rulers vested the ministers with more powers while

pretending to worthiness themselves and taking no precaution
against any eventuality, was it not reasonable that their
posterity was exterminated? Moreover, the saying of the
eunuch was too ostentatious. Who does not disobey the
ruler's order, is said to be faithful to the ruler. However,
unless the minister never feels ashamed of his conduct even
when the dead ruler comes to life again, he is not truly faithful.
Now that Duke Hui died at dawn, the eunuch turned to
serve Duke Wên at dusk, how about his principle of nondisobedience?

Once somebody put a riddle to Duke Huan, saying, "The
first difficulty, the second difficulty, and the third difficulty.
What are they?" Unable to solve the riddle, Duke Huan
asked Kuan Chung to do it. In reply Kuan Chung said,
"The first difficulty is due to the ruler's intimacy with actors
and remoteness from scholars and warriors; the second, due
to his absence from the state capital and frequent visit to the
seaside; and the third, due to the choice of the Crown
Prince late in the ruler's old age." "Right," remarked Duke
Huan. Without choosing a lucky day, he celebrated in the
ancestral shrine the installation of the Crown Prince.

Some critic says: Kuan Chung's solution of the riddle was
not to the point. The serviceability of the scholars and
warriors does not rest with their distance from the ruler.
Actors and clowns are from the beginning supposed to
accompany the lord of men at every feast. If so, then to keep
actors near and the scholars and warriors far and thereby
maintain political order would not be any difficulty at all.
Again, who is in the position and not able to make the best
use of his authorities but counts on his constant presence at
the state capital, means to suppress wickedness throughout

the whole country with one person's strength. If the ruler
attempts to suppress wickedness throughout the whole
country with his own strength only, then he can hardly
succeed. If his intelligence is able to illuminate distant crooks
and disclose vicious secrets, and if he is certain to apply
decrees to such cases, then though he travels far away to the
seaside, there will be no disorder at home. If so, then to
leave the state capital for the seaside and thereby invite
neither menace nor murder, would constitute no difficulty at
all. As regards the third difficulty, King Ch`êng of Ch`u
first made Shang-ch`êng Crown Prince, and later thought of
making Prince Chih Crown Prince, wherefore Shang-ch`êng
caused a disturbance and finally murdered King Ch`êng.
Similarly, Prince Tsai[9] was the Crown Prince of Chou, but
Prince Kên won the ruler's favour, caused a rebellion in the
eastern part of Chou,[10] and split the country into two. In
these cases the calamity was not due to the late installation of
the crown prince. If the ruler is not double-dealing in matters
of distinction and position, keeps bastards in low status,
and grants his favourites no special request, then though he
waits till an old age, the late installation of the crown prince
is practicable. If so, then to install the crown prince late and
thereby incur no turmoil from bastards, would constitute
no difficulty at all. The so-called difficulties are: to let people
accumulate their influences and not to let them trespass against
the ruler, which constitutes the first difficulty; to favour
concubines but not let them rival the wife, which constitutes
the second difficulty; and, to love bastards but not to let
them jeopardize the heir apparent, and to trust one minister
exclusively and see that he dare not rank with the ruler
himself, which can be called the third difficulty.

When the Duke of Sheh, Tzŭ-kao, asked Chung-ni about
government, Chung-ni said, "The way of good government
is to content the near and attract the distant."[11] When
Duke Ai asked Chung-ni about government, Chung-ni said,
"The way of good government is to select worthies for
office." When Duke Ching of Ch`i asked Chung-ni about
government, Chung-ni said, "The way of good government
is to economize expenditure." After the three Dukes had
gone out, Tzŭ-kung asked, "The question raised to Master
by the three Dukes about government was the same one, but
why did Master reply to them differently?" Chung-ni said,
"In Sheh the capital is too big for the country while the
people have the rebellious mind. Therefore, I said, `The way
of good government is to content the near and attract the
distant'. Duke Ai of Lu has three chief vassals, who spurn
envoys from other feudal lords and the neighbouring
countries and join one another in befooling their master.
It must be these three ministers who will stop the festivals of
the ancestral shrine and remove the sacrifices from the Altar
of the Spirits of Land and Grain. Therefore I said, `The way
of good government is to select worthy men for office.'
Duke Ching of Ch`i constructed the Yung Gate, built the
Roadbed Tower, and in one morning rewarded three
officials each with a fief of one hundred chariots. Therefore,
I said, `The way of good government is to economize
expenditure.' "

Some critic says: The reply of Chung-ni was a state-ruining
saying. Notwithstanding that the Sheh people had

the rebellious mind, he advised the ruler to content the near
and attract the distant, whereby he encouraged the people to
cherish gratitude to the ruler for his favours. To be sure, the
government by favour rewards men of no merit and absolves
criminals of guilt. This is the reason why the law is broken.
If the law is broken, government will fall into confusion.
To govern a spoilt people with confused regulations is never
practicable. Moreover, if the people have the rebellious mind,
it is because the ruler's insight has fallen short of certain
objects. Now, instead of persuading[12] the Duke of Sheh to
extend his insight, Chung-ni advised him to content the near
and attract the distant. In this way he advised the ruler to
discard what his position is able to prohibit and struggle with
his subordinates[13] to win the hearts of the people by conferring
favours. Thereby he will not be able to maintain his
influence. Indeed, in worthiness Yao was the first one of the
six rulers,[14] but wherever Shun went, people flocked around
him, till Yao had no more influence in All-under-Heaven.
Suppose there is a ruler who has no way of preventing his
subordinates from misbehaving but counts on their imitation
of Shun and expects not to lose the hearts of the people. Is he
not tactless? The enlightened ruler sees an evil in the bud,
wherefore the people cannot plot any large-scale rebellion.
As he inflicts small punishments for minor offences, the people
cannot cause any serious disturbance. This means "to
contemplate a difficulty when it is easy and manage a great
thing when it is small."[15] Now, if men of merit are always
rewarded, the rewarded do not feel grateful[16] to the ruler,
because the reward is due to their effort. If men guilty of
offences are always punished, the punished bear no grudge
against the authorities, because the punishment is due to their
misconduct. As the people understand that both punishment
and reward[17] are due to their own deeds, they will strive to
harvest merits and profits in their daily work and will not
hope for undue gifts from the ruler. "Of the greatest ruler,
the people simply know the existence."[18] This means that
under the greatest ruler the people have no undue joy. Then
where can be found people bearing gratitude to the ruler?
The subjects of the greatest ruler receive neither undue profit
nor undue injury. Therefore, the persuasion to content the
near and attract the distant should be set at nought.

As Duke Ai had ministers who spurned visitors from
outside and formed juntas at home in deceiving the ruler,
Chung-ni persuaded him to select worthies for office. By
worthies he meant not men who would exert their strength
and render meritorious services, but those whom the ruler
judged to be worthy. Now, supposing Duke Ai knew that
the three ministers spurned visitors from outside and formed
juntas at home, then the three men could not continue misbehaving
one day longer. It was because Duke Ai did not
know how to select worthies for office but simply selected
those men he judged to be worthy that the three men could
have charge of state affairs. However, Tzŭ-k`uai of Yen
considered Tzŭ-chih worthy and disapproved the character

of Sun Ch`ing with the result that he was murdered and
became a laughing-stock of the world. Likewise, Fu-ch`a
regarded Chancellor P`i as wise and Tzŭ-hsü as stupid with
the result that he was extinguished by Yüeh. Thus, the Ruler
of Lu did not necessarily know worthy men, but Chung-ni
persuaded him to select worthy men, whereby he would
drive him to the disaster of Fu-ch`a and K`uai of Yen. Verily,
the enlightened ruler does not have to promote ministers
himself, for they advance according to their meritorious
services.[19] He does not have to select[20] worthies himself, for
they make their appearances[21] according to their meritorious
services. He appoints them to various posts, examines them
in their works, and judges them according to their results.
Therefore, all officials have to be fair and just and never self-seeking.
Neither obscuring the worthy nor promoting the
unworthy, what worry does the lord of men have about the
selection of worthy men?

As Duke Ching rewarded officials each with a fief of one
hundred chariots, Chung-ni persuaded him to economize
expenditure, whereby he advised him to have no way of
enjoying pleasures and luxuries but remain personally frugal.
In consequence, the country would fall into poverty. Suppose
there is a ruler who supports himself with the income from
the area of one thousand li square. Then even Chieh and
Chow could not be more extravagant than he. Now, the
Ch`i State covers an area of three thousand li square. With
half of its income Duke Huan supported himself. In this
manner he was more extravagant than Chieh and Chow.

Yet he could become the first one of the Five Hegemonic
Rulers because he knew the respective spheres of frugality
and extravagance. To be a ruler of men who cannot[22]
restrain his subjects but has to restrain himself instead, is
called "suffering"; to be unable to reform his subjects and
have to reform himself instead, is called "confusion"; and,
not to economize in the expenditure of his subjects but to
economize in his own expenditure, is called "poverty". The
enlightened ruler makes people public-spirited, stops men
who earn their livelihood by means of deception, and always
hears about those who exert their strength in public enterprises
and contribute profits to the authorities. Whenever
heard about, the men of merit are rewarded. Likewise, he
always knows those who are corrupt and self-seeking. Whenever
known, the wicked men are punished. If so,[23] then loyal
ministers will exert their spirits of loyalty for public causes,
gentry and commoners will apply their strength to the welfare
of their families, and all officials will be assiduous and deny
themselves in serving the superior. Therefore, the extravagance
of the enlightened ruler, be it twice as much as that of
Duke Ching, will constitute no menace to the state. If so,
the persuasion to economize expenditure was not an urgent
need of Duke Ching.

Indeed, a single reply to the three Dukes that would
enable them to get rid of all worries should be "Know your
inferiors". If the ruler knows the inferiors well, then he can
nip an evil in the bud. If evils are nipped in the bud, no
villainy will be accumulated. If no villainy is accumulated,
no junta will be formed. If no junta is formed, public welfare

and private interest will be distinguished from each other.
If public welfare and private interest are distinguished from
each other, all partisans will disperse. If the partisans disperse,
there will be no trouble-makers spurning visitors from outside
and forming wicked juntas inside. Moreover, when the
ruler knows his inferiors well, he will discover all their
minute details.[24] When all their minute details are disclosed,
censure and reward will be clarified. When censure and
reward are clarified, the country will not be poor. Hence the
saying: "A single reply that would enable the three Dukes
to get rid of all worries should be `Know your inferiors'."

One morning when Tzŭ-ch`an of Chêng went out and
passed through the quarters of eastern craftsmen, he heard a
woman crying. Therefore, he held the coachman's hand still
and listened to the crying. Meanwhile, he sent out an official
to arrest her. After examining her, he found out that she had
strangled her husband with her own hands. Another day
the coachman asked, "Master, how could you tell that she
had killed her husband?" "Her voice was fearful," said
Tzŭ-ch`an. "As a rule, people react to their beloved in the
following ways: When the beloved has just fallen ill, they
are worried about the illness; when he or she is dying, they
feel fearful; after the death, they feel sad. Now that the
woman crying over her dead husband was not sad but fearful,
I could tell there was villainy behind it."

Some critic says: Was Tzŭ-ch`an's way of government
not burdensome? The culprit was found out only after she
had fallen within the reaches of the premier's ears and eyes.
If so, very few culprits could be found out in the Chêng
State. Not employing judicial officials, not carefully observing

the system of three units and basic fives,[25] and not clarifying
rules and measures, but solely depending on the exertion of
his auditory and visual sagacity and the exhaustion of his
wisdom and reason for detecting culprits, was he not tactless?
Verily, things are many; wise men, few. As the few are no
match for the many, the wise are not sufficient to know all
the things. Therefore, regulate things with things. The
inferior are many; the superior, few. As the few are no
match for the many, the ruler alone is not sufficient to know
all the officials. Therefore, govern men with men. In this
way, without damaging his features and his body, the ruler
administers state affairs successfully; without making use of
his wisdom and reason, he can find out culprits. Hence
follows the proberb of the Sungs, saying "Yi would be
unreasonable if he claimed his ability to shoot down every
sparrow passing by him. Supposing All-under-Heaven
became a net, then no sparrow would be missed". To comb
the culprits, the ruler must have a large net, so that none of
them will be missed. Not studying these principles but using
his own guess-work as bows and arrows, Tzŭ-ch`an was
unreasonable. Thus, Lao Tzŭ said, "Who attempts to
govern the state with wisdom, will eventually betray the
country."[26] How applicable this was to Tzŭ-ch`an's case!

King Chao of Ch`in asked the chamberlains, saying, "How
is the present strength of Han and Wey compared with their
former strength?" In reply they said, "They are now
weaker than before." "How are Ju êrh and Wey Ch`i at
present compared with Mêng Ch`ang[27] and Mang Mao in the

past?" "The former are not as great as the latter," replied
the chamberlains. Then the King said, "Mêng Ch`ang and
Mang Mao led the strong forces of Han and Wey, but could
do nothing against me. Now, they put such unable men as
Ju êrh and Wey Ch`i in command of the weak forces of Han
and Wey to attack Ch'in. Clearly enough, they will not be
able to do anything against me."[28] In response they said,
"That is very true." However, Musician Chung Ch`i put
his lute aside and said in reply: "Your Majesty is mistaken
in estimating the situation of All-under-Heaven. Indeed, at
the time of the Six Chins, the Chih Clan was the strongest
among all. After destroying the Fan and the Chung-hang
Clans, they took the troops of Han and Wey along to attack
Chao. They inundated the capital of Chao with the water
from the Chin River, till only six feet[29] square of land inside
the city was not flooded. One day, Earl Chih went out with
Viscount Hsüan of Wey as the charioteer and Viscount K`ang
of Han in charge of the extra team. On the way, Earl Chih
said, `Never before have I known that water can destroy
enemies' states. I have just come to know it. The water of
the Fêng River can inundate the city of An-i[30] ; and the
water of the Chiang River can inundate the city of P'ing-yang.[31]
Hearing this remark, Viscount Hsüan of Wey pushed
the elbow of Viscount K`ang of Han while Viscount K`ang
stepped on Viscount Hsüan's foot. Soon after the elbow was
pushed and the foot was stepped on in the carriage, the possessions
of the Chih Clan were divided beneath the walls of
Chin-yang. Now, Your Majesty, though strong, is not yet as
powerful as the Chih Clan. Han and Wey, though weak, are
not yet as helpless as the people besieged at Chin-yang.[32]
To-day is the very moment when All-under-Heaven push
their elbows and step on their feet. May Your Majesty,
therefore, not look down upon them!"

Some critic says: King Chao's question was mistaken;
the replies by the chamberlains and Chung-ch`i were wrong.
As a rule, the enlightened sovereign in governing the state
holds fast to his position. As long as his position is not
injured, even though the forces of All-under-Heaven combine
against him, they could do nothing against him. Then how
much less could Mêng Ch`ang, Mang Mao, Han, and Wey do
against Ch`in? However, if the position can be injured, then
even unworthy men like Ju êrh and Wey Ch`i and the weak
forces of Han and Wey can be detrimental to it. Such being
the case, violability and inviolability both rest on nothing
but the reliability of one's own position. Why did he raise
the question then? If the sovereign relies on the inviolability
of his own position, he minds no enemy whether strong or
weak. If he cannot rely on his own position but keeps asking
about the strength of his enemies, suffering no invasion will
be a godsend to him. Shên Tzŭ said, "Who loses sight of
calculations and looks to people's words for bases of belief,
will for ever be in doubt," which was applicable to King
Chao's case.

Earl Chih had no rules of self-restraint. Thus, while taking
Viscounts K`ang of Han and Hsüan of Wey along, he thought

of flooding and ruining their countries with water. This was
the reason why Earl Chih had his country destroyed, himself
killed, and his skull made into a drinking cup. Now, when
King Chao asked if enemies were stronger than they had
been before, there was no worry about his flooding lands.
Though he had the chamberlains around, they were not the
same as the Viscounts of Han and Wey. Then how could
there be any elbow-pushing and foot-stepping intrigues?
Nevertheless, Chung-ch`i said, "Do not look down upon
them!" This was an empty saying. Moreover, what
Chung-ch`i took charge of was harps and lutes. Were the
strings not harmonious and the notes not clear, it would be
his duty to fix them. In this post Chung-ch`i[33] served King
Chao. He was willing to enter upon the duties of that post.
Yet before he as yet proved satisfactory in his official capacity
to King Chao, he spoke on what he did not know. Was he
not thoughtless? The chamberlains' replies, "Both are
weaker now than before," and, "The former are not as
great as the latter," were fair, but their last reply, "That
is very true," was certainly flattery. Shên Tzŭ said, "The
way to order is not to overstep the duties of one's post and
not to speak about people's business though aware of it."
Now, Chung-ch`i did not know politics but spoke on it.
Hence the saying: "King Chao's question was mistaken:
the replies by the chamberlains and Chung-ch`i were wrong."

Kuan Tzŭ said, "When the ruler approves the minister's
conduct, he manifests evidences[34] of liking him; when he
disapproves the minister's conduct, he produces facts of disliking

him. If reward and punishment accord with what
is seen, the minister will dare do no wrong even in unseen
places. Suppose when the ruler sees the minister's conduct
approvable, of liking him he manifests no evidence; when he
sees the minister's conduct not approvable, of disliking him
he produces no fact. Then if reward and punishment do not
accord with what is seen, it is impossible to expect the minister
to do good at unseen places."

Some critic says: Public grounds and sublime shrines are
places where all behave with respect; dark rooms and
solitary quarters are places where even Tsêng Shan and Shih
Ch`in become undisciplined. To observe people when they
behave respectfully is not to be able to get at the realities of
them. Moreover, in the presence of the ruler and superior
every minister and inferior is forced to polish his manners.
If both approval and disapproval rest on what is seen, it is
certain that ministers and inferiors will disguise wicked things
and thereby befool their masters. If the ruler's own insight
cannot illuminate distant crooks and discern hidden secrets
and thereby guard against them, to fix reward and punishment
by observing disguised deeds is certainly harmful.

Kuan Tzŭ said, "Whose words said inside the private
room prevail upon everybody in the room, and whose words
said inside the public hall prevail upon everybody in the hall,
he can be called ruler of All-under-Heaven."[35]

Some critic says: What Kuan Chung meant by the so-called
words which were said inside the room and prevailed
upon everybody in the room and those which were said inside
the hall and prevailed upon everybody in the hall, was not
restricted to talks given in sport and play or after drinking

and eating, but inclusive of serious discussions of important
business. The important business of the lord of men is either
law or tact. The law is codified in books, kept in governmental
offices, and promulgated among the hundred surnames.
The tact is hidden in the bosom and useful in comparing
diverse motivating factors of human conduct and in manipulating
the body of officials secretly. Therefore, law wants
nothing more than publicity; tact abhors visibility. For this
reason, when the enlightened sovereign speaks on law, high
and low within the boundaries will hear and know it. Thus,
the speech prevails not only upon everybody in the hall.
When he applies his tact, none of his favourites and courtiers
will notice it at all. Thus, it cannot display itself all over the
room. Nevertheless, Kuan Tzŭ insisted on saying, "The
words said in the private room prevail upon everybody in
the room; the words said in the public hall prevail upon
everybody in the hall," which is not an utterance of the spirit
of law and tact at all.

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.