A Discourse on the Killing of Remonstrating Officials in the History of the Tang唐史殺諫臣論
予見唐紀拾遺侯昌業以僖宗不親政事。專務遊戲。上疏極諫。帝殺之。又補闕常濬上書諫藩鎭大甚。猶未之窹。宜振典刑。以威四方。上怒又殺之。二臣之言。可謂切直。而其不從亦足矣。殺之何甚。其前後君之殺諫臣。往往多有。今適見僖宗紀。故此獨擧耳。且桀紂之殺諫臣也。暴其惡於百世之下。凡有口者無有不深譏顯刺者。後之君之殺諫臣。雖載之書史。鮮有暴露其虐如桀紂者。予未知其故。夫熊虎之咥人。人不以爲怪。而餘則人皆甚以爲異也。以此觀之。無道之君之殺諫臣。不足爲怪也。若其惡不至如桀紂者。則是可怪已。僖宗。唐季之主也。力弱權微。雖欲如桀紂之惡。不可得也。而猶殺諫臣。原其狀。不曰異乎。噫。漢光武之於韓韶。惡其言切直。旣放歸田里。又追責逼殺。又何甚耶。古今多以光武爲聖。名聖尙爾。餘何足言哉。司馬光以爲仁明之累而不大言者。豈以聖而諱之耶。予謂惡莫大於殺諫臣。其惡可掩大德。而何謂聖乎。謂之賢君。亦足矣。
Reading the records of the Tang, I find that Hou Changye (侯昌業), Rectifier of Omissions (拾遺), submitted a memorial remonstrating in the strongest terms that Emperor Xizong (僖宗) did not attend to government in person but devoted himself wholly to amusements, and the emperor put him to death. Again, Chang Jun (常濬), Rectifier of Faults (補闕), submitted a memorial remonstrating, "The regional commanderies (藩鎭) have grown altogether too strong and still you do not see it; you should rouse the punishments fixed by law and show your authority to the four quarters." The sovereign was angry and put him to death as well.
The words of these two officials may be called earnest and upright. It would have been enough merely not to follow them; why so extreme as to kill them? Before and since, there have been many a case of a sovereign killing officials who remonstrated; but as I happened just now to be reading the record of Xizong, I cite only this.
Again, the killing of remonstrating officials by Jie (桀) and Zhou (紂) stands exposed in its evil a hundred generations after, so that there is no one with a mouth who does not deeply blame it and denounce it openly. Yet when sovereigns of later ages killed remonstrating officials, though it was set down in writings and histories, their ferocity has rarely been exposed as that of Jie and Zhou was; and I do not know the reason for this.
Now, that bears and tigers bite men, people do not count strange; but let any other beast do it and everyone counts it very strange indeed. Seen in this way, there is nothing strange in a sovereign without the Way killing those who remonstrate; but when one whose evil does not even reach to Jie and Zhou does so, that is the strange thing. Xizong was a sovereign of the Tang's last years. His strength was weak and his power slight, so that even had he wished to do the evil of a Jie or a Zhou he could not have. And yet he still killed those who remonstrated; dig into the facts of it, and is it not strange?
Ah. Emperor Guangwu (光武帝) of the Han, hating the earnestness and uprightness of Han Xin's (韓歆) words, had already driven him out to the countryside, and then pursued him with reproofs and pressed him until he died — again, why so extreme? Then and now, many have held Guangwu to be a sage. If even one named a sage was still like this, what is there to say of the rest? That Sima Guang (司馬光) said only that this was a blemish on his benevolence and clarity, and did not speak of it at large — was that not because he shrank from it, taking Guangwu for a sage?
I say this: no evil is greater than killing those who remonstrate, and that evil is enough to overshadow a great virtue; so how can he be called a sage? To call him a worthy sovereign is quite enough.
Interlinear notes 1
The source text has 韓韶, which is taken as an error for 韓歆.