Objections, Part Four難四
衛孫文子聘於魯，公登亦登。叔孫穆子趨進曰：「諸侯之會，寡君未嘗後衛君也。今子不後寡君一等，寡君未知所過也。子其少安。」孫子無辭，亦無悛容。穆子退而告人曰：「孫子必亡。亡臣而不後君，過而不悛，亡之本也。」
Sun Wenzi of Wei went on a state visit to Lu, and when the duke went up the steps he went up as well. Shusun Muzi hurried forward and said, "At the meetings of the feudal lords our ruler has never come behind the ruler of Wei. Now you do not come one step behind our ruler, and our ruler does not know what he has done wrong. Be at ease a little." Sunzi had no word to say, and there was no look of repentance on him either. Muzi withdrew and told someone, "Sunzi is certain to be lost. He is a minister who has fled his own state, and he does not come behind a ruler. He is at fault and does not repent. This is the root of being lost."
或曰：天子失道，諸侯伐之，故有湯、武。諸侯失道，大夫伐之，故有齊、晉。臣而伐君者必亡，則是湯、武不王，晉、齊不立也。孫子君於衛，而後不臣於魯，臣之君也。君有失也，故臣有得也。不命亡於有失之君，而命亡於有得之臣，不察。魯不得誅衛大夫，而衛君之明不知不悛之臣。孫子雖有是二也，巨以亡？其所以亡其失，所以得君也。
Someone says: When the Son of Heaven loses the Way the feudal lords strike at him, and so there were Tang and King Wu. When a feudal lord loses the Way the great officers strike at him, and so there were Qi and Jin. If a minister who strikes at his ruler is certain to be lost, then Tang and King Wu would not have reigned as kings, and Jin and Qi would not have stood. That Sunzi played the ruler in Wei and then did not play the minister in Lu is a minister playing the ruler. Because the ruler has his losses, the minister has his gains. To speak of no loss for a ruler who has losses, and to speak of loss for a minister who has gains, is a failure to look closely. Lu could not put a great officer of Wei to death, and the light of the ruler of Wei did not know an unrepenting minister. Though Sunzi had these two things, how would he be lost? The very fault that would make him lost is also what let him take a ruler's place.
或曰：臣主之施，分也。臣能奪君者，以得相踦也。故非其分而取者，衆之所奪也；辭其分而取者，民之所予也。是以桀索㟭山之女，紂求比干之心，而天下離；湯身易名，武身受詈，而海内服；趙咺走山，田氏外僕，而齊、晉從。則湯、武之所以王，齊、晉之所以立，非必以其君也，彼得之而後以君處之也。今未有其所以得，而行其所以處，是倒義而逆德也。倒義，則事之所以敗也；逆德，則怨之所以聚也。敗亡之不察，何也？
Someone says: What minister and ruler bestow is a matter of portions. That a minister can take his ruler's place away comes of the two leaning upon each other. So the man who takes what is not his portion is one the multitude takes from, and the man who declines his portion and then takes is one the people give to. Thus Jie sought the woman of Mount Min and Zhou sought the heart of Bi Gan, and the world left them. Tang changed his own name and King Wu took abuse upon himself, and all within the seas submitted. Zhao Xuan fled to the hills and the Tian clan served abroad as servants, and Qi and Jin followed them. Then the reason Tang and King Wu reigned as kings, and the reason Qi and Jin stood, was not that they played the ruler. They gained it first, and afterward held a ruler's place in it. Now a man has nothing by which he has gained it, and yet he acts out the place he would hold. This is to turn right upside down and to go against virtue. When right is turned upside down, that is how affairs are ruined. When virtue is gone against, that is how resentment gathers. Why does he not look closely at ruin and loss?
魯陽虎欲攻三桓，不尅而犇齊，景公禮之。鮑文子諫曰：「不可。陽虎有寵於季氏而欲伐於季孫，貪其富也。今君富於季孫，而齊大於魯，陽虎所以盡詐也。」景公乃囚陽虎。
Yang Hu of Lu wished to attack the three Huan clans. He did not prevail and fled to Qi, and Duke Jing treated him with courtesy. Bao Wenzi remonstrated and said, "This will not do. Yang Hu was favored by the Ji clan and still wished to strike at Jisun, because he coveted their wealth. Now your lordship is wealthier than Jisun, and Qi is greater than Lu. This is why Yang Hu will use every deceit." Duke Jing then put Yang Hu in prison.
或曰：千食之家，其子不仁，人之急利甚也。桓公，五伯之上也，爭國而殺其兄，其利大也。臣主之間，非兄弟之親也。劫殺之功，制萬乘而享大利，則羣臣孰非陽虎也？事以微巧成，以踈拙敗。羣臣之未起難也，其備未具也。羣臣皆有陽虎之心，而君上不知，是微而巧也。陽虎貪，知於天下，以欲攻上，是䟽而拙也。不使景公加誅於齊之巧臣，而使加誅於拙虎，是鮑文子之說反也。臣之忠詐，在君所行也。君明而嚴，則羣臣忠；君懦而闇，則羣臣詐。知微之謂明，無救赦之謂嚴。不知齊之巧臣而誅魯之成亂，不亦妄乎？
Someone says: In a household that eats a thousand measures the sons are not humane, so hard do men press after profit. Duke Huan was the first of the five hegemons, and he fought for the state and killed his elder brother, because the profit was great. Between minister and ruler there is not the closeness of brothers. If by the merit of coercing and killing a man can control ten thousand chariots and enjoy a great profit, then which of the host of ministers is not a Yang Hu? Affairs are accomplished by the minute and the artful, and ruined by the coarse and the clumsy. That the host of ministers have not yet raised a revolt is because their preparations are not complete. All the host of ministers have the heart of a Yang Hu and the ruler does not know it. This is the minute and the artful. Yang Hu's greed was known to the world, and still he wished to attack his superior. This is the coarse and the clumsy. To have Duke Jing put no artful minister of Qi to death, and put the clumsy Hu to death, is Bao Wenzi's argument turned about. Whether ministers are loyal or deceitful lies in what the ruler does. When the ruler is clear-sighted and stern, the host of ministers are loyal. When the ruler is soft and dark, the host of ministers deceive. To know the minute is called being clear-sighted. To have no saving and no pardon is called being stern. Not to know the artful ministers of Qi, and to put to death the man who brought disorder to its full growth in Lu, is that not reckless?
或曰：仁貪不同心。故公子目夷辭宋，而楚商臣弑父；鄭去疾予弟，而魯桓弑兄。五伯兼并，而以桓律人，則是皆無貞廉也。且君明而嚴，則羣臣忠。陽虎爲亂於魯，不成而走，入齊而不誅，是承爲亂也。君明則誅，知陽虎之可以濟亂也，此見微之情也。語曰：「諸侯以國爲親。」君嚴則陽虎之罪不可失，此無救赦之實也，則誅陽虎，所以使羣臣忠也。未知齊之巧臣而廢明亂之罰，責於未然而不誅昭昭之罪，此則妄矣。今誅魯之罪亂以威羣臣之有姦心者，而可以得季、孟、叔孫之親，鮑文之說，何以爲反？
Someone says: Humanity and greed are not the same heart. So Prince Muyi declined Song, while Shangchen of Chu killed his father. Quji of Zheng gave way to his younger brother, while Duke Huan of Lu killed his elder brother. The five hegemons annexed and swallowed up others, and if men are measured by Duke Huan then none of them has uprightness or purity. Moreover, when the ruler is clear-sighted and stern the host of ministers are loyal. Yang Hu raised a revolt in Lu, did not accomplish it, fled, and entered Qi. Not to put him to death is to countenance the raising of revolts. A clear-sighted ruler puts him to death. To know that Yang Hu is a man who can bring disorder to its full growth is the feeling of seeing the minute. An old saying goes, "The feudal lords take their states for kin." When the ruler is stern, Yang Hu's crime cannot be let slip. This is the substance of having no saving and no pardon. Then to put Yang Hu to death is the way to make the host of ministers loyal. To set aside the punishment for clear and open disorder because one does not know the artful ministers of Qi, and to call men to account for what has not yet come about while not putting a plain crime to death, that is what is reckless. Now by putting to death the man who made crime and disorder in Lu, one overawes those among the host of ministers who have treacherous hearts, and by this one may gain the goodwill of the Ji and the Meng and the Shusun. How is Bao Wenzi's argument turned about?
鄭伯將以高渠彌爲卿，昭公惡之，固諫不聽。及昭公即位，懼其殺己也，辛卯，弑昭公而立子亶也。君子曰：「昭公知所惡矣。」公子圉曰：「高伯其爲戮乎，報惡已甚矣。」
The ruler of Zheng was about to make Gao Qumi a high minister. Duke Zhao hated it and remonstrated firmly, but he was not listened to. When Duke Zhao ascended the throne, Gao Qumi feared that he would be killed, and on the day xinmao he killed Duke Zhao and set up Zidan. A gentleman said, "Duke Zhao knew what to hate." Prince Yu said, "Gao Bo will surely be put to death. His repaying of hatred went much too far."
或曰：公子圉之言也，不亦反乎？昭公之及於難者，報惡晚也。然則高伯之晚於死者，報惡甚也。明君不懸怒，懸怒，則罪臣輕舉以行計，則人主危。故靈臺之飲，衛侯怒而不誅，故褚師作難；食黿之羮，鄭君怒而不誅，故子公殺君。君子之舉「知所惡」，非甚之也，曰：知之若是其明也，而不行誅焉，以及於死。故「知所惡」，以見其無權也。人君非獨不足於見難而已，或不足於斷制；今昭公見惡，稽罪而不誅，使渠彌含憎懼死以徼幸，故不免於殺，是昭公之報惡不甚也。
Someone says: Are Prince Yu's words not the other way round? Duke Zhao came to his trouble because his repaying of hatred was late. Then Gao Bo was late in dying because his repaying of hatred went far. The clear-sighted ruler does not leave his anger hanging. When anger is left hanging, the guilty minister rises lightly and carries out his schemes, and the ruler is in danger. So at the drinking on the Ling Terrace the lord of Wei was angry and put no one to death, and Chushi raised a revolt. In the matter of the tortoise soup the ruler of Zheng was angry and put no one to death, and Zigong killed his ruler. When the gentleman brought up "he knew what to hate," it was not to say that it went too far. It was to say that his knowing was as clear as this, and still he carried out no death sentence, and so came to be killed. So "he knew what to hate" shows that he had no weight of judgment. A ruler falls short not only in seeing trouble. He may fall short in cutting a thing off and settling it. Now Duke Zhao saw the hateful thing, put the crime off and did not carry out death, and so made Qumi hold his hatred in and fear death and look to a lucky chance. So he did not escape being killed. In this Duke Zhao's repaying of hatred did not go far enough.
或曰：報惡甚者，大誅報小罪。大誅報小罪也者，獄之至也。獄之患，故非在所以誅也，以讎之衆也。是以晉厲公滅三郄而欒、中行作難，鄭子都殺伯咺而食鼎起禍，吳王誅子胥而越勾踐成霸。則衛侯之逐，鄭靈之弑，不以褚師之不死而公父之不誅也，以未可以怒而有怒之色，未可誅而有誅之心。怒其當罪，而誅不逆人心，雖懸奚害？夫未立有罪，即位之後，宿罪而誅，齊胡之所以滅也。君行之臣，猶有後患，況爲臣而行之君乎？誅既不當，而以盡爲心，是與天下爲讎也。則雖爲戮，不亦可乎！
Someone says: To say that a man's repaying of hatred went far is to say that he repaid a small crime with a great death sentence. To repay a small crime with a great death sentence is the extreme of criminal judgment. The trouble of criminal judgment does not lie in the ground for putting to death. It lies in the many enemies it makes. Thus when Duke Li of Jin wiped out the three Xi, the Luan and the Zhonghang raised a revolt. When Zidu of Zheng killed Bo Xuan, the affair of the eating at the cauldron brought on disaster. When the king of Wu put Zixu to death, Goujian of Yue accomplished his hegemony. Then the driving out of the lord of Wei and the killing of Duke Ling of Zheng did not come of Chushi's not being put to death or of Gongfu's not being put to death. They came of a look of anger where there was nothing to be angry at, and a heart to put to death where there was nothing to put to death for. If the anger fits the crime, and the death sentence does not go against the hearts of men, what harm is there even in leaving it hanging? Now when a man has a crime before a ruler is set up, and after the ruler ascends the throne he is put to death for the old crime, this is why Duke Hu of Qi was wiped out. When a ruler does this to a minister there is still trouble afterward. How much more when a minister does it to a ruler? When the putting to death is already unfitting, and a man makes it his heart to wipe them all out, this is to make an enemy of the world. Then though he be put to death, is that not fitting?
衛靈公之時，彌子瑕有寵，專於衛國。侏儒有見公者曰：「臣之夢淺矣。」公曰：「奚夢？」「夢見竈者，爲見公也。」公怒曰：「吾聞見人主者夢見日，奚爲見寡人而夢見竈乎？」侏儒曰：「夫日兼照天下，一物不能當也；人君兼照一國，一人不能壅也，故將見人主而夢日也。夫竈，一人煬焉，則後人無從見矣。或者一人煬君邪？則臣雖夢竈，不亦可乎？」公曰：「善。」遂去雍鉏，退彌子瑕，而用司空狗。
In the time of Duke Ling of Wei, Mi Zixia was favored and had the state of Wei to himself. A dwarf who had an audience with the duke said, "Your servant's dream was a shallow one." The duke said, "What did you dream?" "To see a cooking stove in my dream was the sign that I would see your lordship." The duke was angry and said, "I hear that a man who is to see a ruler dreams of the sun. Why is it that you see me and yet dreamed of a cooking stove?" The dwarf said, "The sun shines over the whole world at once, and no one thing can stand in its way. The ruler shines over a whole state at once, and no one man can dam him up. So a man who is to see a ruler dreams of the sun. Now with a cooking stove, if one man warms himself before it, those behind him have no way of seeing it. May it not be that one man is warming himself before your lordship? Then though your servant dreamed of a cooking stove, is that not fitting?" The duke said, "Good." He then got rid of Yong Chu, put Mi Zixia aside, and used Gou, the minister of works.
或曰：侏儒善假於夢以見主道矣，然靈公不知侏儒之言也。去雍鉏，退彌子瑕，而用司空狗者，是去所愛而用所賢也。鄭子都賢慶建而壅焉，燕子噲賢子之而壅焉。夫去所愛而用所賢，未免使一人煬己也。不肖者煬主，不足以害明；今不加知而使賢者煬己，則必危矣。
Someone says: The dwarf made good use of a dream and showed the way of a ruler, but Duke Ling did not understand the dwarf's words. To get rid of Yong Chu, put Mi Zixia aside and use Gou, the minister of works, is to get rid of the man he loved and use the man he called worthy. Zidu of Zheng called Qing Jian worthy and was dammed up by him. Zikuai of Yan called Zizhi worthy and was dammed up by him. Now to get rid of the man one loves and use the man one calls worthy does not escape letting one man warm himself before oneself. When an unfit man warms himself before the ruler, that is not enough to harm his light. But if he adds nothing to his knowing and lets the man he calls worthy warm himself before him, he will surely be in danger.
或曰：屈到嗜芰，文王嗜菖蒲葅，非正味也，而二賢尚之，所味不必美。晉靈侯說參無恤，燕噲賢子之，非正士也，而二君尊之，所賢不必賢也。非賢而賢用之，與愛而用之同。賢誠賢而舉之，與用所愛異狀。故楚莊舉孫叔而霸，商辛用費仲而滅，此皆用所賢而事相反也。燕噲雖舉所賢，而同於用所愛，衛奚距然哉？則侏儒之未可見也。君壅而不知其壅也，已見之後而知其壅也，故退壅臣，是加知之也。曰「不加知而使賢者煬己則必危」，而今以加知矣，則雖煬己，必不危矣。
Someone says: Qu Dao was fond of water chestnuts and King Wen was fond of pickled sweet flag. These are not the proper tastes, and yet two worthy men prized them. What a man takes for a taste is not necessarily fine. Marquis Ling of Jin was pleased with Can Wuxu, and Zikuai of Yan called Zizhi worthy. These were not proper gentlemen, and yet two rulers honored them. What a man calls worthy is not necessarily worthy. To call a man worthy who is not worthy and to use him is the same as loving a man and using him. To raise up a man who is truly worthy is another shape of thing from using the man one loves. So King Zhuang of Chu raised up Sunshu Ao and became hegemon, and Xin of Shang used Fei Zhong and was wiped out. In both a ruler used the man he called worthy, and the outcome was the opposite. Though Zikuai of Yan raised up the man he called worthy, it was the same as using the man he loved. How would Wei get clear of this? Then the dwarf's words too are not worth looking at. The ruler was dammed up and did not know that he was dammed up. After it had been shown to him he knew that he was dammed up, and so he put aside the minister who dammed him. This is adding to his knowing. It was said that if he adds nothing to his knowing and lets the man he calls worthy warm himself before him he will surely be in danger. But now he has added to his knowing, so though a man warm himself before him, he will surely not be in danger.