Feihan — Criticizing Han Fei非韓篇
韓子之術，明法尚功。賢，無益於國不加賞；不肖，無害於治不施罰。責功重賞，任刑用誅。故其論儒也，謂之「不耕而食」，比之於一蠹，論有益與無益也。比之於鹿馬，馬之似鹿者千金，天下有千金之馬，無千金之鹿。鹿無益，馬有用也。儒者猶鹿，有用之吏猶馬也。
Hanzi's method makes the law clear and exalts achievement. If a man is worthy but brings no gain to the state, no reward is added to him; if he is unworthy but does no harm to government, no punishment is applied to him. It demands achievement and makes reward heavy; it entrusts matters to punishment and uses execution. So when he discusses Confucian scholars he calls them men who "eat without plowing" and likens them to a single grub, and by this he discusses what is of use and what is of no use. He likens them to deer and horses: a horse that resembles a deer is worth a thousand gold, and under Heaven there are horses worth a thousand gold but no deer worth a thousand gold. The deer is of no use; the horse has its use. Confucian scholars are like the deer, and useful clerks are like the horse.
夫韓子知以鹿馬喻，不知以冠履譬。使韓子不冠，徒履而朝，吾將聽其言也。加冠於首而立於朝，受無益之服，增無益之（仕）〔行〕，言與服相違，行與術相反，吾是以非其言而不用其法也。煩勞人體，無益於人身，莫過跪拜。使韓子逢人不拜，見君父不謁，未必有賊於身體也。然須拜謁以尊親者，禮義至重，不可失也。故禮義在身，身未必肥；而禮義去身，身未必瘠而化衰。以謂有益，禮義不如飲食。使韓子賜食君父之前，不拜而用，肯為之乎？夫拜謁，禮義之效，非益身之實也。然而韓子終不失者，不廢禮義以苟益也。夫儒生，禮義也；耕戰，飲食也。貴耕戰而賤儒生，是棄禮義求飲食也。
Now Hanzi knew how to draw his figure from deer and horses, but he did not know how to draw one from cap and shoes. If Hanzi wore no cap and came to court barefoot, I would listen to his words. But he sets a cap on his head and stands at court, receives a garment of no use and adds conduct of no use, so that his words and his garment run against each other and his conduct and his method are opposite. This is why I call his words wrong and do not use his law. Nothing troubles and wearies a man's body, and brings no gain to a man's body, more than kneeling and bowing. If Hanzi met a man and did not bow, and saw his lord or his father and did not pay his respects, no harm would necessarily come to his body. Yet one must bow and pay respects to honor one's elders, because the rites and righteousness are of the utmost weight and cannot be lost. So when the rites and righteousness are in the body, the body does not necessarily grow fat; and when the rites and righteousness leave the body, the body does not necessarily grow lean, but the teaching declines. If gain is the measure, the rites and righteousness are not equal to food and drink. If Hanzi were given food before his lord or his father, would he be willing to take it without bowing? Bowing and paying respects are the fruit of the rites and righteousness; they are not a substance that adds to the body. Yet the reason Hanzi in the end does not lose them is that he does not abolish the rites and righteousness to snatch at gain. Now Confucian scholars are the rites and righteousness; plowing and fighting are food and drink. To value plowing and fighting and to hold Confucian scholars cheap is to cast away the rites and righteousness and seek food and drink.
使禮義廢，綱紀敗，上下亂而陰陽繆，水旱失時，五谷不登，萬民飢死，農不得耕，士不得戰也。子貢去告朔之餼羊，孔子曰：「賜也，爾愛其羊，我愛其禮。」子貢惡費羊，孔子重廢禮也。故以舊防為無益而去之，必有水災；以舊禮為無補而去之，必有亂患。
If the rites and righteousness are abolished and the bonds of order break down, then high and low fall into disorder and yin and yang go awry, flood and drought lose their season, the five grains do not ripen, and the ten thousand people starve to death, so that the farmer cannot plow and the gentleman cannot fight. When Zigong wished to do away with the sacrificial sheep of the new moon announcement, Confucius said, "Ci, you love the sheep, but I love the rite." Zigong hated the wasting of the sheep, and Confucius held the abolishing of the rite to be the weightier thing. So if an old dike is thought to be of no use and is taken away, there is sure to be a disaster of water; and if an old rite is thought to add nothing and is taken away, there is sure to be the trouble of disorder.
儒者之在世，禮義之舊防也，有之無益，無之有損。庠序之設，自古有之。重本尊始，故立官置吏。官不可廢，道不可棄。儒生，道官之吏也，以為無益而廢之，是棄道也。夫道無成效於人，成效者須道而成。然足蹈路而行，所蹈之路，須不蹈者。身須手足而動，待不動者。故事或無益而益者須之，無效而效者待之。儒生，耕戰所須待也，棄而不存，如何也？
The presence of Confucian scholars in the world is the old dike of the rites and righteousness: with them there is no added gain, but without them there is loss. The founding of schools has been there from ancient times. Because the root is held weighty and the beginning honored, offices are set up and clerks appointed. The office cannot be abolished and the Way cannot be cast away. The Confucian scholar is the officer of the Way, and to abolish him as being of no use is to cast away the Way. Now the Way has no finished fruit in men, yet what brings fruit to completion waits upon the Way to be completed. So the foot treads the road and walks, and the road that is trodden needs what is not trodden. The body moves by hand and foot, and it waits upon what does not move. Therefore some things are of no use, yet what is of use needs them; they bear no fruit, yet what bears fruit waits upon them. Confucian scholars are what plowing and fighting need and wait upon. To cast them away and not keep them, how can that be?
韓子非儒，謂之無益有損，蓋謂俗儒無行操，舉措不重禮，以儒名而俗行，以實學而偽說，貪官尊榮，故不足貴。夫志潔行顯，不徇爵祿，去卿相之位若脫者，居位治職，功雖不立，此禮義為業者也。國之所以存者，禮義也。民無禮義，傾國危主。今儒者之操，重禮愛義，率無禮義士，激無義之人。人民為善，愛其主上，此亦有益也。聞伯夷風者，貪夫廉，懦夫有立志；聞柳下惠風者，薄夫敦，鄙夫寬。此上化也，非人所見。
When Hanzi called Confucian scholars wrong and said that they are of no use and bring loss, what he meant was most likely the vulgar Confucian, who has no bearing, whose movements do not hold the rites weighty, who wears the name of a Confucian and behaves in the vulgar way, who uses solid learning for false talk, who covets office and exalts glory, and who therefore is not worth valuing. But the man whose aim is clean and whose conduct is manifest, who does not follow after rank and salary, who lays down the seat of a minister as one slips off a shoe, such a man, while he holds his place and governs his duties, may raise up no achievement, yet he is one who makes the rites and righteousness his work. What preserves a state is the rites and righteousness. When the people have no rites and righteousness, the state is overturned and the ruler endangered. Now the bearing of the Confucian holds the rites weighty and loves righteousness; he leads the gentlemen who have no rites and righteousness and stirs the men who have no righteousness. The people do good and love their ruler above, and in this too there is gain. Among those who heard of the manner of Boyi, the covetous man became upright and the weak man set up a purpose; among those who heard of the manner of Liuxia Hui, the mean man grew generous and the base man grew broad. This is the teaching from above, and it is not what men see.
段干木闔門不出，魏文敬之，表式其閭，秦軍聞之，卒不攻魏。使魏無干木，秦兵入境，境土危亡。秦，強國也，兵無不勝，兵加於魏，魏國必破，三軍兵頓，流血千里。今魏文式闔門之士，卻強秦之兵，全魏國之境，濟三軍之眾，功莫大焉，賞莫先焉。齊有高節之士，曰狂譎、華士，二人昆弟也，義不降志，不仕非其主。太公封於齊，以此二子解沮齊眾，開不為上用之路，同時誅之。韓子善之，以為二子無益而有損也。
Duan Ganmu shut his gate and did not come out, and Marquis Wen of Wei revered him and bowed toward his village; the army of Qin heard of it and in the end did not attack Wei. Had Wei not had Ganmu, the soldiers of Qin would have entered its borders and the land within the borders would have been endangered and lost. Qin was a strong state whose soldiers never failed to win; had its soldiers been set upon Wei, Wei would surely have been broken, the soldiers of the three armies would have been cut down, and blood would have flowed for a thousand li. Now Marquis Wen of Wei bowed to a gentleman behind a shut gate, drove back the soldiers of strong Qin, kept whole the borders of Wei, and saved the host of the three armies. No achievement is greater than this, and no reward should come before it. In Qi there were gentlemen of lofty principle called Kuangjue and Huashi. The two men were brothers, and out of righteousness they did not bend their purpose and did not serve one who was not their own lord. When the Grand Duke was enfeoffed in Qi, he held that these two men loosened and scattered the host of Qi and opened a road of not being used by those above, and he put them both to death at the same time. Hanzi thought well of this and held that the two men were of no use and brought loss.
夫狂譎、華士，段干木之類也，太公誅之，無所卻到；魏文侯式之，卻強秦而全魏。功孰大者？使韓子善干木闔門高節，魏文式之，是也；狂譎、華士之操，干木之節也，善太公誅之，非也。使韓子非干木之行，下魏文之式，則干木以此行而有益，魏文用式之道為有功；是韓子不賞功、尊有益也。
Now Kuangjue and Huashi were of the same kind as Duan Ganmu. The Grand Duke put them to death and drove nothing back; Marquis Wen of Wei bowed toward Ganmu and drove back strong Qin and kept Wei whole. Whose achievement is the greater? If Hanzi thinks well of Ganmu's lofty principle in shutting his gate and holds Marquis Wen right in bowing toward him, then, since the bearing of Kuangjue and Huashi was the principle of Ganmu, to think well of the Grand Duke's putting them to death is wrong. And if Hanzi calls Ganmu's conduct wrong and puts down Marquis Wen's bowing, then Ganmu was of use by this conduct and Marquis Wen had achievement by using the way of bowing; so Hanzi neither rewards achievement nor honors what is of use.
論者或曰：「魏文式段干木之閭，秦兵為之不至，非法度之功；一功特然，不可常行，雖全國有益，非所貴也。」夫法度之功者，謂何等也？養三軍之士，明賞罰之命，嚴刑峻法，富國強兵，此法度也。案秦之強，肯為此乎？六國之亡，皆滅於秦兵。六國之兵非不銳，士眾之力非不勁也，然而不勝，至於破亡者，強弱不敵，眾寡不同，雖明法度，其何益哉？使童子變孟賁之意，孟賁怒之，童子操刃與孟賁戰，童子必不勝，力不如也。孟賁怒，而童子修禮盡敬，孟賁不忍犯也。秦之與魏，孟賁之與童子也。魏有法度，秦必不畏，猶童子操刃，孟賁不避也。其尊士式賢者之閭，非徒童子修禮盡敬也。夫力少則修德，兵強則奮威。秦以兵強，威無不勝，卻軍還眾，不犯魏境者，賢干木之操，高魏文之禮也。夫敬賢，弱國之法度，力少之強助也。謂之非法度之功，如何？高皇帝議欲廢太子，呂后患之，即召張子房而取策，子房教以敬迎四皓而厚禮之，高祖見之，心消意沮，太子遂安。使韓子為呂后議，進不過強諫，退不過勁力。以此自安，取誅之道也，豈徒易哉？夫太子敬厚四皓以消高帝之議，猶魏文式段干木之閭，卻強秦之兵也。
Some who argue say, "That Marquis Wen of Wei bowed toward Duan Ganmu's village and the soldiers of Qin did not come on that account was not the achievement of law and measure. It was one achievement standing alone and cannot be practiced always; though the state was kept whole and there was gain, it is not a thing to be valued." Now what is meant by the achievement of law and measure? To rear the soldiers of the three armies, to make clear the commands of reward and punishment, to make punishments strict and laws severe, to enrich the state and strengthen the soldiers, this is law and measure. But consider the strength of Qin: would it be willing to face this? The fall of the six states was in every case a destruction by the soldiers of Qin. It was not that the soldiers of the six states were not keen, nor that the strength of their hosts was not stout; yet they did not win and came to be broken and destroyed, because strong and weak were not matched and many and few were not the same. Though they made law and measure clear, what gain was there in it? Suppose a child changes the mind of Meng Ben and Meng Ben grows angry; if the child takes up a blade and fights Meng Ben, the child will surely not win, for his strength is less. But if Meng Ben grows angry and the child mends his rites and gives full reverence, Meng Ben cannot bear to offend him. Qin and Wei are Meng Ben and the child. Though Wei had law and measure, Qin would surely not fear it, just as Meng Ben does not stand aside when the child takes up a blade. To honor gentlemen and bow toward the village of a worthy man is not merely the child mending his rites and giving full reverence. Now when strength is small one mends one's virtue, and when soldiers are strong one shakes out one's awe. Qin, whose soldiers were strong and whose awe never failed to win, drew back its army and turned its host home and did not offend the borders of Wei, because it held Ganmu's bearing worthy and honored the rites of Marquis Wen. To revere the worthy is the law and measure of a weak state and the strong help of one whose strength is small. To call this no achievement of law and measure, how can that be? The High Emperor deliberated and wished to set aside the crown prince, and Empress Lü was troubled by it and at once called Zhang Zifang and took his plan. Zifang taught her to greet the Four Elders with reverence and to treat them with rich rites; when Gaozu saw them, his heart melted away and his purpose was broken, and the crown prince was at last secure. Had Hanzi laid the plan for Empress Lü, in going forward he would have gone no further than forceful remonstrance, and in drawing back no further than stout strength. To seek one's own safety by this is the road to being put to death; how could it be easy? Now the crown prince's revering the Four Elders and treating them richly, and so melting away the High Emperor's deliberation, is like Marquis Wen of Wei bowing toward Duan Ganmu's village and driving back the soldiers of strong Qin.
治國之道，所養有二：一曰養德，二曰養力。養德者，養名高之人，以示能敬賢；養力者，養氣力之士，以明能用兵。此所謂文武張設，德力（且）〔具〕足者也，事或可以德懷，或可以力摧。外以德自立，內以力自備。慕德者不戰而服，犯德者畏兵而卻。徐偃王修行仁義，陸地朝者三十二國，強楚聞之，舉兵而滅之。此有德守，無力備者也。夫德不可獨任以治國，力不可直任以御敵也。韓子之術不養德，偃王之操不任力。二者偏駁，各有不足。偃王有無力之禍，知韓子必有無德之患。凡人稟性也，清濁貪廉，各有操行，猶草木異質，不可復變易也。狂譎、華士不仕於齊，猶段干木不仕於魏矣。性行清廉，不貪富貴，非時疾世，義不苟仕，雖不誅此人，此人行不可隨也。太公誅之，韓子是之，是謂人無性行，草木無質也。
In the way of governing a state there are two things to be reared: the first is the rearing of virtue, the second the rearing of strength. The rearing of virtue is to rear men of lofty name, to show that one can revere the worthy; the rearing of strength is to rear gentlemen of vigor, to make clear that one can use soldiers. This is what is called setting out the civil and the martial, so that virtue and strength are both complete and ample; for in affairs one may sometimes gather men in by virtue and sometimes break them by strength. Outside, one stands by virtue of oneself; inside, one is prepared by strength. He who longs after virtue submits without fighting; he who offends against virtue fears the soldiers and draws back. King Yan of Xu mended and practiced humaneness and righteousness, and thirty-two states came to his court over the land; strong Chu heard of it, raised its soldiers, and destroyed him. This is to have the guard of virtue and to lack the preparation of strength. Now virtue alone cannot be entrusted with the governing of a state, and strength alone cannot be entrusted with the warding off of an enemy. Hanzi's method does not rear virtue; King Yan's bearing did not entrust itself to strength. The two are one-sided and mixed, and each has what it lacks. Since King Yan had the calamity of having no strength, one knows that Hanzi must have the trouble of having no virtue. Now in the nature that men receive, the clear and the muddy, the covetous and the upright, each has its own bearing and conduct, just as grass and trees differ in substance and cannot be changed about again. That Kuangjue and Huashi did not serve in Qi is the same as Duan Ganmu not serving in Wei. Their nature and conduct were clear and upright, they did not covet wealth and rank, they called the times wrong and hated the age, and out of righteousness they would not serve for the sake of convenience. Even had these men not been put to death, their conduct could not have been followed. The Grand Duke put them to death and Hanzi calls it right; this is to say that men have no nature and conduct, and that grass and trees have no substance.
太公誅二子，使齊有二子之類，必不為二子見誅之故，不清其身；使無二子之類，雖養之，終無其化。堯不誅許由，唐民不皆處；武王不誅伯夷，周民不皆隱餓；魏文侯式段干木之閭，魏國不皆闔門。由此言之，太公不誅二子，齊國亦不皆不仕。何則？清廉之行，人所不能為也。夫人所不能為，養使為之，不能使勸；人所能為，誅以禁之，不能使止。然則太公誅二子，無益於化，空殺無辜之民。賞無功，殺無辜，韓子所非也。太公殺無辜，韓子是之，以韓子之術殺無辜也。夫執不仕者，未必有正罪也，太公誅之。如出仕未有功，太公肯賞之乎？賞須功而加，罰待罪而施。使太公不賞出仕未有功之人，則其誅不仕未有罪之民，非也；而韓子是之，失誤之言也。
The Grand Duke put the two men to death. If Qi had others of the same kind as the two men, they surely would not have failed to keep their persons clean because the two men had been put to death; and if there were none of their kind, then though such men were reared, in the end there would be no teaching from them. Yao did not put Xu You to death, and the people of Tang did not all live in retreat; King Wu did not put Boyi to death, and the people of Zhou did not all hide away and starve; Marquis Wen of Wei bowed toward Duan Ganmu's village, and the men of Wei did not all shut their gates. Speaking from this, had the Grand Duke not put the two men to death, Qi too would not have all refused to serve. Why is this? Because upright conduct is what men cannot do. Now what men cannot do cannot be urged on them by rearing those who do it; and what men can do cannot be stopped by putting men to death to forbid it. Then the Grand Duke's putting the two men to death was no gain to the teaching, and was the vain killing of guiltless people. To reward those without achievement and to kill the guiltless is what Hanzi calls wrong. The Grand Duke killed the guiltless and Hanzi calls it right, and this is to kill the guiltless by Hanzi's own method. Now one who holds fast to not serving has not necessarily any true crime, yet the Grand Duke put such men to death. If a man came out to serve and had as yet no achievement, would the Grand Duke be willing to reward him? Reward waits upon achievement to be added, and punishment waits upon crime to be applied. If the Grand Duke would not reward a man who came out to serve and had as yet no achievement, then his putting to death people who did not serve and had as yet no crime is wrong. Yet Hanzi calls it right, and these are words of error.
且不仕之民，性廉寡欲；好仕之民，性貪多利。利欲不存於心，則視爵祿猶糞土矣。廉則約省無極，貪則奢泰不止；奢泰不止，則其所欲不避其主。案古篡畔之臣，希清白廉潔之人。貪，故能立功；驕，故能輕生。積功以取大賞，奢泰以貪主位。太公遺此法而去，故齊有陳氏劫殺之患。太公之術，致劫殺之法也；韓子善之，是韓子之術亦危亡也。
Moreover, the people who do not serve are upright in nature and few in desire, while the people who love to serve are covetous in nature and full of profit. When profit and desire do not dwell in the heart, then one looks on rank and salary as on dung and earth. The upright man is sparing and stinting without end; the covetous man is extravagant without stopping; and when extravagance does not stop, what he desires does not spare even his own ruler. Consider the ministers of old who usurped and rebelled: clean and white and upright and pure men were rare among them. Because they were covetous they could raise up achievement; because they were proud they could hold life light. They piled up achievement to take great rewards, and they were extravagant so as to covet the ruler's seat. The Grand Duke left this law behind him and departed, and so Qi had the trouble of the Chen clan's coercion and killing. The Grand Duke's method is a law that brings on coercion and killing; and Hanzi calls it right, so Hanzi's method too is danger and ruin.
周公聞太公誅二子，非而不是，然而身執贄以下白屋之士。白屋之士，二子之類也，周公禮之，太公誅之，二子之操，孰為是者？宋人有御馬者不進，拔俞剄而棄之於溝中；又駕一馬，馬又不進，又剄而棄之於溝。是者三。以此威馬，至矣，然非王良之法也。王良登車，馬無罷駑。堯、舜治世，民無狂悖。王良馴馬之心，堯、舜順民之意。人同性，馬殊類也。王良能調殊類之馬，太公不能率同性之士。然則周公之所下白屋，王良之馴馬也；太公之誅二子，宋人之剄馬也。舉王良之法與宋人之操，使韓子平之，韓子必是王良而非宋人矣。王良全馬，宋人賊馬也。馬之賊，則不若其全；然則民之死，不若其生。使韓子非王良，自同於宋人，賊善人矣。如非宋人，宋人之術與太公同。非宋人，是太公，韓子好惡無定矣。
When the Duke of Zhou heard that the Grand Duke had put the two men to death, he called it wrong and did not call it right, and he himself took up gifts and humbled himself before the gentlemen of the plain cottages. The gentlemen of the plain cottages are of the same kind as the two men; the Duke of Zhou treated them with rites and the Grand Duke put them to death. In the bearing of the two men, which of them was right? There was a man of Song who drove a horse, and when it would not go forward he drew his blade and cut its throat and threw it into a ditch; and he harnessed another horse, and when the horse again would not go forward he again cut its throat and threw it into the ditch. He did so three times. To overawe a horse in this way is extreme, yet it is not the method of Wang Liang. When Wang Liang mounts the carriage, there is no horse that is worn out or dull. When Yao and Shun governed the age, there were no people who were mad and perverse. Wang Liang's heart in taming a horse is Yao and Shun's purpose in following the people. Men are one in nature; horses are a different kind. Wang Liang could train horses of a different kind, and the Grand Duke could not lead gentlemen of one nature with himself. Then the Duke of Zhou's humbling himself before the plain cottages is Wang Liang's taming of the horse, and the Grand Duke's putting the two men to death is the man of Song's cutting the horse's throat. Take up Wang Liang's method and the man of Song's deed and let Hanzi weigh them, and Hanzi will surely call Wang Liang right and the man of Song wrong. Wang Liang kept his horses whole; the man of Song harmed his horses. That a horse is harmed is not as good as its being whole; then that the people die is not as good as their living. If Hanzi calls Wang Liang wrong, he makes himself the same as the man of Song and harms good men. If he calls the man of Song wrong, the man of Song's method is the same as the Grand Duke's. To call the man of Song wrong and the Grand Duke right is to have no fixed liking and disliking in Hanzi.
治國猶治身也。治一身，省恩德之行，多傷害之操，則交党疏絕，恥辱至身。推治身以況治國，治國之道當任德也。韓子任刑獨以治世，是則治身之人任傷害也。韓子豈不知任德之為善哉？以為世衰事變，民心靡薄，故作法術，專意於刑也。夫世不乏於德，猶歲不絕於春也。謂世衰難以德治，可謂歲亂不可以春生乎？人君治一國，猶天地生萬物。天地不為亂歲去春，人君不以衰世屏德。孔子曰：「斯民也，三代所以直道而行也。」
Governing a state is like governing the body. In governing a single body, if one lessens the practice of kindness and virtue and does much of the deed of harming and injuring, then friends and companions grow distant and break off, and shame and disgrace come to one's person. Pushing out from the governing of the body to compare it with the governing of a state, the way of governing a state ought to be entrusted to virtue. Hanzi entrusts himself to punishment and would govern the age by that alone, and this is a man governing his body who entrusts himself to harming and injuring. How could Hanzi not know that entrusting oneself to virtue is good? He held that the age had declined and affairs had changed and the hearts of the people had grown thin, and so he made his law and method and set his whole mind on punishment. Now that the age is not wanting in virtue is like the year never being without its spring. If one says that the age has declined and is hard to govern by virtue, can one say that the year is disordered and cannot give birth in spring? The ruler who governs one state is like Heaven and earth giving birth to the ten thousand things. Heaven and earth do not take away spring because the year is disordered, and the ruler does not put virtue aside because the age has declined. Confucius said, "These same people are that by which the three dynasties walked the straight way."
周穆王之世，可謂衰矣，任刑治政，亂而無功，甫侯諫之，穆王存德，享國久長，功傳於世。夫穆王之治，初亂終治，非知昏於前，才妙於後也；前任蚩尤之刑，後用甫侯之言也。
The age of King Mu of Zhou may be called a declining one. He entrusted government to punishment, and there was disorder and no achievement; Marquis Fu remonstrated with him, and King Mu kept virtue, and his enjoyment of the state was long and lasting and his achievement was handed down to the age. Now that King Mu's rule was disordered at first and governed at the last was not because his knowledge was dark before and his talent subtle after; it was because before he entrusted himself to the punishments of Chiyou, and after he used the words of Marquis Fu.
夫治人不能舍恩，治國不能廢德，治物不能去春。韓子欲獨任刑用誅，如何？
Now in governing men one cannot cast away kindness, in governing a state one cannot abolish virtue, and in governing things one cannot do away with spring. Hanzi wished to entrust all to punishment and to use execution, and how can that be?
魯繆公問於子思曰：「吾聞龐是子不孝，不孝其行奚如？」子思對曰：「君子尊賢以崇德，舉善以勸民。若夫過行，是細人之所識也，臣不知也。」子思出，子服厲伯見，君問龐是子，子服厲伯對以其過，皆君（子）〔之〕所未曾聞。自是之後，君貴子思而賤子服厲伯。韓子聞之，以非繆公，以為明君求奸而誅之，子思不以奸聞，而厲伯以奸對，厲伯宜貴，子思宜賤。今繆公貴子思，賤厲伯，失貴賤之宜，故非之也。
Duke Mu of Lu asked Zisi, "I hear that Pang Shizi is unfilial. What is this unfilial conduct of his like?" Zisi answered, "The gentleman honors the worthy to exalt virtue and raises up the good to urge on the people. As for faulty conduct, that is what small men know; your servant does not know it." Zisi went out, and Zifu Libo came in to see the lord. The lord asked about Pang Shizi, and Zifu Libo answered with his faults, all of which the lord had never heard before. From this time on the lord held Zisi dear and Zifu Libo cheap. Hanzi heard of it and called Duke Mu wrong, holding that an enlightened ruler seeks out treachery and puts it to death; Zisi did not report treachery, while Libo answered with treachery, so Libo ought to have been held dear and Zisi cheap. Now Duke Mu held Zisi dear and Libo cheap and so lost what is fitting in dear and cheap, and this is why Hanzi called him wrong.
夫韓子所尚者，法度也。人為善，法度賞之；惡，法度罰之。雖不聞善惡於外，善惡有所制矣。夫聞惡不可以行罰，猶聞善不可以行賞也。非人不舉奸者，（非）韓子之術也。使韓子聞善，必將試之；試之有功，乃肯賞之。夫聞善不輒加賞，虛言未必可信也。若此，聞善與不聞，無以異也。夫聞善不輒賞，則聞惡不輒罰矣。聞善必試之，聞惡必考之。試有功乃加賞，考有驗乃加罰。虛聞空見，實試未立，賞罰未加。賞罰未加，善惡未定，未定之事，須術乃立。則欲耳聞之，非也。
Now what Hanzi exalts is law and measure. When a man does good, law and measure reward him; when he does evil, law and measure punish him. Though good and evil are not heard of from outside, good and evil have that which keeps them in check. Now that one cannot carry out punishment merely on hearing of evil is like not being able to carry out reward merely on hearing of good. To call wrong the man who does not bring treachery to light is Hanzi's method. If Hanzi heard of good, he would surely put it to the test, and only when the test showed achievement would he be willing to reward it. Now that he does not add reward at once upon hearing of good is because empty words cannot necessarily be trusted. If it is so, then hearing of good and not hearing of it are no different. Now if he does not reward at once upon hearing of good, then he does not punish at once upon hearing of evil. Hearing of good, he must test it; hearing of evil, he must examine it. Only when the test shows achievement is reward added; only when the examination shows proof is punishment added. When the hearing is empty and the seeing is void and the solid test is not yet set up, reward and punishment are not added. When reward and punishment are not added, good and evil are not yet settled; and a matter not yet settled waits upon method to be established. Then to wish to hear it with the ear is wrong.
鄭子產晨出，過東匠之宮，聞婦人之哭也，撫其仆之手而聽之。有間，使吏執而問之；手殺其夫者也。翼日，其仆問曰：「夫子何以知之？」子產曰：「其聲不慟。凡人於其所親愛也，知病而憂，臨死而懼，已死而哀。今哭夫已死，不哀而懼，是以知其有奸也。」韓子聞而非之，曰：「子產不亦多事乎！奸必待耳目之所及而後知之，則鄭國之得奸寡矣。不任典城之吏，察參伍之正，不明度量，待盡聰明、勞知慮而以知奸，不亦無術乎！」韓子之非子產，是也。其非繆公，非也。夫婦人之不哀，猶龐（捫）〔是〕子不孝也。非子產持耳目以知奸，獨欲繆公須問以定邪。子產不任典城之吏，而以耳〔聞〕定實；繆公亦不任吏，而以口問立誠。夫耳聞口問，一實也，俱不任吏，皆不參伍。厲伯之對不可以立實，猶婦人之哭不可以定誠矣。不可定誠，使吏執而問之。可以立實，不使吏考，獨信厲伯口以罪不考之奸，如何？
Zichan of Zheng went out at dawn and passed the house in Dongjiang, and hearing a woman weeping he laid his hand on his driver's hand and listened. After a while he sent a clerk to seize her and question her, and she had killed her husband with her own hand. The next day his driver asked, "How did you know it, master?" Zichan said, "Her voice was not grieving. Now toward those they hold dear, men are troubled when they know of illness, afraid when death draws near, and sorrowful when death has come. Now her husband was already dead, and she wept without sorrow and in fear, and by this I knew there was treachery in it." Hanzi heard of it and called it wrong, saying, "Is Zichan not a man of many affairs! If treachery must wait upon the reach of the ear and the eye before it is known, then Zheng will catch little treachery. Not to entrust it to the clerk in charge of the city, not to look into the correctness of cross-checking, not to make measure clear, but to wait upon exhausting one's wit and wearying one's thought and so to know treachery, is this not to be without method!" Hanzi's calling Zichan wrong is right; his calling Duke Mu wrong is wrong. Now the woman's not grieving is like Pang Shizi's being unfilial. He calls it wrong that Zichan used ear and eye to know treachery, yet for Duke Mu alone he wishes that the man should wait upon asking to settle wickedness. Zichan did not entrust it to the clerk in charge of the city but settled the fact by what his ear heard; Duke Mu too did not entrust it to a clerk but established the truth by what his mouth asked. Now hearing with the ear and asking with the mouth are one and the same fact: neither entrusted it to a clerk, and neither cross-checked. That Libo's answer cannot establish the fact is like the woman's weeping not being able to settle the truth. Since the truth could not be settled, Zichan sent a clerk to seize her and question her. To hold that the fact can be established, and not to have a clerk examine it, and alone to trust Libo's mouth and so punish a treachery not examined, how can that be?
韓子曰：「子思不以過聞，繆公貴之。子服厲伯以奸聞，繆公賤之。人情皆喜貴而惡賤，故季氏之亂成而不上聞。此魯君之所以劫也。」夫魯君所以劫者，以不明法度邪，以不早聞奸也？夫法度明，雖不聞奸，奸無由生；法度不明，雖日求奸，決其源鄣之以掌也。御者無銜，見馬且奔，無以制也。使王良持轡，馬無欲奔之心，御之有數也。今不言魯君無術，而曰「不聞奸」；不言〔不〕審法度，曰「不通下情」，韓子之非繆公也，與術意而相違矣。
Hanzi said, "Zisi did not report the fault, and Duke Mu held him dear. Zifu Libo reported the treachery, and Duke Mu held him cheap. It is the feeling of all men to delight in being held dear and to hate being held cheap, and so the disorder of the Ji clan came to completion and was not heard of above. This is why the lord of Lu was coerced." Now was the lord of Lu coerced because he did not make law and measure clear, or because he did not hear of treachery early? Now when law and measure are clear, then though treachery is not heard of, treachery has no road by which to arise; and when law and measure are not clear, then though treachery is sought day by day, it is like opening its source and blocking it with the palm of the hand. When the driver has no bit, he may see the horse about to bolt and have no means to check it. When Wang Liang holds the reins, the horse has no heart to bolt, because there is measure in his driving. Now Hanzi does not say that the lord of Lu was without method but says, "He did not hear of the treachery"; he does not say that the lord did not look into law and measure but says, "He did not get through to the feelings of those below." So Hanzi's calling Duke Mu wrong runs against the very meaning of his method.
龐（捫）〔〕是子不孝，子思不言。繆公貴之，韓子非之，以為明君求善而賞之，求奸而誅之。夫不孝之人，下愚之才也。下愚無禮，順情從欲，與鳥獸同，謂之惡，可也，謂奸，非也。奸人外善內惡，色厲內荏，作為操止象類賢行，以取升進，容媚於上，安肯作不孝、著身為惡以取棄殉之咎乎？龐（捫）〔〕是子可謂不孝，不可謂奸。韓子謂之奸，失奸之實矣。
Pang Shizi was unfilial, and Zisi did not speak of it. Duke Mu held Zisi dear, and Hanzi called this wrong, holding that an enlightened ruler seeks out the good and rewards it and seeks out treachery and puts it to death. Now the unfilial man is of the lowest and most foolish talent. The lowest and most foolish have no rites; they follow their feelings and chase their desires and are the same as birds and beasts. To call such a man evil is right; to call him treacherous is wrong. The treacherous man is good outside and evil within, stern in his looks and soft within; he shapes his bearing and his stopping to resemble worthy conduct so as to take advancement, and he fawns upon those above. How would he be willing to act unfilially and make his person manifest in evil, and so take upon himself the blame of being cast out? Pang Shizi may be called unfilial; he cannot be called treacherous. Hanzi calls him treacherous, and so loses the true substance of treachery.
韓子曰：「布帛尋常，庸人不擇；爍金百鎰，盜蹠不搏。」
Hanzi said, "A few feet of cloth and silk, and the common man does not pass them by; a hundred yi of molten metal, and Robber Zhi does not snatch at it."
以此言之，法明，民不敢犯也。設明法於邦，有盜賊之心，不敢犯矣；不測之者，不敢發矣。奸心藏於胸中，不敢以犯罪法，（罪）〔明〕法恐之也。明法恐之，則不須考奸求邪於下矣。使法峻，民無奸者；使法不峻，民多為奸。而不言明王之嚴刑峻法，而云求奸而誅之。言求奸，是法不峻，民或犯之也。世不專意於明法，而專心求奸。韓子之言，與法相違。
Speaking from this, when the law is clear the people do not dare to offend against it. Set clear law in the land, and the man who has the heart of a thief does not dare to offend, and the man who cannot be fathomed does not dare to stir. That a treacherous heart is hidden in the breast and yet does not dare to offend against crime and law is because clear law makes him afraid. If clear law makes him afraid, then there is no need to examine treachery and seek out wickedness among those below. Make the law severe, and the people have no treacherous men; let the law be not severe, and the people often do treachery. Yet he does not speak of the strict punishments and severe laws of an enlightened king, but says that treachery is sought out and put to death. To speak of seeking out treachery is to say that the law is not severe and the people sometimes offend against it. The age does not set its whole mind on making law clear, but sets its whole heart on seeking out treachery. Hanzi's words run against the law.
人之釋溝渠也，知者必溺身。不塞溝渠而繕船楫者，知水之性不可閼，其勢必溺人也。臣子之性欲奸君父，猶水之性溺人也。不教所以防奸，而非其不聞知，是猶不備水之具，而徒欲早知水之溺人也。溺於水，不責水而咎己者，己失防備也。然則人君劫於臣，己失法也。備溺不閼水源，防劫不求臣奸，韓子所宜用教己也。水之性勝火，如裹之以釜，水煎而不得勝，必矣。
When a man opens up his ditches and channels, one who knows will surely be drowned. He who does not block the ditches and channels but mends his boat and oars knows that the nature of water cannot be dammed and that its force will surely drown men. That it is the nature of ministers and sons to wish to work treachery against lord and father is like the nature of water drowning men. Not to teach the means of guarding against treachery, and to call it wrong that a man did not hear and know of it, is like not making ready the gear for water and merely wishing to know early that water drowns men. When a man is drowned in water, he does not blame the water but faults himself, because he himself lost his guard. Then when a ruler is coerced by his minister, he himself has lost his law. To guard against drowning without damming the water's source, and to ward off coercion without seeking out the minister's treachery, this is what Hanzi ought to have used to teach himself. The nature of water overcomes fire; but wrap it in a cauldron, and the water boils and cannot overcome, and this is certain.
夫君猶火也，臣猶水也，法度釜也。火不求水之奸，君亦不宜求臣之罪也。
Now the lord is like fire, the minister is like water, and law and measure are the cauldron. Fire does not seek out the treachery of water, and so the ruler too ought not to seek out the crimes of his ministers.