| | 非韓: |
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。 |
| | Han Zi's method emphasized clarity of law and valued merit. A virtuous person who does not benefit the state is not given a reward; An unworthy person who does no harm to governance is not punished. Responsibility for achievements brings heavy rewards, and the use of punishment serves execution. Therefore, in his discussion of Confucianism, he called it "eating without farming," comparing it to a pest; In discussing what is beneficial and what is not, he compared them to deer and horses. A horse that resembles a deer is worth a thousand gold, but in the world there are horses worth a thousand gold and no deer worth a thousand gold; this is because deer are of no benefit while horses are useful. Confucian scholars are like deer, whereas officials who are actually useful are like horses.
|
| | 非韓: |
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，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。使禮義廢，綱紀敗，上下亂而陰陽繆，水旱失時，五穀不登，萬民饑死，農不得耕，士不得戰也。 |
| | Han Zi knew to use the metaphor of deer and horses, but did not know to make an analogy with hats and shoes. If Han Zi were not wearing a hat, only barefoot going to court, I would listen to his words. Putting a hat on one's head and standing in court, accepting an unnecessary robe, adding to an unhelpful official position—his words contradict his attire, and his actions oppose his doctrine. This is why I reject his words and do not employ his methods. Nothing is more burdensome to the body or less beneficial to a person than kneeling and bowing. If Han Zi met people without bowing, saw his ruler or father without paying respects, it would not necessarily cause harm to his body. However, the need for bowing and paying respects in order to honor one's parents is of utmost importance in rites and righteousness; it cannot be neglected. Therefore, even if rites and righteousness are practiced by a person, the body does not necessarily become fatter; yet when rites and righteousness depart from a person, the body may not necessarily grow thinner or decay. To say that it is beneficial, rites and righteousness are less essential than food and drink. If Han Zi were given food in the presence of his ruler or father, would he dare to use it without bowing? Bowing and paying respects, the effects of rites and righteousness, are not actual benefits to the body; however, Han Zi never abandoned them because he did not discard rites and righteousness for selfish gain. Confucian scholars represent rites and righteousness, while farming and warfare represent food and drink. Valuing farming and warfare while despising Confucian scholars is to abandon rites and righteousness in pursuit of food and drink. If rites and righteousness were abandoned, the framework of order would collapse; hierarchy would be in chaos and yin-yang disrupted. Floods and droughts would occur at wrong times, five grains would fail to mature, all people would starve to death, farmers could not farm, and soldiers could not fight.
|
| | 非韓: |
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。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？ |
| | Zi Gong removed the sacrificial lamb for the announcement of the first day of each month; Confucius said, "Cai! You love the sheep, but I love the rites." Zi Gong disliked spending on the lamb; Confucius valued preserving the rites. Therefore, if one considers old defenses as useless and removes them, there will certainly be a flood disaster; if one deems ancient rites unnecessary and discards them, there will inevitably be chaos and calamity. Confucian scholars in the world are like ancient defenses for rites and righteousness; having them may not bring benefit, but lacking them causes harm. The establishment of schools has existed since ancient times; emphasizing the root and respecting the beginning is why officials are appointed and positions established. Officials cannot be abolished, and principles cannot be abandoned. Confucian scholars are officials who embody the Way; to consider them useless and abolish them is to abandon the Way itself. The Way does not produce immediate results for people, yet those who achieve results must rely on the Way to do so. Yet when one steps on a road and walks, the road being stepped upon requires parts that are not stepped on; the body needs hands and feet to move, relying on those that remain still. Therefore, some matters may appear useless, yet what is beneficial depends on them; some have no immediate effect, but those that do take effect depend on them. Confucian scholars are what farming and warfare rely upon; to abandon and eliminate them—how could this be?
|
| | 非韓: |
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，去卿相之位若脫躧者，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，率無禮之士，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。 |
| | Han Zi criticized Confucianism, calling it useless and harmful. This was because he considered vulgar Confucians to have no moral integrity, whose actions did not value rites; they bore the name of Confucians but acted in worldly ways, claiming practical learning yet spreading false doctrines, desiring official positions and honor—thus, they were not worth respecting. Those with pure aspirations and upright conduct, who do not pursue official rank or wealth, who abandon the position of high minister as if discarding slippers—such people, even though they may hold office and perform duties without achieving notable accomplishments, are those who take rites and righteousness as their vocation. The reason a state can endure is due to rites and righteousness. If the people lack rites and righteousness, the nation will collapse and the ruler will be in danger. Now, the conduct of Confucian scholars—valuing rites and loving righteousness—guides those who lack rites, inspires those without righteousness; when the people do good deeds and love their ruler, this is also beneficial. Those who hear of the example of Boyi become upright even greedy men, and timid individuals gain resolve; those who hear of Liu Xiaohui's virtue become sincere even shallow men, and vulgar people grow broad-minded. This is the influence from above, not something visible to ordinary people.
|
| | 非韓: |
叚干木闔門不出，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、彊國也，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，郤彊秦之兵，全魏國之境，濟三軍之眾，功莫大焉，賞莫先焉。 |
| | lords Jia Guanmu closed his door and did not go out; the King of Wei respected him, honoring his neighborhood. When the Qin army heard about it, they ultimately refrained from attacking Wei. If Wei had no Guanmu, when the Qin troops entered its territory, the borders and land would have been in danger of destruction. Qin was a powerful state; its army never lost a battle. If Qin's forces were deployed against Wei, the State of Wei would certainly be defeated, with the three armies halted in their tracks and bloodshed stretching for a thousand li. Now, King Wen of Wei honored a recluse who stayed behind closed doors; thus he repelled the powerful Qin army, preserved Wei's territory, and saved his three armies. No merit could be greater than this, nor any reward more urgent.
|
| | 非韓: |
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。 |
| | Qi had a man of high moral integrity named Kuangjue and Huashi. The two were brothers; they upheld righteousness, refused to lower their aspirations, and would not serve a ruler who was unworthy. When Tai Gong was enfeoffed in Qi, he considered these two men to be discouraging the people of Qi and opening a path for others not to serve their ruler. He executed them at the same time. Han Zi approved of this, believing that these two men were useless and harmful.
|
| | 非韓: |
夫狂譎、華士，叚干木之類也，太公誅之，無所郤到；魏文侯式之，郤彊秦而全魏，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。 |
| | Kuangjue and Huashi were of the same kind as Jia Guanmu; if Tai Gong had executed them, there would have been no way to resist Qin's invasion; King Wen of Wei honored such men and thus repelled the powerful army of Qin while preserving Wei. Whose merit was greater? If Han Zi praised Jia Guanmu for his high moral integrity and closed-door seclusion, then King Wen of Wei honoring such men was right. The conduct of Kuangjue and Huishi was the same as Jia Guanmu's virtue; yet to approve Tai Gong's execution of them is wrong. If Han Zi criticized Jia Guanmu's conduct and disapproved King Wen of Wei's example, then Jia Guanmu achieved benefit through his actions, and King Wen gained merit by following the right path. This would mean that Han Zi failed to reward merit or honor what was beneficial.
|
| | 非韓: |
論者或曰：「魏文式叚干木之閭，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，富國彊兵，此法度也。案秦之彊，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，彊弱不敵，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，而童子脩禮盡敬，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，兵彊則奮威。秦以兵彊，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，力少之彊助也。謂之非法度之功，如何？ |
| | Some commentators may say, "King Wen of Wei honored the neighborhood of Jia Guanmu, and because of this the Qin army did not come; it was not an achievement of laws and regulations. This one-time success happened by chance, cannot be replicated regularly, and even though the entire state benefited, it is not something to be valued." What exactly constitutes an achievement of laws and regulations? Providing for the soldiers of the three armies, clarifying rewards and punishments, enforcing strict laws and severe penalties, enriching the state and strengthening its military—this is what constitutes law and regulation. Considering Qin's strength, would it do such things? The fall of the six states was all due to the army of Qin. The armies of the six states were not lacking in sharpness, and their soldiers' strength was not weak. Yet they still lost, leading to their destruction—because Qin's power far exceeded theirs, and its numbers greatly outnumbered them. Even with clear laws and regulations, what benefit would that bring? If a child tried to change Meng Ben's mind, Meng Ben would become angry. If the child then took up a weapon and fought Meng Ben, the child would certainly lose—because his strength was no match for Meng Ben's. If Meng Ben became angry but the child observed rites and showed utmost respect, Meng Ben would not dare to offend him. Qin's relationship with Wei is like that of Meng Ben and the child. If Wei had laws and regulations, Qin would certainly not fear it—just as a child holding a weapon would not be avoided by Meng Ben. Honoring scholars and honoring the neighborhoods of virtuous men is not merely like a child observing rites and showing respect. When strength is weak, virtue must be cultivated; when military power is strong, might should be displayed. Qin, with its powerful army, had a reputation for invincibility. The reason the Qin forces withdrew and refrained from invading Wei's territory was due to Jia Guanmu's virtue and King Wen of Wei's high standards of rites. Respecting the virtuous is a form of law for a weak state, serving as an added strength when military power is lacking. To call this not an achievement of laws and regulation—how can that be?
|
| | 非韓: |
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，進不過彊諫，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，猶魏文式叚干木之閭，郤彊秦之兵也。 |
| | Emperor Gaozu once considered deposing the crown prince. Empress Lu was worried and immediately summoned Zhang Liang to seek a strategy. Zhang Liang advised her to respectfully welcome the Four Sages and treat them with great courtesy. When Emperor Gaozu saw this, his resolve wavered and he abandoned the idea; thus, the crown prince remained secure. If Han Zi had advised Empress Lu, he would have urged her to strongly remonstrate or rely on sheer force. To secure safety through such means would be a path leading only to punishment—how could it be so simple? The crown prince's respectful treatment of the Four Sages dispelled Emperor Gaozu's plan, just as King Wen of Wei honored Jia Guanmu and repelled Qin's powerful army.
|
| | 非韓: |
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，犯德者畏兵而郤。徐偃王脩行仁義，陸地朝者三十二國，彊楚聞之，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，二者偏駮，各有不足。偃王有無力之禍，知韓子必有無德之患。 |
| | The way to govern a state involves two kinds of cultivation: one is the cultivation of virtue, and the other is the cultivation of strength. Cultivating virtue means nurturing those with high reputations, to demonstrate the ability to respect the virtuous; Cultivating strength means nurturing warriors of physical prowess, to show the capacity for military use. This is what is meant by having both civil and martial preparations, with virtue and strength sufficiently provided. Some matters can be resolved through virtue, while others must be overcome through force. Externally, one establishes oneself through virtue; internally, one prepares for strength. Those who admire virtue will submit without battle, while those who defy virtue will fear the army and retreat. Xu Yanwang practiced benevolence and righteousness; thirty-two states on land came to pay homage. When the powerful state of Chu heard about this, it raised an army and destroyed Xu. This was a case where virtue was upheld but strength was lacking in preparation. Virtue alone cannot be relied upon to govern the state, nor can sheer force be directly depended on to repel enemies. Han Zi's methods neglected virtue; Xu Yanwang's conduct disregarded strength. Both approaches were one-sided and flawed, each lacking in completeness. Xu Yanwang suffered the misfortune of lacking strength; it is clear that Han Zi would also face the problem of lacking virtue.
|
| | 非韓: |
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，猶叚干木不仕於魏矣。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。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，唐民不皆樔處；武王不誅伯夷，周民不皆隱餓；魏文侯式叚干木之閭，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。 |
| | Generally, people are endowed with different natures; their clarity or coarseness, greed or integrity—each has its own conduct and character. This is like the inherent differences in plants and trees, which cannot be fundamentally changed. Kuangjue and Huishi did not serve Qi, just as Jia Guanmu did not serve Wei. Their nature and conduct were clean and upright, uninterested in wealth or rank. They did not hastily serve the world out of a sense of righteousness; even if such people are not executed, their actions cannot be followed. Tai Gong executed them and Han Zi approved of it; this would mean people have no inherent nature or conduct, just as plants and trees have no intrinsic qualities. Tai Gong executed the two men; if there were others in Qi with similar conduct, they would certainly not be punished for merely resembling these two and thus failing to purify themselves; if no one possessed such qualities in the first place, even if they were nurtured, there would ultimately be no transformation. Yao did not execute Xu You; thus, not all people of Tang became recluses in the mountains; King Wu did not execute Boyi; therefore, not all Zhou people chose to hide and starve. King Wen of Wei honored Jia Guanmar's neighborhood, yet the entire state of Wei did not become a place where everyone closed their doors. From this we can see that if Tai Gong had not executed the two men, then the entire state of Qi would not have become a place where no one served in office. Why is that? Because upright and clean conduct is something most people are unable to achieve. Since such conduct is beyond the capability of ordinary people, merely encouraging them to do so cannot lead to genuine emulation; and for things that people are capable of doing, punishing in order to prohibit it cannot truly stop such behavior. Therefore, Tai Gong's execution of the two men was of no benefit for moral transformation; it merely resulted in the killing of innocent people. Rewarding those without merit and killing the innocent are actions that Han Zi criticized. If Tai Gong killed the innocent, yet Han Zi approved of it, then according to Han Zi's method, one would kill the innocent.
|
| | 非韓: |
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。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；憍，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。 |
| | Those who chose not to serve in office were not necessarily guilty of any justifiable crime, yet Tai Gong executed them. If someone entered official service but had not yet achieved merit, would Tai Gong have rewarded him? Rewards must be given only after meritorious deeds are established, and punishments should be carried out only when crimes are committed. If Tai Gong did not reward those who entered office but had yet to achieve merit, then his execution of people who chose not to serve and were without crime would be wrong. Yet Han Zi approved of this, which is a mistaken statement. Moreover, those who did not seek office had inherently clean natures and few desires; those who sought official positions were by nature greedy for profit. If desires and interests do not dwell in one's heart, then titles and emoluments would be regarded as no more valuable than manure or dirt. Integrity leads to restraint and simplicity without excess, while greed results in endless luxury and indulgence. If indulgence has no limits, then their desires will not hesitate to challenge even the ruler. Examining ancient ministers who committed regicide or rebellion, one rarely finds those of clean and upright character. It is greed that enables them to achieve accomplishments; arrogance, therefore, makes them disregard their lives. They accumulate merit to gain great rewards and indulge in luxury with the aim of seizing the ruler's position. Tai Gong left behind this method, hence Qi suffered from the Tengshi clan's coup and killings. Tai Gong's method was a system that led to coups and assassinations. Han Zi endorsed it, which means Han Zi's own method is also one leading to danger and downfall.
|
| | 非韓: |
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，拔劍剄而棄之於溝中。又駕一馬，馬又不進，又剄而棄之於溝。若是者三。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。 |
| | Duke of Zhou heard that Tai Gong executed the two men, disapproved but did not openly oppose it; yet he himself presented gifts to show respect toward humble scholars in simple dwellings. Those scholars living in plain houses were of the same kind as those two men. Duke of Zhou treated them with courtesy, while Tai Gong executed them—whose conduct was correct in the case of these two men? A man from Song who managed horses found that his horse would not advance, so he drew a sword and beheaded it before casting the head into the ditch. He harnessed another horse, but this one also refused to advance; he beheaded it again and threw its head into the ditch. This happened three times in succession. With this method, he had certainly intimidated the horses to an extreme degree; yet it was not the method of Wang Liang. Wang Liang mounted his carriage and tamed even tired or inferior horses; Yao and Shun governed the world, and their people had no reckless or rebellious behavior. Wang Liang's method of taming horses reflected the hearts of Yao and Shun in guiding the people with gentleness and understanding. People share a common nature, while horses are different kinds of creatures. Wang Liang could manage and harmonize even the diverse types of horses, yet Tai Gong was unable to lead people who shared a similar nature. Therefore, Duke of Zhou's courtesy toward humble scholars is akin to Wang Liang's taming of horses; Tai Gong's execution of the two men is like that man from Song beheading his horse. If one were to present Wang Liang's method and that man from Song's conduct before Han Zi, Han Zi would certainly approve of Wang Liang but disapprove of the man from Song. Wang Liang preserved his horses; that man from Song was a horse thief. A person who harms horses is certainly inferior to one who preserves them; then, by the same token, people's deaths are certainly less desirable than their lives. If Han Zi were to disapprove of Wang Liang, he would be no different from that man from Song and would become a destroyer of virtuous people. If Han Zi disapproved of that man from Song, yet the method of that man and Tai Gong were similar, then to disapprove of that man would mean approving of Tai Gong. This shows that Han Zi's likes and dislikes are inconsistent.
|
| | 非韓: |
治國猶治身也。治一身，省恩德之行，多傷害之操，則交黨踈絕，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。 |
| | Governing a state is like governing one's own body. To govern oneself, if one neglects virtuous and benevolent conduct while indulging in harmful actions, then friendships will be severed and disgrace will come upon the person. Extending this analogy to governing a state, the way of governance should be to appoint people based on virtue. Han Zi relied solely on punishment for governing society; by this logic, a person managing their own life would rely entirely on harmful actions.
|
| | 非韓: |
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。」 |
| | Could Han Zi possibly not know that appointing based on virtue is good? He believed that the world had declined and circumstances changed, with people's hearts becoming corrupt and shallow; therefore, he devised legal methods and focused entirely on punishment. The world is not lacking in virtue, just as each year still has spring. To say that a declining age cannot be governed by virtue—can one then claim that during chaotic years spring cannot bring new life? A ruler governing a nation is like heaven and earth giving birth to myriad things. Heaven and earth do not abandon spring even in chaotic years, nor should a ruler exclude virtue during a declining age. Confucius said: "This people is the reason why the three dynasties were able to walk straight and upright paths."
|
| | 非韓: |
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。夫治人不能捨恩，治國不能廢德，治物不能去春，韓子欲獨任刑用誅，如何？ |
| | The time of King Mu of Zhou could be considered a declining era; yet when punishment was relied upon to govern, the result was chaos and no achievement. Fu Hou advised him, King Mu preserved virtue, enjoyed a long reign, and his achievements were passed down through the ages. lords King Mu's rule began with disorder and ended in order; this was not because he was ignorant at first but suddenly wise later, but rather because he initially relied on the punishments of Chiyou and later adopted Fu Hou's advice. To manage people, one cannot abandon kindness; to govern a state, one cannot discard virtue; to nurture things, one cannot eliminate spring. How then can Han Zi advocate relying solely on punishment and execution?
|
| | 非韓: |
魯繆公問於子思曰：「吾聞龐𢵧是子不孝。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。君問龐𢵧是子。子服厲伯對以其過，皆君子所未曾聞。自是之後，君貴子思而賤子服厲伯。韓子聞之，以非繆公，以為明君求姦而誅之，子思不以姦聞，而厲伯以姦對，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。 |
| | Lord Miu of Lu asked Zisi, "I have heard that Pang Shang is your son who was disrespectful to his parents. What kind of conduct did he possess?" Zisi replied, "A gentleman respects the virtuous to elevate virtue and promotes goodness to encourage the people. As for misconduct, that is what petty people recognize; I do not know about it." After Zisi left, Zi Fu Lübai was received. The ruler asked about Pang Shang's son. Zi Fu Lübai reported his misconduct, all of which were things a gentleman had never heard before. From then on, the ruler valued Zisi highly but looked down upon Zi Fu Lübai. Han Zi, upon hearing of this, criticized Lord Miu for being an enlightened ruler who should seek out evildoers and punish them. Zisi did not report the misconduct as evil, while Lübai did; therefore, Lübai should have been honored and Zisi devalued. Now Lord Miu honors Zisi but looks down on Lübai, which is contrary to the proper order of honor and disgrace; thus Han Zi criticizes him.
|
| | 非韓: |
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。非人不舉姦者，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。 |
| | What Han Zi values most is law and regulation. When people do good, the laws reward them; when they do evil, the laws punish them. Even if one does not personally hear of good or evil deeds from outside, there are still established rules to govern them. Hearing about an evil deed cannot justify immediate punishment, just as hearing about a good deed cannot justify instant reward. To criticize someone for not reporting evildoers is contrary to Han Zi's method. If Han Zi heard of a good deed, he would certainly test it first; only after the person proved meritorious through action would he approve of rewarding them. To hear of goodness and immediately bestow a reward is unwise, for empty words may not be trustworthy. In this way, hearing about good deeds or not hearing at all would make no difference. If one does not immediately reward upon hearing of goodness, then one should also not immediately punish upon hearing of evil. When one hears of good deeds, they must be tested; when one hears of evil deeds, they must be investigated. Rewards are given only after proven merit, and punishments are carried out only after verified guilt. Until unverified reports or appearances have been tested and no solid evidence established, rewards and punishments should not be applied. Before rewards and punishments are given, the nature of good and evil remains undetermined. Until such matters are determined through method, one cannot rely solely on what is heard with the ears—it would be wrong to do so.
|
| | 非韓: |
鄭子產晨出，過東匠之宮，聞婦人之哭也，撫其僕之手而聽之。有間，使吏執而問之，手殺其夫者也。翼日，其僕問曰：「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，是以知其有姦也。」韓子聞而非之曰：「子產不亦多事乎？姦必待耳目之所及而后知之，則鄭國之得姦寡矣。不任典城之吏，察參伍之正，不明度量，待盡聰明、勞知慮而以知姦，不亦無術乎？」 |
| | Zi Chan of Zheng went out early in the morning and passed by the eastern artisan's palace, where he heard a woman weeping. He placed his hand on his charioteer's arm to listen carefully. After a while, he ordered officials to arrest and question her, and it turned out she had killed her husband with her own hands. The next day, his charioteer asked, "How did you know this?" Zi Chan said, "Her weeping was not heartfelt. When people are faced with someone they love and care for, they feel worried upon learning of their illness, fearful when the person is about to die, and sorrowful after death. Now she weeps for her husband's death without genuine grief but with fear; this is why I knew there was something wrong." Han Zi heard of this and criticized it, saying, "Wasn't Zichan overstepping his bounds? If one must wait until a crime is within earshot or eyesight before knowing about it, then the State of Zheng would rarely catch criminals. To not entrust the officials in charge of law enforcement to investigate and verify through cross-checking, to not clarify standards and measurements, but instead rely entirely on one's own sharp intellect and tireless efforts to detect wrongdoing—is this not a failure to employ proper methods?"
|
| | 非韓: |
韓子之非子產，是也；其非繆公，非也。夫婦人之不哀，猶龐捫子不孝也。非子產持耳目以知姦，獨欲繆公須問以定邪。子產不任典城之吏，而以耳定實；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；不可以立實，不使吏考，獨信厲伯口，以罪不考之姦，如何？ |
| | Han Zi's criticism of Zichan is correct; his criticism of Duke Mu is wrong. A woman's lack of grief is akin to Pang Menzi's filial impiety. To criticize Zichan for relying on his senses to detect wrongdoing, yet demand that Duke Mu must wait and ask questions before making a judgment—this is inconsistent. Zi Chan did not entrust the law enforcement officials to determine facts, but relied on his ears alone to decide; Duke Mu also did not rely on officials, yet he established truth through questioning with words. Hearing with the ears and asking questions with the mouth are essentially the same method; both failed to entrust officials, and neither employed cross-verification. Lai Bo's response cannot establish facts any more than a woman's weeping can determine truth. Since it is impossible to determine truth, officials should be sent to arrest and interrogate the person; if one cannot establish facts, yet refuses to send officials for investigation, but instead solely believes Lai Bo's words and convicts an unexamined criminal—how can this be justified?
|
| | 非韓: |
韓子曰：「子思不以過聞，繆公貴之；子服厲伯以姦聞，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？以不早聞姦也？夫法度明，雖不聞姦，姦無由生；法度不明，雖日求姦，決其源，鄣之以掌也。御者無銜，見馬且犇，無以制也。使王良持轡，馬無欲犇之心，御之有數也。今不言魯君無術，而曰不聞姦；不言審法度，而曰不通下情，韓子之非繆公也，與術意而相違矣。 |
| | Han Zi said: "Zi Si did not spread his mistakes, so Duke Mu valued him; Zi Fu praised Lai Bo for spreading crimes, so Duke Mu despised him. Since human nature favors being valued and dislikes being looked down upon, the chaos in Ji Shi's family went unreported to the ruler, which is why the Lord of Lu was taken hostage." The reason the Lord of Lu was held hostage was due to his failure to clarify laws and standards? Or because he failed to detect wrongdoing early on? When laws and standards are clear, even if one does not personally detect wrongdoing, there will be no opportunity for it to arise; if the laws and standards are unclear, even if one searches for wrongdoing every day, it is like trying to block a spring with one's palm. A charioteer without reins sees the horse about to bolt and has no means to control it. If Wang Liang holds the reins, the horse will have no desire to bolt—this is because the charioteer has skill. Now they do not say that the Lord of Lu lacked methods, but rather claim he failed to detect wrongdoing; they do not mention examining laws and standards, but instead say he failed to understand the people's conditions. Han Zi's criticism of Duke Mu contradicts the principles of method.
|
| | 非韓: |
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，求姦而誅之。」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；謂姦，非也。姦人外善內惡，色厲內荏，作為操止，像類賢行，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，不可謂姦。韓子謂之姦，失姦之實矣。 |
| | Pang Menzi, the son, was unfilial; yet Zi Si did not speak out about it, so Duke Mu valued him. Han Zi criticized this, saying, "A wise ruler seeks virtue to reward and seeks wrongdoing to punish." An unfilial person is one of the lowest forms of talent. A person of low intelligence lacks propriety, follows emotions and desires, and is no different from birds or beasts. To call such a person evil is acceptable; to call him a criminal, however, is incorrect. A criminal may appear outwardly virtuous but be inwardly wicked, seem fierce in demeanor yet weak within. They act and behave like a worthy person, imitating the conduct of the virtuous to gain promotion, flattering their superiors—how could they possibly commit filial impiety, openly reveal themselves as evil, and invite condemnation and punishment? Pang Menzi's son can be called unfilial, but he cannot be considered a criminal. Han Zi calling him a criminal is to misrepresent the true nature of wrongdoing.
|
| | 非韓: |
韓子曰：「布帛尋常，庸人不擇；爍金百鎰，盜跖不搏。」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。姦心藏於胸中，不敢以犯罪法，罪法恐之也。明法恐之，則不須考姦求邪於下矣。使法峻，民無姦者；使法不峻，民多為姦。而不言明王之嚴刑峻法，而云求姦而誅之。言求姦，是法不峻，民或犯之也。世不專意於明法，而專心求姦，韓子之言，與法相違。 |
| | Han Zi said: "Common cloth and ordinary lengths are not carefully selected by an average person; a hundred catties of molten gold, even Dazhi would not seize." By this reasoning, when laws are clear, the people dare not commit offenses. Establishing clear laws in the state means that even those with criminal intentions will dare not act on them, and those who cannot be predicted will also dare not take action. Evil thoughts hidden in one's heart do not lead to criminal acts, for the fear of legal punishment restrains them. When clear laws instill fear, there is no need to investigate wrongdoing or seek out evil among the people. If the law is strict, the people will have no criminals; if the law is not strict, many among the people will become criminals. Yet instead of speaking about a wise ruler's severe punishments and strict laws, they say that one must seek out criminals to punish them. To speak of seeking criminals implies the law is not strict enough for people to possibly break it. The world does not focus solely on clarifying laws, but instead concentrates on seeking criminals—Han Zi's words contradict the principle of law.
|
| | 非韓: |
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。臣子之性欲姦君父，猶水之性溺人也，不教所以防姦，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，防劫不求臣姦，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。夫君猶火也，臣猶水也，法度、釜也，火不求水之姦，君亦不宜求臣之罪也。 |
| | When people abandon ditches and canals, those who understand their importance will inevitably suffer drowning; those who do not block the ditches but instead repair boats and oars understand that water's nature cannot be restrained, for its force will inevitably drown people. The nature of ministers and sons to desire treachery against their ruler or father is like water's nature to drown people. If one does not educate them on how to prevent wrongdoing, yet blames them for failing to detect it early—this is like neglecting to prepare boats and rafts while merely wishing to know in advance that water will drown people. If one drowns in water, it is not the water's fault but one's own failure—for one has neglected to prepare for such a danger. Therefore, if a ruler is taken hostage by his ministers, it is the ruler himself who has failed in law and order. To prepare against drowning without blocking water sources, to prevent being taken hostage without seeking out treacherous ministers—this is what Han Zi should have taught himself. Water's nature overcomes fire; yet if it is enclosed in a pot, the water will be boiled and unable to overcome fire—this is certain. A ruler is like fire, and a minister is like water; laws and standards are the pot. Just as fire does not seek out treachery in water, a ruler should also not actively pursue faults in his ministers.
|
