(Section 50)
In the present age, the Confucians and Mohists are well known for their learning. The Confucians pay the highest honor to Confucius, the Mohists to Mozi. Since the death of Confucius, the Zizhang School, the Zisi School, the Yan Family School, the Meng Family School, the Qidiao Family School, the Zhongliang Family School, the Sun Family School, and the Yuezheng Family School have appeared. Since the death of Mozi, the Xiangli Family School, the Xiangfu Family School, and the Dengling Family School have appeared. Thus, since the death of its founder, the Confucian school has split into eight factions, and the Mohist school into three. Their doctrines and practices are different or even contradictory, and yet each claims to represent the true teaching of Confucius and Mozi.
But since we cannot call Confucius and Mozi back to life, who is to decide which of the present versions of the doctrine is the right one?
Confucius and Mozi both followed the ways of Yao and Shun, and though their practices differed, each claimed to be following the real Yao and Shun. 1 But since we cannot call Yao and Shun back to life, who is to decide whether it is the Confucians or the Mohists who are telling the truth?
Now over seven hundred years have passed since Yin and early Zhou times, and over two thousand years since Yu and early Xia times. If we cannot even decide which of the present versions of Confucian and Mohist doctrine are the genuine ones, how can we hope to scrutinize the ways of Yao and Shun, who lived three thousand years ago? Obviously we can be sure of nothing! He who claims to be sure of something for which there is no evidence is a fool, and he who acts on the basis of what cannot be proved is an imposter. Hence it is clear that those who claim to follow the ancient kings and to be able to describe with certainty the ways of Yao and
Shun must be either fools or imposters. The learning of fools and impostors, doctrines that are motley and contradictory—such things as these the enlightened ruler will never accept.
For funerals, the Mohists prescribe that winter mourning garments be worn in winter and summer garments in summer, that the coffin be of paulownia wood three inches thick, and that mourning be observed for three months. The rulers of the time regard such ways as frugal and honor them. The Confucians, on the other hand, will bankrupt the family to carry out a funeral, wearing mourning garments for three years, reducing themselves to physical exhaustion and walking about with canes. The rulers of the time regard such ways as filial and honor them. Now if you approve of the frugality of Mozi, you must condemn Confucius for his extravagance, and if you approve of the filial piety of Confucius, you must condemn Mozi for his impiety. Thus the teachings of the Confucians and Mohists embrace both piety and impiety, extravagance and frugality, and yet the ruler honors them both!
According to the teaching of Qidiao, 2 a man should never cringe before others or flinch in the face of danger; if his actions are base, he should not refuse to be treated as a slave, but if his actions are upright, he should not hesitate to defy the feudal lords. The rulers of the time regard such conduct as honorable and praise it. According to the teaching of Song Rongzi, 3 a man should condemn warfare and
contention and refuse to take part in acts of vengeance; he should not be embarrassed to go to jail and should consider it no shame to suffer insult. The rulers of the time regard such an attitude as broad-minded and praise it. Now if you approve of the honorable conduct of Qidiao, you must condemn Song Rong for being too forgiving, and if you approve of the broad-mindedness of Song Rong, you must condemn Qidiao for being too violent. Thus these two codes of behavior embrace both broad-mindedness and a keen sense of honor, forgiveness and violence, and yet the ruler honors them both!
Because the ruler gives equal ear to the learning of fools and impostors and the wranglings of the motley and contradictory schools, the gentlemen of the world follow no fixed policy in their words and no constant code of action in their behavior. As ice and live coals cannot share the same container for long, or winter and
summer both arrive at the same time, so, too, motley and contradictory doctrines cannot stand side by side and produce a state of order. If equal ear is given to motley doctrines, false codes of behavior, and contradictory assertions, how can there be anything but chaos? If the ruler listens and acts in such a way, he will surely govern his people in the same absurd fashion.
When the scholars of today discuss good government, many of them say, “Give land to the poor and destitute so that those who have no means of livelihood may be provided for.” Now if men start out with equal opportunities and yet there are a few who, without the help of unusually good harvests or outside income, are able to keep themselves well supplied, it must be due either to hard work or to frugal living. If men start out with equal opportunities and yet there are a few who, without having suffered from some calamity like famine or sickness, still sink into poverty and destitution, it must be due either to laziness or to extravagant living. The lazy and extravagant grow poor; the diligent and frugal get rich. Now if the ruler levies money from the rich in order to give alms to the poor, he is robbing the diligent and frugal and indulging the lazy and extravagant. If he expects by such means to induce the people to work industriously and spend with caution, he will be disappointed.
Now suppose there is a man who on principle refuses to enter a city that is in danger, to take part in a military campaign, or in fact to change so much as a hair of his shin, though it might bring the greatest benefit to the world. 4 The rulers of the time are sure to honor him, admiring his wisdom, praising his conduct, and regarding him as a man who despises material things and values his life. Now the ruler hands out good fields and large houses and offers titles and stipends in order to encourage the people to risk their lives in his service. But if he honors and praises a man who despises material things and values life above everything else, and at the same time expects the people to risk their lives and serve him to the death, he will be disappointed.
Then there are other men who collect books, study rhetoric, gather bands of disciples, and devote themselves to literature, learning, and debate. The rulers of the time are sure to treat them with respect, saying, “It is the way of the former kings to honor worthy men.” The
farmers are the ones who must pay taxes to the officials, and yet the ruler patronizes scholars—thus the farmer’s taxes grow heavier and heavier, while the scholars enjoy increasing reward. If the ruler hopes, in spite of this, that the people will work industriously and spend little time talking, he will be disappointed.
There are others who establish a name for chivalrous action and gather bands of followers, who guard their honor from all insult and avenge with ready swords the slightest sullen word that reaches their ears. The rulers of the time are sure to treat such men with courtesy, considering them gentlemen of self-respect. No reward is given to those who strive to cut off the heads of the enemy in battle, and yet the daring that men show in their family feuds brings them honor and renown. If the ruler hopes, in spite of this, that the people will fight fiercely to drive back the enemy and refrain from private quarrels, he will be disappointed. The nation at peace may patronize Confucian scholars and cavaliers, but the nation in danger must call upon its fighting men. Thus those who are patronized are not those who are of real use, and those who are of real use are not those who are patronized. Hence we have disorder.
Moreover, when the ruler listens to a scholar, if he approves of his words, he should give them official dissemination and appoint the man to a post; but if he disapproves of his words, he should dismiss the man and put a stop to his teaching. Now, though the ruler may approve of some doctrine, he does not give it official dissemination, and though he may disapprove of some doctrine, he does not put a stop to it. Not to use what you approve of and not to suppress what you disapprove of—this is the way to confusion and ruin.
Dantai Ziyu had the appearance of a gentleman. Confucius, considering him promising, accepted him as a disciple but, after associating with him for some time, he found that his actions did not come up to his looks. Cai Yu’s speech was elegant and refined and Confucius, considering him promising, accepted him as a disciple.
But after associating with him, he found that his wisdom did not match his eloquence. Therefore Confucius said, “Should I choose a man on the basis of looks? I made a mistake with Ziyu. Should I choose a man on the basis of his speech? I made a mistake with Cai Yu.” Thus even Confucius, for all his wisdom, had to admit that he
judged the facts wrongly. Now our new orators today are far more voluble than Cai Yu, and the rulers of the age far more susceptible to delusion than Confucius. If they appoint men to office simply because they are pleased with their words, how can they fail to make mistakes?
Wei trusted the eloquence of Meng Mao and met with calamity below Mount Hua.5 Zhao trusted the eloquence of Mafu and encountered disaster at Changping. 6 These two instances show what mistakes can be made by trusting men because of their eloquence.
If one were only to note the quantity of tin used in the alloy, examine the color of the metal, but apply no other test, then even the famous Smithy Ou could not guarantee the sharpness of a sword.
But if one sees it strike off the heads of water birds and cut down horses on land, then even the stupidest slave would not doubt that the sword is sharp. If one were only to look at a horse’s teeth and
examine7 its shape, then even the famous judge of horses, Bo Luo, could not guarantee the quality of the horse. But if one hitches it to a carriage and observes how it covers a certain distance of ground, then even the stupidest slave can tell whether the horse is good or not. Similarly, if one were only to observe a man’s features and dress and listen to his speech, then even Confucius could not be certain what kind of person he is. But if one tries him out in government office and examines his achievements, then even a man of mediocre judgment can tell whether he is stupid or wise.
In the bureaucracy of an enlightened ruler the prime minister has come up from the post of district magistrate and the renowned generals have risen from the ranks. Since achievements are invariably rewarded, the able man rises in title and stipend and works harder than ever; since he keeps moving to a higher office and a better rank, he will in time reach an important position and do his job better than ever. Thus to see to it that titles and stipends are
generous8 and jobs are well done is the way of a true king.
The ruler with a thousand li of rocky land cannot be called rich; the ruler with a million funerary dolls cannot be called powerful. It is not that the stony fields are not vast or the dolls not numerous. But such a ruler cannot be called rich or powerful because stony fields will
grow no grain and dolls will not fend off an enemy. Now the artists and craftsmen, or the merchants who buy themselves government offices, manage to eat without tilling the land. Thus the land remains as unproductive as though it were in fact a stony field. Likewise the Confucians and cavaliers gain fame and glory without the hardships of service in the army; they are in fact useless citizens, no different from funerary dolls. Now if you recognize the curse9 of having only stony lands and lifeless dolls, but not the curse of merchants who buy their way into office, or Confucians and cavaliers—men who till no land and serve no purpose—then you have no head for analogies.
Although the ruler of a state whose power is equal to yours may admire your righteousness, you cannot force him to come with tribute and acknowledge your sovereignty; but although one of the marquises within your borders may disapprove of your actions, you can make him bring the customary gifts and attend your court. Thus he who has great power at his disposal may force others to pay him court, but he whose power is weak must pay court to others. For this reason the enlightened ruler works to build up power. In a strict household there are no unruly slaves, but the children of a kindly mother often turn out bad. From this I know that power and authority can prevent violence, but kindness and generosity are insufficient to put an end to disorder.
When a sage rules the state, he does not depend on people’s doing good of themselves; he sees to it that they are not allowed to do what is bad. If he depends on people’s doing good of themselves, then within his borders he can count less than ten instances of success. But if he sees to it that they are not allowed to do what is bad, then the whole state can be brought to a uniform level of order.
Those who rule must employ measures that will be effective with the majority and discard those that will be effective with only a few.
Therefore they devote themselves not to virtue but to law.
If you depend on arrow shafts’ becoming straight of themselves, you will never produce one arrow in a hundred generations. If you depend on pieces of wood’s becoming round of themselves, you will never get a cartwheel in a thousand years. If in a hundred generations you never find such a thing as an arrow shaft that
makes itself straight or a piece of wood that makes itself round, then how is it that people all manage to ride around in carriages and shoot down birds? Because the tools of straightening and bending are used. And even if, without the application of such tools, there were an arrow shaft that made itself straight or a piece of wood that made itself round, a good craftsman would not prize it. Why?
Because it is not only one man who wants to ride, and not just one shot that the archer wants to make. And even if, without depending upon rewards and punishments, there were a man who became good of himself, the enlightened ruler would not prize him. Why?
Because the laws of the state must not be ignored, and it is more than one man who must be governed. Therefore a ruler who understands policy does not pursue fortuitous goodness, but follows the way of certain success.
If someone were to go around telling people, “I can give you wisdom and long life!”, then the world would regard him as an impostor. Wisdom is a matter of man’s nature, and long life is a matter of fate, and neither human nature nor fate can be got from others. Because the man tells people he can do what is impossible, the world naturally considers him an impostor. To say you can do something which you cannot do is simply to make an empty assertion, and an empty assertion cannot affect human nature.10
Likewise, to try to teach people to be benevolent and righteous is the same as saying you can make them wise and long-lived. A ruler who has proper standards will not listen to such an idea.
You may admire the beauty of a lovely women like Maoqiang or Xishi all you like, but it will not improve your own looks. If you apply rouge, powder, and paint, however, you may make yourself twice as attractive as you were to begin with. You may talk about the benevolence and righteousness of the former kings all you like, but it will not make your own state any better ordered. But if you make your laws and regulations clear and your rewards and punishments certain, it is like applying rouge, powder, and paint to the state.11 The enlightened ruler pays close attention to such aids to rule, and has little time for extolling the ancients. Therefore he does not talk about benevolence and righteousness.
When the shaman priests pray for someone, they say, “May you live a thousand autumns and ten thousand years!” But the “thousand autumns and ten thousand years” are only a noise dinning on the ear
—no one has ever proved that such prayers add so much as a day to anyone’s life. For this reason people despise the shaman priests.
Similarly, when the Confucians of the present time counsel rulers, they do not praise those measures which will bring order today, but talk only of the achievements of the men who brought order in the past. They do not investigate matters of bureaucratic system or law, or examine the realities of villainy and evil, but spend all their time telling tales of the distant past and praising the achievements of the former kings. And then they try to make their words more attractive by saying, “If you listen to our advice, you may become a dictator or a king!” They are the shaman priests of the rhetoricians, and no ruler with proper standards will tolerate them. Therefore the enlightened ruler works with facts and discards useless theories. He does not talk about deeds of benevolence and righteousness, and he does not listen to the words of scholars.
Nowadays, those who do not understand how to govern invariably say, “You must win the hearts of the people!” If you could assure good government merely by winning the hearts of the people, then there would be no need for men like Yi Yin and Guan Zhong12—you
could simply listen to what the people say. The reason you cannot rely upon the wisdom of the people is that they have the minds of little children. If the child’s head is not shaved, its sores will spread;13
and if its boil is not lanced, it will become sicker than ever. But when it is having its head shaved or its boil lanced, someone must hold it while the loving mother performs the operation, and it yells and screams incessantly, for it does not understand that the little pain it suffers now will bring great benefit later.
Now the ruler presses the people to till the land and open up new pastures so as to increase their means of livelihood, and yet they consider him harsh; he draws up a penal code and makes the punishments more severe in order to put a stop to evil, and yet the people consider him stern. He levies taxes in cash and grain in order to fill the coffers and granaries so that there will be food for the starving and funds for the army, and yet the people consider him
avaricious. He makes certain that everyone within his borders understands warfare and sees to it that there are no private exemptions14 from military service; he unites the strength of the state and fights fiercely in order to take its enemies captive, and yet the people consider him violent. These four types of undertaking all insure order and safety to the state, and yet the people do not have sense enough to rejoice in them.
The ruler seeks for men of superior understanding and ability precisely because he knows that the wisdom of the people is not sufficient to be of any use. In ancient times Yu opened up channels for the rivers and deepened the waterways, and yet the people gathered tiles and stones to throw at him; Zichan opened up the fields and planted mulberry trees, and yet the men of Zheng spoke ill of him. 15 Yu profited the whole world, Zichan preserved the state of Zheng, and yet both men suffered slander—it is evident from this, then, that the wisdom of the people is not sufficient to be of use. In appointing men, to seek among the people for those who are worthy and wise; in governing, to try to please the people—methods such as these are the source of confusion. They are of no help in ensuring good government.
1Judging from the *Analects, * Confucius himself had little to say about the ancient sage rulers Yao and Shun, and the few references to them may well be later insertions in the text. But Confucian scholars of late Zhou times paid great honor to Yao and Shun and compiled the “Canon of Yao,” the first section of the Book of Documents, as a record of their lives.
2Nothing is known of the identity of this man. He appears to be a different person from the Qidiao mentioned above as the leader of one school of Confucianism.
3Referred to in other texts as Song Jian or Song Keng, he seems to have taught a doctrine of passivity, frugality, and few desires.
4A reference to the followers of Yang Zhu. Cf. Mencius VIIA, 26: “Mencius said,
‘The principle of Yangzi was “each one for himself.” Though he might have benefited the whole world by plucking out a single hair, he would not have done it.’”
5In 273 B.C. Qin attacked Wei and its allies, defeating and routing the army of the Wei general Meng Mao at Huayang.
6The Zhao general Zhao Mafu was defeated at Changping by the Qin army in 260
B.C.
7Supplying xiang above xing.
8Reading hou instead of da in accordance with the suggestion of Chen Qiyou.
9Reversing the order of huo and zhi.
10Adding a fei before xing and translating in accordance with the interpretation of Chen Qiyou. But the passage is far from clear.
11The rhythm of the sentence is awkward and the parallelism faulty; it is probable that something has dropped out of the text.
12For Yi Yin, see above, p. 95, n. 3; for Guan Zhong, see above, p. 32, n. 4, and p.
95, n. 3.
13Emending the fu in the text to the fu which means “increasingly.”
14Adding she after jie and translating in accordance with the interpretation of Chen Qiyou.
15Yu, the founder of the Xia dynasty, was supposed to have fixed the courses of the rivers and rescued China from a great flood. Zichan (d. 522 B.C.), chief minister of the state of Zheng, introduced various agricultural reforms which were at first much opposed by the people but which eventually brought benefit to the state.