難一

Duke Wen of Jin was about to fight the men of Chu. He summoned Jiu Fan and asked: 'I am about to battle Chu. They are many and we are few -- what should I do?' Jiu Fan said: 'I have heard that a gentleman of elaborate courtesy never tires of loyalty and good faith; but on the field of battle, one never tires of deception and trickery. Simply deceive them, my lord.'

Duke Wen dismissed Jiu Fan and summoned Yong Ji, asking the same question. Yong Ji replied: 'If you burn the forest to hunt, you may steal a great catch of game, but afterward there will be no game left. If you use deception on the people, you may steal a temporary gain, but afterward there will be no return.' Duke Wen said: 'Excellent.' He dismissed Yong Ji, then used Jiu Fan's strategy to fight Chu and defeated them.

Upon returning, when distributing ranks, he placed Yong Ji first and Jiu Fan second. The ministers objected: 'The victory at Chengpu was Jiu Fan's strategy. You used his words but ranked him second -- can this be right?' Duke Wen said: 'This is not for you to understand. Jiu Fan's words were an expedient for the moment; Yong Ji's words are a benefit for ten thousand generations.'

Confucius heard of this and said: 'Duke Wen's hegemony was fitting indeed! He understood both the expedient of the moment and the benefit of ten thousand generations.'

One may object: Yong Ji's answer did not match Duke Wen's question. Answers should correspond to the scope and urgency of the question. When the question is about a great and urgent matter, and the answer is narrow and petty, an enlightened ruler will not accept it. Duke Wen asked 'how to face many with few,' and the answer was 'afterward there will be no return' -- this was not a proper response.

Moreover, Duke Wen did not understand either the expedient of the moment or the benefit of ten thousand generations. If he fights and wins, the state is secure, his person is safe, his army is strong, and his authority is established. Though there be 'returns' afterward, nothing is greater than this -- what worry that the benefit of ten thousand generations will not come? If he fights and loses, the state is destroyed, the army weakened, his person dead and his name extinguished. He would barely be able to snatch himself from today's death -- when would he have leisure to await the benefit of ten thousand generations?

The farmers at Mount Li encroached on each other's boundaries. Shun went there to farm, and after a year the field ridges were straight. The fishermen at the river bank fought over the sandbars. Shun went there to fish, and after a year the elder was given precedence. The potters of the Eastern Yi made crude and flawed vessels. Shun went there to make pottery, and after a year the vessels were sturdy. Confucius sighed: 'Farming, fishing, and pottery-making were not Shun's official duties. Yet Shun went and performed them to rescue what was failing. Shun was truly benevolent! He personally endured hardship, and the people followed him. Hence it is said: The sage's virtue transforms!'

Someone questioned the Confucians: 'At this time, where was Yao?' They answered: 'Yao was Son of Heaven.' 'Then what does Confucius's veneration of Yao amount to? A sage of brilliant perception occupies the highest position -- he is supposed to ensure that there is no wrongdoing under Heaven. If the farmers quarreled, the fishermen fought, and the potters made shoddy work, then what virtue did Shun transform? If Shun had to rescue failures, then Yao had failings. If you praise Shun, you remove Yao's brilliant perception. If you venerate Yao, you remove Shun's moral transformation. You cannot have both.

A man of Chu was selling shields and spears. He praised his shields: "My shields are so hard, nothing can pierce them." Then he praised his spears: "My spears are so sharp, they can pierce anything." Someone asked: "What happens if you use your spear on your shield?" The man could not answer. An impenetrable shield and an all-penetrating spear cannot both exist in the same world. That Yao and Shun cannot both be praised -- this is the argument of the shield and the spear.'

Guan Zhong fell ill. Duke Huan went to visit him: 'If Zhongfu's illness is, unfortunately, terminal, what instruction will you leave for me?' Guan Zhong said: 'Even without your asking, I was about to raise this. I beg you to dismiss Shu Diao, remove Yi Ya, and distance Prince Kaifang of Wei.'

One may object: Guan Zhong's dying advice to Duke Huan was not the speech of a man who understood method. His reason for removing Shu Diao and Yi Ya was that they did not love their own persons but merely catered to the ruler's desires. He argued: 'One who does not love his own person -- how can he love the ruler?' But by this logic, any minister who devotes himself to death in service of his lord should also be dismissed. Saying 'One who does not love his own life -- how can he love the ruler?' means the ruler would remove his loyal ministers.

Lord Xiang was besieged at Jinyang. After breaking out, he rewarded five men of merit, with Gao He as the foremost. Zhang Mengtan asked: 'In the affair of Jinyang, Gao He had no great achievement. Why is he foremost in rewards?' Lord Xiang said: 'In the affair of Jinyang, my state was in peril and the altars of soil and grain were endangered. Among all my ministers, not one failed to show a spirit of arrogance and contempt -- only Gao He did not lose the proper courtesies between ruler and minister. This is why I placed him first.' Confucius heard and said: 'Excellent rewarding! Lord Xiang rewarded one man and none under Heaven who serve as ministers dare lose their courtesy.'

One may object: Confucius did not understand good rewarding. One who is skilled at rewards and punishments ensures that all officials dare not encroach on their duties and all ministers dare not lose propriety. When the ruler establishes his law above, there are no treacherous hearts below. This may be called skilled rewarding and punishing. During the siege of Jinyang, if Lord Xiang's commands were not followed and his prohibitions not enforced, then Lord Xiang had no state and Jinyang had no ruler. Yet while Zhibo flooded Jinyang until 'stoves bred turtles,' the people showed no spirit of rebellion -- ruler and minister were close. If Lord Xiang possessed the grace of this closeness and wielded the law of enforced commands, and yet still had arrogant and contemptuous ministers, then Lord Xiang had failed in punishment.

Duke Ping of Jin was drinking with his ministers. In the midst of the revelry, he heaved a sigh and said: 'Nothing is more pleasurable than being a ruler -- one's words are never opposed.' Shi Kuang was seated in attendance before him. He seized his zither and hurled it. The duke threw open his robes and dodged; the zither smashed against the wall. The duke asked: 'Grand Master, whom were you striking at?' Shi Kuang said: 'Just now a petty man was speaking at your side, so I struck at him.' The duke said: 'It was I.' Shi Kuang said: 'Ah! Those are not the words of one who rules men.' The attendants asked permission to punish him. The duke said: 'Release him. Let this serve as my warning.'

One may object: Duke Ping lost the way of the ruler, and Shi Kuang lost the courtesy of a minister. A minister, when the ruler errs, should remonstrate. If remonstrance is not heeded, he should be prepared to give up his rank and salary. This is the proper courtesy of a minister. Now Shi Kuang criticized Duke Ping's error not by offering counsel but by hurling a zither at his person. Even a strict father would not do this to his son, yet Shi Kuang did it to his ruler. This is the technique of great insubordination.

King Xuan of Han asked Jiu Liu: 'I wish to employ both Gongzhong and Gongshu. Is this feasible?' Jiu Liu replied: 'In the past, Wei employed both Lou and Di and lost the Western River territory. Chu employed both Zhao and Jing and lost Yan and Ying. If your majesty now employs both Gongzhong and Gongshu, they will certainly compete for influence and seek support externally, and the state will surely be in trouble.'

One may object: 'In the past, Duke Huan of Qi employed both Guan Zhong and Bao Shu, and King Tang of Shang employed both Yi Yin and Zhong Hui. If employing two ministers were always the state's ruin, then Duke Huan would not have achieved hegemony and King Tang would not have become king. King Min employed only Nao Chi and was killed by his own hand in the eastern temple. Lord Wuling employed only Li Dui and was starved to death. When the ruler has techniques of control, employing two creates no danger. When the ruler lacks techniques, employing two leads to factional competition, while employing one leads to despotic control and assassination. Now Jiu Liu lacks the technique to guide his ruler from above. Making his lord abandon dual employment for sole reliance -- this means either the loss of Western River and Yan-Ying, or the danger of being killed or starved.'