<Previous Section>
<Next Section>

51 忠孝第五十一

天下皆以孝悌忠順之道為是也，而莫知察孝悌忠順之道而審行之， 是以天下亂。

皆以堯舜之道為是而法之，是以有弒君，有曲於父。堯、舜、湯、武或反君臣之義， 亂後世之教者也。堯為人君而君其臣，舜為人臣有臣其君，湯、武〔為〕人臣而弒其主，刑其尸， 而天下譽之，此天下所以至今不治者也。

夫所謂明君者，能畜其臣者也；所謂賢臣者，能明法辟， 治官職，以戴其君者也。今堯自以為明而不能以畜舜，舜自以為賢而不能以戴堯， 湯、武自以為義而弒其君長，此明君且常與，而賢臣且常取也。故至今為人子者有取其父之家， 為人臣者有取其君之國者矣。父而讓子，君而讓臣，此非所以定位一教之道也。

臣之所聞曰： 「臣事君，子事父，妻事夫。三者順則天下治，三者逆則天下亂。此天下之常道也。」 明王賢臣而弗易也，則人主雖不肖，臣不敢侵也。今夫上賢任智無常，逆道也，而天下常以為治。 是故田氏奪呂氏於齊，戴氏奪子氏於宋。此皆賢且智也，豈愚且不肖乎？是廢常上賢則亂， 舍法任智則危。故曰：上法而不上賢。

記曰：「舜見瞽瞍，其容造焉。孔子曰：『當是時也，危哉！天下岌岌！ 有道者，父固不得而子，君固不得而臣也。』」

臣曰：孔子本未知孝悌忠順之道也。 然則有道者，進不為（臣主）〔主臣〕，退不為父子耶？父之所以欲有賢子者， 家貧則富之，父苦則樂之；君之所以欲有賢臣者，國亂則治之，主卑則尊之。 今有賢子而不為父，則父之處家也苦；有賢臣而不為君，則君之處位也危。 然則父有賢子，君有賢臣，適足以為害耳，豈得利焉哉？

所謂忠臣，不危其君； 孝子，不非其親。今舜以賢取君之國，而湯、武以義放弒其君，此皆以賢而危主者也， 而天下賢之。

古之烈士，進不臣君，退不為家，是進則非其君，退則非其親者也。 且夫進不臣君，退不為家，亂世絕嗣之道也。是故賢堯、舜、湯、武而是烈士， 天下之亂術也。

瞽瞍為舜父，而舜放之；象為舜弟而殺之。放父殺弟，不可謂仁； 妻帝二女而取天下，不可謂義。仁義無有，不可謂明。《詩》云：「普天之下， 莫非王土；率土之濱，莫非王臣。」信若《詩》之言也，是舜出則臣其君， 入則臣其父，妾其母，妻其主女也。

故烈士內不為家，亂世絕嗣；而外矯於君， 朽骨爛肉，施於土地，流於川谷，不避蹈水火。使天下從而效之，是天下徧死而願夭也。 此皆釋世而不治是也。

世之所為烈士者，（雖）〔離〕眾獨行，取異於人， 為恬淡之學而理恍惚之言。臣以為恬淡，無用之教也；恍惚，無法之言也。 言出於無法，（數）〔教〕出於無用者，天下謂之察。臣以為人生必事君養親， 事君養親不可以恬淡；（之）〔治〕人必以言論忠信法術，言論忠信法術不可以恍惚。 恍惚之言，恬淡之學，天下之惑術也。

孝子之事父也，非競取父之家也；忠臣之事君也， 非競取君之國也。夫為人子而常譽他人之親曰：「某子之親，夜寢早起，強力生財以養子孫臣妾。」 是誹謗其親者也。為人臣常譽先王之德厚而願之，〔是〕誹謗其君者也。 非其親者知謂〔之〕不孝，而非其君者天下（此）〔皆〕賢之，此所以亂也。


古者黔首悗密惷愚，故可以虛名取也。今民儇詗智慧，欲自用，不聽上。 上必且勸之以賞，然後可進；又且畏之以罰，然後不敢退。

而世皆曰：「許由讓天下， 賞不足以勸；盜跖犯刑赴難，〔罰〕不足以禁。」臣曰：未有天下而無以天下為者，許由是也； 已有天下而無以天下為者，堯舜是也；毀廉求財，犯刑趨利，忘身之死者，盜跖是也。 此二者，殆物也。治國用民之道也，不以此二者為量。治也者，治常者也；道也者，道常者也。 殆物妙言，治之害也。

天下太（平）〔上之〕士，不可以賞勸也；天下太（平）〔下〕之士， 不可以（為）刑禁也。然為太上士不設賞，為太下士不設刑，則治國用民之道失矣。

故世人多不言國法而言從橫。諸侯言從者曰：「從成必霸。」而言橫者曰： 「橫成必王。」山東之言從橫，未嘗一日而止也，然而功名不成，霸王不立者，虛言非所以成治也。 王者獨行謂之王，是以三王不務離合而（止）〔正〕，五霸不待從橫〔而〕察，治內以裁外而已矣。

Chapter LI. Loyalty and Filial Piety: A Memorial1

All-under-Heaven approve the Tao of filial piety, fraternal respect, loyalty, and obedience, but never carefully investigate the Tao of filial piety, fraternal respect, loyalty, and obedience; nor do they act intelligently upon these; wherefor All-under-Heaven is in disorder.

As everybody approves the Tao of Yao and Shun and conforms to it, there are murderers of rulers and rebels against fathers. Yao, Shun, T`ang, and Wu, each in his turn, acted contrary to the right relationship of ruler and minister, and the moral of the subsequent generations has consequently been upset. Yao, while ruler of men, made a minister his ruler. Shun, while ministering to a ruler, made the ruler a minister. T`ang and Wu, while ministering to rulers, murdered the sovereigns and dismembered their bodies. Yet All-underHeaven have honoured them. This is the reason why Allunder-Heaven has hitherto not attained political order.

Indeed, the so-called intelligent ruler is one who is able to keep his ministers in his service; the so-called worthy minister is one who is able to make laws and crimes clear and attend to his official duties so as to support his master. Now, Yao, assuming himself to be enlightened, could not keep Shun in his service; Shun, assuming himself to be worthy, could not continue supporting Yao; and T`ang and Wu, assuming themselves to be righteous, murdered their masters and superiors. That was the way "enlightened" rulers would give and "worthy" ministers would take. In consequence, hitherto there have been sons robbing their fathers' houses and ministers robbing their masters' states. Thus, fathers give way to sons and rulers give way to ministers. Such is not the right way to determine the distinction of rank between ruler and minister and unify the system of morale between father and son.

Thy servant has heard, "Minister serving ruler, son serving father, and wife serving husband, if these three relationships run in harmony, All-under-Heaven will have order; if these three relationships run in discord, All-under-Heaven will have disorder." If this is an immutable principle of the world, which neither the intelligent king nor the worthy minister dares to depart from, then even though the lord of men might be unworthy, no minister would dare to infringe his prerogative. In these days, however, the exaltation of the worthy, the appointment of the wise, and the lack of a constant principle, all follow the wrong way; but All-underHeaven always regard it as the royal road to order. For this reason, the T`ien Clan replaced the Lü Clan in Ch`i and the Tai Clan replaced the Tzŭ Clan in Sung. Both T`ien Hêng and Tzŭ-han were worthy and astute and never were stupid and worthless. Thus, when the immutable principle is abolished and worthies are exalted, confusion appears; when the law is discarded and astute men are taken into service, danger arises. Hence the saying: "Exalt law but never exalt worthiness." 2

The ancient Records says: "Shun, when he saw his father, Ku-sou, looked uneasy". 3 On this Confucius remarked: "How critical the age was! For All-under-Heaven was then hanging by a hair. If anybody was a follower of the true path, even his father could not treat him as a son, and, even his ruler could not treat him as a minister."

However, thy servant would say, "Confucius in the first place did not understand the Tao of filial piety, fraternal respect, loyalty, and obedience." By that remark did he mean that a follower of the true path, when in the court, could not be a minister to the sovereign, 4 and, when at home, could not be a son of the father? The reason why fathers want to have worthy sons, is that the family, if poor, will be enriched by them, and the fathers, when suffering, will be gladdened by them. The reason why the ruler wants to have worthy ministers, is that the state, if in chaos, will be put into order by them, and the sovereign, when humbled, will be elevated by them. Now supposing there were a son never doing his father any good, then the father in managing the domestic affairs would suffer. Again, supposing there were a worthy minister never doing the ruler any good, then the ruler while safeguarding his throne would be jeopardized. If so, to have a worthy son and to have a worthy minister will constitute a harm to the father and the ruler respectively. Then how can they get any benefit at all?

They say the loyal minister never endangers his ruler and the dutiful son never disowns his parents. Now, Shun, by pretending to worthiness, took the ruler's state; T`ang and Wu, by pretending to righteousness, dethroned and murdered their rulers. Though all these people endangered their sovereigns by pretending to worthiness, yet All-underHeaven has considered them really worthy.

The heroes of antiquity, when in public, would never minister to any ruler, and, when in private, would never serve their families. By so doing, they disowned their rulers in public and their parents in private. Moreover, to minister to no ruler when active in public and serve no family when retired in private, is the road to world-confusion and family-extinction. Therefore, to regard Yao, Shun, T`ang, and Wu, as worthy, and approve ancient heroes, is a disturbing craft in All-under-Heaven.

Ku-sou was Shun's father but Shun exiled him; Hsiang was Shun's brother but Shun 5 killed him. Who exiled his father and killed his brother, could not be called benevolent. Nor could one who married the emperor's two daughters 6 and took the rule over All-under-Heaven be called righteous. Who was neither benevolent nor righteous, could not be called enlightened. It is said in the Book of Poetry:

Under the whole heaven,
Every spot is the sovereign's ground;
To the borders of the land,
Every individual is the sovereign's minister. 7
As against the principle of this poem, Shun in public made his ruler a minister, and in private made his father a manservant, his mother a woman-servant, and his master's daughters wives.

For the same reason, every hero in private never did his family any good; disturbing the world and exterminating his posterity, and in public attempting to oppose the ruler in every way. Though his decaying bones and spoilt flesh might eventually lie unburied on the open ground or flow on the mountain-stream, he never avoided going through water and fire in order to make All-under-Heaven take him as model, whereby he would make everybody in the world die and end his life young without regret. This type of man would always desert the world and never care about political order.

Similarly, whoever is a hero in this age, acts contrary to the masses, 8 practises his own creed, prefers differences from others, pursues the philosophy of peace and quietude, 9 and expounds the doctrine of vagueness and illusion. 10 Thy servant, however, thinks the philosophy of peace and quietude is a useless creed and the doctrine of vagueness and illusion is a lawless theory. He whose word is lawless and whose creed is useless, is regarded by the world as observing. Thy servant, however, maintains: Everybody during his life-time should serve the ruler and support the parents, but serving the ruler and supporting the parents can not depend upon the philosophy of peace and quietude; again everybody during his life-time 11 should live up to his word and doctrine, loyalty and sincerity, law and tact, 12 but word and doctrine, loyalty and sincerity, law and tact, can not be based on the teaching of vagueness and illusion; wherefore the teaching of vagueness and illusion and the philosophy of peace and quietude are nothing but bewildering crafts in the world.

A dutiful son, in serving his father, never fights with his brothers for the father's household; a loyal minister, in serving the ruler, never struggles with other ministers for the ruler's state. Indeed, if a son always praises other people's parents, saying, for instance, "The parents of Mr. So and So go to bed late at night and get up early in the morning and work hard to make money and thereby support their children and grandchildren and keep so many men and women servants," he is a defamer of his parents. Similarly, if a minister always praises the early kings for the greatness of their virtues and longs after them, he is a defamer of his ruler. Now, one who defames his parents is called undutiful; whereas one who defames his ruler, the world considers worthy. This is the reason why there is chaos.

Therefore, the minister who neither extols the worthiness of Yao and Shun, nor admires the achievement of T`ang and Wu, nor speaks well of the nobleness of the ancient heroes, but applies all his strength to observing the law and devotes his mind to serving the sovereign, is a loyal minister, indeed.

In antiquity the black headed 13 were mindless and stupid. Therefore, it was possible to win their homage by means of empty fame. The people of today, however, are alert and astute and apt to preen themselves and disobey the superior. Therefore, the superior needs to encourage them with rewards, so that they will advance, and to terrify them with punishments, so that they will never dare to retreat.

However, people of this age all say: "As Hsü Yu declined the rule over All-under-Heaven, mere reward would not be sufficient to encourage worthies. As Robber Chê purposely transgressed the penal law and bravely underwent the consequent disaster, punishment would not be sufficient to prevent culprits." In response thy servant would say: "Who had never had the rule over All-under-Heaven and left All-under-Heaven out of consideration, was Hsü Yu. Who had already acquired the rule over All-under-Heaven but left All-under-Heaven out of consideration, were Yao and Shun. Who ruined his personal integrity for seeking money, violated the criminal law in seizing on profit, and forgot the impending death penalty, was Robber Chê. The two persons 14 were extremes. The right way of governing the state and employing the people should not take these rare persons as standards. For government is to govern the ordinary persons; its true path is to lead the ordinary persons; wherefore extreme things and eccentric words are detrimental to political order.

The highest 15 man of the world can not be encouraged with reward; nor can the lowest 16 man of the world be restrained by penalty. However, if on account of the highest man reward is not established, and on account of the lowest man punishment is not established, the right way of governing the state and employing the people will be missed.

For that reason, most men of this age never speak of the law of the state but advocate the Perpendicular Union or the Horizontal Alliance. The advocates of the Union 17 say, "No Union, no Hegemony." The advocates of the Alliance say, "No Alliance, no supremacy." Now, to the east of the Mountain 18 advocates of the Alliance have never stopped for a single day speaking on the subject. Yet if no achievement nor any reputation has been accomplished nor any Hegemonic Ruler has emerged, it is because empty words are not means of attaining political order. The king enjoys independent actions, wherefore he is called "supreme". For this reason, the Three Kings never strove for any kind of union or separation; nor did the Five Hegemonic Rulers 19 attempt to form any kind of Perpendicular Union or Horizontal Alliance. They only investigate ways and means of managing home affairs and thereby fix foreign policies.


1. 忠孝.

2. Quoted from Shên Tzŭ.

3. v. Works of Mencius, Bk, V, Pt. I.

4. With Wang Hsien-shen 臣主 should be 主臣.

5. With Wang Hsien-shen 舞 should be supplied above 殺.

6. Emperor Yao's two daughters, Ê-huang and Nü-ying, both married Shun in 2288 b.c.

7. Legge's trans.

8. With Wang Wei 雖眾 should be 離眾.

9. 恬淡之學. v. Lao Tzŭ's Tao Tah Ching, Ch. XXXI, "Quelling War."

10. 恍惚之言. v. Ibid., Ch. XXI, "Emptying the Heart."

11. With Wang Hsien-shen 之人 should be 人生.

12. With Wang 以 between 必 and 言 is superfluous.

13. 黔首 refers to the masses of people who, as not allowed to wear hats or crowns, had to expose their black hair on their heads. It was in 221 b.c., the 26th year of the Initiating Emperor of Ch`in, that the Emperor began calling the people "the black-headed"—twelve years after Han Fei Tzŭ's death (233 b.c.). Granting this work to be genuine, the term must have been inserted posthumously by the author's followers.

14. Hsü Yu and Robber Chê.

15. With Ku Kuang-tu`ê 太平 should be 太上.

16. With Ku 太平 should be 太下.

17. With Ku 侯 between 諸 and 言從者 is superfluous.

18. By it Han Fei Tzŭ meant not Mt. T`ai but Mt. Hua situated on the border between Ch`in and the warring states to her east.

19. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 止 above 五霸 is superfluous.

<Previous Section>
<Next Section>