If a ruler abandons laws and methods and governs by his own subjective mind, even Yao could not bring order to a single state. If one discards the compass and the square and relies on wild guesswork, even Xi Zhong could not craft a single wheel. If one abolishes measuring standards and judges length by estimation, even Wang Er could not achieve even half accuracy.
But if a ruler of average talent adheres to laws and methods, and a clumsy craftsman adheres to the compass, the square, and measuring standards, then he will never fail.
Therefore, he who rules men should abandon what even the worthy and the skillful cannot accomplish, and adhere to what even the mediocre and the clumsy can execute without failure. When this is done, the people will exhaust their efforts, and fame and achievement will be established.
Note
This passage is excerpted from Han Feizi · Employing People, the most pivotal chapter where Han Fei expounds the idea that institutions are superior to individual intellect. Through stark contrasts, he shatters the romantic illusion of “sage‑king governance” and articulates a fundamental political‑philosophical thesis: a sound institution is not a crutch for geniuses, but a lever for ordinary people. Without objective criteria, even extraordinary figures falter; yet by mastering established rules, mediocre individuals can act with unfailing reliability.
Yao:
The legendary sage king, Yao, universally regarded as the epitome of wisdom and virtue in ancient Chinese mythology. Han Fei uses him as the ultimate benchmark for personal talent – yet even Yao fails without institutional tools. This shatters the Confucian ideal that a sage ruler’s personal virtue alone can create order.
Xi Zhong (奚仲):
A legendary master craftsman of the Xia Dynasty, revered in Chinese tradition as the inventor of the carriage and the patron deity of wheelwrights. He represents the pinnacle of technical skill. Han Fei uses him to argue that even supreme craftsmanship is impossible without standardized tools (the compass and square).
Wang Er (王尔):
An ancient master artisan renowned for his extraordinary precision in woodworking and measurement. Like Xi Zhong, he serves as an archetype of technical genius, reinforcing Han Fei’s point that objective standards (measuring tools) are more reliable than subjective estimation.
Governance by Subjective Mind:
This is Han Fei’s term for “rule by man”, where decisions are made based on the ruler’s personal feelings, intuitions, and whims. Han Fei vehemently opposes this, arguing that human judgment is inherently flawed and unreliable. He contrasts it with “laws and methods”, which provide objective, impersonal standards.
Compass, Square, and Measuring Standards:
Literally referring to the carpenter’s tools – the compass for drawing circles, the square for drawing right angles, and measuring tapes for length. In Chinese political philosophy, these tools became powerful metaphors for objective laws and institutional standards. Just as a carpenter cannot build without them, a ruler cannot govern without laws. The phrase “没有规矩，不成方圆” (Without compass and square, one cannot draw perfect circles and squares) originates from this tradition.
Abandon what the worthy and skillful cannot do; adhere to what the mediocre and clumsy can do without failure:
This is Han Fei’s ultimate formula for institutional design. He argues that a good system should not rely on exceptional talent or heroic effort. Instead, it should be designed so that even ordinary people can succeed by simply following the rules. This is a profoundly modern insight: the goal of a system is to make success reproducible, not to depend on miracles.
Never Fail / Ten Thousand Times Without Failure:
A hyperbolic expression meaning absolute reliability. Han Fei uses it to contrast with the catastrophic failures of “rule by man.” When a system is based on objective rules rather than subjective judgment, its outcomes become predictable and dependable.
释法术而心治，尧不能正一国，去规矩而妄意度，奚仲不能成一轮；废尺寸而差短长，王尔不能半中。使中主守法术，拙匠守规矩尺寸，则万不失矣。君人者能去贤巧之所不能，守中拙之所万不失，则人力尽而功名立。
Leave a Reply