Han Feizi – Chapter 36.4

Xiangzi was besieged in Jinyang. After the siege was lifted, he rewarded five men for their merits, placing Gao He first. Zhang Mengtan said, “During the affair at Jinyang, Gao He achieved no great merit. Why is he now rewarded first?” Xiangzi replied, “During the affair at Jinyang, my state was in peril and my altars of soil and grain were in danger. Among my ministers, there was none who did not show arrogance and contempt; only Gao He did not lose the propriety due between ruler and minister. Therefore I placed him first.” When Confucius heard of this, he said, “How well Xiangzi rewards! By rewarding one man, he has ensured that no one under heaven who serves as a minister will dare to breach propriety.”

Someone says: Confucius did not understand proper rewarding. One who is truly skilled in reward and punishment ensures that no official encroaches upon another’s duties and no minister breaches propriety. The ruler establishes laws above, and those below harbor no deceitful intentions. Only then may he be said to practice reward and punishment well.

If, during the siege of Jinyang, Xiangzi’s orders had not been carried out and his prohibitions had not been obeyed, he would have had no state and Jinyang would have had no ruler; with whom, then, could he have defended the city? In fact, when Xiangzi was in Jinyang, the Zhi flooded the city, so that even stoves and mortars bred turtles, yet the people had no thought of rebellion. This shows that ruler and minister were closely bound. Since Xiangzi enjoyed the benefit of close ruler-minister relations and wielded laws that were promptly enforced, yet still had arrogant and contemptuous ministers, he failed in punishment.

Ministers should be rewarded when they undertake affairs and achieve merit. Now Gao He merely avoided arrogance and contempt, yet Xiangzi rewarded him; this is a failure in rewarding. An enlightened ruler does not grant rewards where there is no merit, nor impose punishments where there is no crime. Xiangzi did not punish ministers who were arrogant and contemptuous, yet he rewarded Gao He, who had no merit. How, then, can Xiangzi be said to have rewarded well? Hence it is said: Confucius did not understand proper rewarding.

Note

This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.4 disputes Confucius’ praise for Zhao Xiangzi’s reward of Gao He. It holds rewards must tie to concrete merit; merely observing basic ruler‑minister etiquette should not win top‑ranked recompense.

Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:

The Han Feizi is a key Legalist text from the late Warring States period. The Nan chapters present well-known stories or Confucian judgments and then challenge them with “someone says,” exposing logical or institutional weaknesses.

Xiangzi of Zhao:

Leader of the Zhao clan in late Spring and Autumn Jin. He was besieged in Jinyang by the powerful minister Zhi Bo, who allied with Han and Wei. Zhao later joined Han and Wei to destroy Zhi, an event that foreshadowed the Partition of Jin.

Siege of Jinyang:

Famous for Zhi Bo’s use of flooding against the city. The text’s image of “turtles breeding in stoves and mortars” conveys extreme hardship.

Gao He:

A minister of Zhao remembered here not for battlefield merit but for maintaining ruler-minister propriety during crisis.

Zhang Mengtan:

Zhao Xiangzi’s strategist, who played a major role in breaking the siege by persuading Han and Wei to turn against Zhi.

Confucius’ praise:

In the first layer of the story, Confucius approves rewarding Gao He because it reinforces ministerial respect.

Han Fei’s critique:

Han Fei argues that rewards must be tied to measurable merit, and punishments to clear faults. Keeping proper ritual conduct is a minister’s basic duty, not a special merit deserving first reward.

Legalist view of reward and punishment:

For Han Fei, good governance depends on clear laws, predictable rewards, and inevitable punishments, not on symbolic gestures meant to encourage etiquette.

　　四

　　襄子围于晋阳中，出围，赏有功者五人，高赫为赏首。张孟谈曰：“晋阳之事，赫无大功，今为赏首，何也？”襄子曰：“晋阳之事，寡人国家危，社稷殆矣。吾群臣无有不骄侮之意者，惟赫子不失君臣之礼，是以先之。仲尼闻之曰：“善赏哉！襄子赏一人而天下为人臣者莫敢失礼矣。”

　　或曰：仲尼不知善赏矣。夫善赏罚者，百官不敢侵职，群臣不敢失礼。上设其法，而下无奸诈之心。如此，则可谓善赏罚矣。使襄子于晋阳也，令不行，禁不止，是襄子无国，晋阳无君也，尚谁与守哉？今襄子于晋阳也，知氏灌之，曰灶生龟，而民无反心，是君臣亲也。襄子有君臣亲之泽，操令行禁止之法，而犹有骄侮之臣，是襄子失罚也。为人臣者，乘事而有功则赏。今赫仅不骄侮，而襄子赏之，是失赏也。明主赏不加于无功，罚不加于无罪。今襄子不诛骄侮之臣，而赏无功之赫，安在襄子之善赏也？故曰：“仲尼不知善赏。