During the campaign of Miji, Han Xianzi was about to execute a man. Xi Xianzi heard of it and drove off to save him. By the time he arrived, the man had already been executed. Xi Xianzi then said, “Why did you not expose him to the crowd?” His driver said, “Were you not just now going to save him?” Xi Xianzi replied, “How could I dare not share some of the blame?”
Someone says: Xi Xianzi’s words must be carefully examined. He did not share the blame. If the man Han Xianzi executed was guilty, he should not have been saved; to save a guilty person is to undermine the law, and when the law is undermined, the state falls into disorder. If the man was not guilty, yet Xi Xianzi advised exposing him to the crowd, then he was compounding the wrong done to an innocent person. Compounding wrongs against the innocent is what causes the people to rise in resentment, and when the people resent their rulers, the state is endangered. Xi Xianzi’s words would lead either to danger or to disorder; they cannot go unexamined.
If the man Han Xianzi executed was guilty, what share of the blame could Xi Xianzi have? If the man was not guilty, he had already been executed when Xi Xianzi arrived; thus the blame for Han Xianzi’s act was already established, and Xi Xianzi arrived only afterward. Saying “expose him to the crowd” did not share the blame for the execution, but added the blame of public humiliation. Can this be called sharing the blame? In the past, when King Zhou employed the punishment of the burning pillar, Chong Hou Hu and E Lai also advised cutting off the shins of those who crossed the river. Did this share King Zhou’s blame?
The people’s expectations of their superiors are very great. When Han Xianzi failed to meet them, they still hoped Xi Xianzi would succeed. Now that both failed, the people lost all hope in their superiors. Hence it is said: Xi Xianzi’s words did not share the blame; they increased it. Moreover, Xi Xianzi went to save the condemned because he regarded Han Xianzi’s act as wrong. Yet he did not explain why it was wrong, and instead advised “exposing him to the crowd,” thereby preventing Han Xianzi from recognizing his fault. Since he caused the people to lose hope in their superiors and also kept Han Xianzi from seeing his error, I do not see how Xi Xianzi can be said to have shared the blame.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.7 challenges Xi Xianzi’s claim of “sharing the blame”. It analyzes the wartime‑execution episode, holding his proposal for public exposure only multiplies injustice instead of shouldering real responsibility.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is a major Legalist text from the late Warring States period. The Nan chapters take well-known stories or moral judgments and test them with “someone says,” usually arguing that political order depends on clear law, not on reputational gestures.
Campaign of Miji:
A military campaign associated with the state of Jin during the Spring and Autumn period. The exact details are less important here than the fact that it provides a wartime setting for an execution.
Han Xianzi:
Also known as Han Jue, a senior minister and military leader of Jin. In this passage he represents the officer who carries out punishment.
Xi Xianzi:
Also known as Xi Ke, another leading minister of Jin. He first appears to rescue the condemned man, but then suggests exposing him to the crowd, claiming he is “sharing the blame.”
“Sharing the blame”:
Xi Xianzi seems to think that by supporting the public display of punishment, he can share some of the criticism directed at Han Xianzi. Han Fei rejects this as a hollow political performance.
Exposure to the crowd:
In early Chinese punishment, displaying a condemned person or corpse publicly served to shame and deter. Han Fei argues that if the person was innocent, this only multiplies the injustice.
King Zhou, Chong Hou Hu, and E Lai:
King Zhou was the infamous last ruler of the Shang, associated with cruel punishments such as the “burning pillar.” Chong Hou Hu and E Lai are remembered as his cruel ministers. Han Fei uses them to show that joining in cruelty does not reduce a ruler’s blame.
Legalist emphasis on law:
Han Fei insists that punishment must follow clear legal judgment. Saving a guilty person weakens the law; humiliating an innocent person creates resentment. Neither outcome serves good government.
七
靡笄之役，韩献子将斩人。郄献子闻之，驾往救之。比至，则已斩之矣。郄子因曰：“胡不以徇？”其仆曰：“曩不将救之乎？”郄子曰：“吾敢不分谤乎？”
或曰：“郄子言，不可不察也，非分谤也。韩子之所斩也，若罪人，不可救，救罪人，法之所以败也，法败则国乱；若非罪人，则劝之以徇，劝之以徇，是重不辜也，重不辜，民所以起怨者也，民怨则国危郄子之言，非危则乱，不可不察也。且韩子之所斩若罪人，郄子奚分焉？斩若非罪人，则已斩之矣，而郄子乃至，是韩子之谤已成而郄子且后至也。夫郄子曰“以徇”，不足以分斩人之谤，而又生徇之谤。是子言分谤也？昔者纣为炮烙，崇侯、恶来又曰斩涉者之胫也，奚分于纣之谤？且民之望于上也甚矣，韩子弗得，且望郄子之得也；今郄子俱弗得，则民绝望于上矣。故曰：郄子之言非分谤也，益谤也。且郄子之往救罪也，以韩子为非也；不道其所以为非，而劝之“以徇”，是使韩子不知其过也。夫下使民望绝于上，又使韩子不知其失，吾未得郄子之所以分谤者也。
Leave a Reply