Duke Huan of Qi released Guan Zhong from his bonds and appointed him chancellor. Guan Zhong said, “Your servant has received your favor, yet his rank is low.” The duke said, “I will place you above the houses of Gao and Guo.” Guan Zhong said, “I am now honored, yet I am poor.” The duke said, “I will grant you the revenues of the Three Gui.” Guan Zhong said, “I am now wealthy, yet I am distant from you.” Thereupon the duke established him as Second Father. Xiao Lue said, “Guan Zhong believed that a man of low status could not govern the state, so he asked to be placed above Gao and Guo; he believed that a poor man could not govern the wealthy, so he asked for the Three Gui; he believed that a man distant from the ruler could not govern those close to the ruler, so he accepted the title of Second Father. Guan Zhong was not greedy; he acted to make governance easier.”
Someone says: If a slave were now sent with the ruler’s command to summon ministers and chancellors, none would dare disobey. This is not because ministers and chancellors are low and slaves are honored; it is because when the ruler’s command is issued, none dare refuse. If Guan Zhong’s governance did not rest on Duke Huan, this would mean there was no ruler; and a state without a ruler cannot be governed. If he relied on Duke Huan’s authority and issued Duke Huan’s orders, even a slave could be trusted. Why, then, should he have to wait for the prestige of Gao, Guo, and the title of Second Father before his authority could take effect?
Today, when minor officers such as Xingshi and Ducheng issue orders for conscription and taxation, they do not avoid the honored, nor do they oppress the lowly. Hence, when their actions accord with the law, even a palace eunuch can command the trust of ministers and chancellors; when their actions do not accord with the law, even high officials will be put in the wrong before the common people. Now Guan Zhong did not devote himself to honoring his ruler and clarifying the law, but busied himself with increasing his favor and rank. If this was not greed for wealth and honor, it must have been ignorance of the methods of statecraft. Hence it is said: Guan Zhong was guilty of misconduct, and Xiao Lue’s praise was excessive.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.8 rejects Xiao Lue’s defense of Guan Zhong. It holds authority stems from the ruler’s lawful edicts rather than personal rank‑honors, deeming Guan Zhong’s pursuit of status either greedy or tactically ignorant.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is the central Legalist text from the late Warring States period. Its Nan chapters examine well-known historical judgments and then challenge them, arguing that political order depends on law, authority, and method rather than on personal prestige.
A Spring and Autumn ruler traditionally counted among the Five Hegemons. He is famous for making Qi the leading state with Guan Zhong’s assistance.
Guan Zhong:
Originally a supporter of Duke Huan’s rival Prince Jiu, Guan Zhong was captured and later appointed chancellor. He is traditionally praised for strengthening Qi’s economy, administration, and diplomacy.
“Released from his bonds”:
Guan Zhong had been imprisoned after his faction lost the succession struggle. Duke Huan’s decision to appoint him instead of executing him became a classic example of a ruler setting aside personal grievance for state interest.
Gao and Guo:
Two powerful hereditary aristocratic houses in Qi. Placing Guan Zhong above them gave him authority over established nobles who might otherwise resist a newly appointed chancellor.
Three Returns / 三归:
A disputed term. One common interpretation is that it refers to a share of market taxes or commercial revenues granted to Guan Zhong, giving him great personal wealth. Other interpretations link it to multiple households or estates.
Second Father:
An honorific title suggesting exceptional closeness to the ruler. For Han Fei, however, such personal intimacy is less important than clear legal authority.
Xiao Lue:
A minor figure mentioned only here; his comment defends Guan Zhong by saying his demands served administrative necessity.
Legalist view of authority:
Han Fei argues that officials should obey because the ruler’s law commands it, not because a minister has high personal status. A lowly messenger carrying lawful orders should be as effective as a grand minister.
八
桓公解管仲之束缚而相之。管仲曰：“臣有宠矣，然而臣卑。”公曰：“使子立高、国之上。”管仲曰：“臣贵矣，然而臣贫。”公曰：“使子有三归之家。”管仲曰：“臣富矣，然而臣疏。”于是立以为仲父。霄略曰：“管仲以贱为不可以治国，故请高、国之上；以贫为不可以治富，故请三归；以疏为不可以治亲，故处仲父。管仲非贪。以便治也。”
或曰：今使臧获奉君令诏卿相，莫敢不听，非卿相卑而臧获尊也，主令所加，莫敢不从也。今使管仲之治不缘桓公，是无君也，国无君不可以为治。若负桓公之威，下桓公之令，是臧获之所以信也，奚待高、国、仲父之尊而后行哉？当世之行事、都丞之下征令者，不辟尊贵，不就卑贱。故行之而法者，虽巷伯信乎卿相；行之而非法者，虽大吏诎乎民萌。今管仲不务尊主明法，而事增宠益爵，是非管仲贪欲富贵，必暗而不知术也。故曰：管仲有失行，霄略有过誉。
Leave a Reply