Duke Ping of Jin asked Shu Xiang, “In the past, Duke Huan of Qi convened the feudal lords many times and brought order to the realm. Was this the strength of his ministers, or the strength of his ruler?” Shu Xiang replied, “Guan Zhong was skilled at cutting cloth, Bin Xuwu at trimming and sewing, and Xi Peng at adding borders. When the robe was finished, the ruler simply lifted it and put it on. This was the strength of the ministers; what strength did the ruler have?”
Shi Kuang leaned over his zither and laughed. The duke asked, “Why does the Grand Music Master laugh?” Shi Kuang replied, “I laugh at Shu Xiang’s answer to my lord. Ministers are like cooks who blend the five flavors and present the dish to the ruler. If the ruler does not eat it, who would dare force him? Let me offer an analogy: the ruler is the soil; the ministers are the plants and trees. Only when the soil is rich can the plants grow large. This was the strength of the ruler; what strength did the ministers have?”
Someone says: The answers of Shu Xiang and Shi Kuang were both one-sided. To bring order to the realm and convene the lords is among the greatest of achievements. It was not due solely to the ruler, nor solely to the ministers. In the past, Gong Zhiqi served in Yu, and Xi Fuji served in Cao. The wisdom of these two ministers was such that their words fit events and their actions produced merit; yet Yu and Cao both perished. Why? Because they had worthy ministers but not worthy rulers. Moreover, when Jian Shu was in Yu, Yu perished; when he was in Qin, Qin became hegemonic. This does not mean Jian Shu was foolish in Yu and wise in Qin; it shows the difference between having and not having a ruler who can employ worthy men. Shu Xiang’s claim that it was “the ministers’ strength” is therefore incorrect.
Duke Huan once maintained two markets within his palace and two hundred quarters for women, and he would let his hair hang loose while enjoying their company. When he obtained Guan Zhong, he became chief among the Five Hegemons. When he lost Guan Zhong and employed Shu Diao, he died, and his corpse was left so long that worms crawled out of it and no burial was performed. If one says this was not the ministers’ strength, then one cannot explain why Guan Zhong made Duke Huan hegemonic. If one says it was entirely the ruler’s strength, then one cannot explain why Shu Diao brought the state to ruin. Duke Wen of Jin was so attached to a woman of Qi that he delayed returning home; Jiu Fan remonstrated with him urgently, and only then did he return to Jin. Thus Duke Huan convened the lords through Guan Zhong, and Duke Wen achieved hegemony through Jiu Fan. Shi Kuang’s claim that it was “the ruler’s strength” is therefore also incorrect. Whenever the Five Hegemons achieved fame and success in the realm, both ruler and ministers contributed. Hence Shu Xiang’s and Shi Kuang’s answers were both partial statements.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 37.4 rejects Shu Xiang’s and Shi Kuang’s one‑sided arguments. It concludes hegemonic achievements stem from joint contributions: capable rulers must properly employ competent ministers for political success.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is a central Legalist text from the late Warring States period. ItsNan chapters test familiar historical judgments by showing that political outcomes usually depend on multiple factors rather than simple praise of rulers or ministers.
Duke Ping of Jin:
A ruler of the state of Jin during the Spring and Autumn period. Here he raises a classic question about the source of political success.
Shu Xiang:
A respected Jin minister known for moral judgment and political insight. He argues that Duke Huan’s achievements came mainly from his ministers.
A famous blind music master of Jin. He defends the ruler’s primacy, comparing the ruler to fertile soil that enables ministers to grow.
Duke Huan of Qi:
Duke Huan of Qi was traditionally regarded as the first of the Spring and Autumn hegemons. His partnership with Guan Zhong became a model of successful rulership.
Guan Zhong, Bin Xuwu, Xi Peng:
Duke Huan’s key ministers. Guan Zhong directed state policy; Bin Xuwu and Xi Peng assisted in administration and diplomacy.
“Nine convenings of the lords” and “one rectification of the realm”:
Standard phrases describing Duke Huan’s diplomatic leadership and his role in restoring political order among the states.
Gong Zhiqi and Yu:
Gong Zhiqi warned the ruler of Yu that allowing Jin to pass through Yu to attack Guo would endanger Yu itself. His advice was ignored, and Yu was later destroyed. This case shows that wise ministers cannot save a state without a capable ruler.
Xi Fuji and Cao:
Xi Fuji served Cao and recognized Duke Wen of Jin’s potential. Cao survived the immediate crisis, but the state later declined. Han Fei uses him to show that ministerial wisdom alone is insufficient.
Jian Shu:
A wise adviser who served first in Yu and later in Qin. His different outcomes in the two states illustrate how political environment and rulership determine whether talent can be effective.
Shu Diao:
A favorite of Duke Huan in his later years. After Guan Zhong’s death, Shu Diao and other favorites gained influence, contributing to chaos after Duke Huan’s death.
Duke Wen of Jin and Jiu Fan:
Duke Wen was another Spring and Autumn hegemon. Jiu Fan, also known as Hu Yan or Uncle Fan, helped guide him back to Jin and supported his rise to power.
Legalist view of joint responsibility:
Han Fei rejects both extremes. He argues that hegemonic success requires a ruler who can appoint, control, and use ministers, and ministers who can carry out policy effectively.
四
晋平公问叔向曰：“昔者齐桓公九合诸侯，一匡天下，不识其臣之力也？其君之力也？”叔向对曰：“管仲善制割，宾胥无善削缝，隰朋善纯缘，衣成，君举而服之。亦臣之力也，君何力之有？”师旷伏琴而笑之。公曰：“太师奚笑也？”师旷对曰：“臣笑叔向之对君也。凡为人臣者，犹炮宰和五味而进之君。君弗食，孰敢强之也？臣请譬之：君者，壤地也；臣者，草木也。必壤地美，然后草木硕大。亦君之力，臣何力之有？”
或曰：叔向、师旷之对，皆偏辞也。夫一匡天下，九合诸侯，美之大者也，非专君之力也，又非专臣之力也。昔者宫之奇在虞，僖负羁在曹，二臣之智，言中事，发中功，虞、曹俱亡者，何也？此有其臣而无其君者也。且蹇叔处干而干亡，处秦而秦霸，非蹇叔愚于干而智于秦也，此有臣与无臣也。向曰“臣之力也，”不然矣。昔者桓公宫中二市，妇闾二百，被发而御妇人。得管仲，为五伯长，失管仲、得竖刁而身死，虫流出尸不葬。以为非臣之力也，且不以管仲为霸；以为君之力也，且不以竖刁为乱。昔者晋文公慕于齐女而亡归，咎犯极谏，故使反晋国。故桓公以管仲合，文公以舅犯霸，而师旷曰“君之力也，”又不然矣。凡五霸所以能成功名于天下者，必君臣俱有力焉。故曰：叔向、师旷之对，皆偏辞也。
Leave a Reply