During the time of Duke Huan of Qi, a guest from Jin arrived, and the responsible officials asked about the proper rites for receiving him. Duke Huan said three times, “Inform Zhongfu.” A court jester laughed and said, “How easy it is to be a ruler! One says ‘Zhongfu,’ the other says ‘Zhongfu.’” Duke Huan replied, “I have heard that a ruler labors in seeking men, but enjoys ease after appointing them. It was already difficult for me to obtain Zhongfu; after obtaining him, why should it not be easy?”
Someone says: Duke Huan’s reply to the jester was not the language of a true ruler. If ruling truly meant laboring to seek men, what labor could there be? Yi Yin presented himself to Tang as a cook, and Baili Xi presented himself to Duke Mu of Qin as a captive. Captivity is a humiliating condition, and serving as a cook is a shameful occupation; yet they endured humiliation to approach their rulers because worthy men are urgently concerned with the world’s disorder. If this is so, a ruler need only refrain from rejecting worthy men; seeking worthies is not a ruler’s difficulty. Moreover, offices exist to employ the worthy, and ranks and salaries exist to reward merit. When offices are established and ranks and salaries displayed, scholars will come of their own accord. What labor remains for the ruler?
Employing men is not a matter of ease either. Although a ruler employs others, he must measure them by standards, examine them by the correspondence between names and realities, and act according to law. When affairs accord with the law, they should proceed; when they do not, they should stop. When merit matches a minister’s words, he should be rewarded; when it does not, he should be punished. To control ministers through the correspondence of names and realities, and to assess subordinates by fixed standards, is something that cannot be relaxed. How can a ruler claim ease?
Seeking men is not laborious, and employing them is not effortless. Duke Huan’s claim that “one labors in seeking men and enjoys ease in employing them” is therefore incorrect. Moreover, Duke Huan’s acquisition of Guan Zhong was not difficult. Guan Zhong did not die for his former lord, Prince Jiu, but submitted to Duke Huan. Bao Shuya lightly regarded high office, yielded it to a more capable man, and secured Guan Zhong’s appointment. It is clear that Duke Huan’s acquisition of Guan Zhong was not difficult. After obtaining Guan Zhong, why should he necessarily have enjoyed ease?
Guan Zhong was not the Duke of Zhou. The Duke of Zhou acted as regent for seven years and, when King Cheng came of age, handed the government over to him. He did this not merely out of concern for the realm, but because he respected his office. One who does not displace a young heir to govern the realm will certainly not betray a dead lord to serve his enemy; one who betrays a dead lord to serve his enemy will certainly not hesitate to displace a young heir to govern the realm; and one who does not hesitate to displace a young heir will certainly not hesitate to seize his ruler’s state. Guan Zhong was a minister of Prince Jiu. He plotted to kill Duke Huan but failed; after his lord died, he became Duke Huan’s minister. Guan Zhong’s choices were not those of the Duke of Zhou, and his true intentions cannot be taken for granted.
If Guan Zhong had been a man of great worth, he might have become a Tang or a Wu. Tang and Wu had been ministers of Jie and Zhou; when Jie and Zhou created disorder, Tang and Wu took their realms. If Duke Huan now placed himself above Guan Zhong while indulging in ease, he would be behaving like Jie and Zhou while ruling over a Tang or Wu. Duke Huan would then be in danger. If Guan Zhong had been an unworthy man, he might have become a Tian Chang. Tian Chang was a minister of Duke Jian of Qi, yet he killed his ruler. If Duke Huan placed himself above Guan Zhong while indulging in ease, he would be like Duke Jian living at ease above Tian Chang. Duke Huan would again be in danger.
That Guan Zhong was not the Duke of Zhou is already clear; whether he resembled Tang and Wu or Tian Chang cannot be known. If he resembled Tang and Wu, Duke Huan faced the peril of Jie and Zhou. If he resembled Tian Chang, Duke Huan faced the rebellion suffered by Duke Jian. After obtaining Zhongfu, how could Duke Huan so quickly claim ease? If Duke Huan entrusted himself to Guan Zhong because he believed Guan Zhong would not deceive him, then he believed he could recognize ministers who do not deceive their lord. Yet although he thought he could recognize such ministers, he later bestowed the same exclusive trust on Shu Diao and Yi Ya, and died with his corpse so neglected that worms crawled out of it and no burial was performed. It is clear that Duke Huan could not distinguish between ministers who deceived their lord and those who did not. Nevertheless, he entrusted himself to ministers with such exclusivity. Hence it is said: Duke Huan was a benighted ruler.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 37.5 refutes Duke Huan’s view of rulership. It argues a ruler cannot rest easy after appointing a minister; he must apply Xing‑Ming checks and laws instead of placing blind personal trust in subordinates.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is a major Legalist text from the late Warring States period. The Nan chapters challenge received praise for famous rulers and ministers, arguing that governance depends on law, method, and constant scrutiny rather than on trusting a single wise adviser.
A Spring and Autumn ruler traditionally celebrated as the first of the Five Hegemons. His partnership with Guan Zhong became a model of successful rule, but Han Fei questions whether Duke Huan truly understood the risks of relying on one minister.
Zhongfu:
“Zhongfu,” or “Second Father,” was Duke Huan’s respectful title for Guan Zhong. It shows how completely Duke Huan delegated authority to him.
The court jester:
The jester represents an outsider’s observation that Duke Huan seems to do nothing except call for Guan Zhong. Han Fei uses this moment to examine whether delegation really means ease.
Yi Yin and Tang:
Yi Yin was a famous minister of the Shang founding ruler Tang. Tradition says he approached Tang through humble service, sometimes described as working as a cook. Han Fei uses this to argue that worthy men will seek rulers if the ruler does not reject them.
Baili Xi and Duke Mu of Qin:
Baili Xi was a well-known minister who, according to tradition, rose from captivity to serve Duke Mu of Qin. He illustrates how talent can appear without the ruler needing to labor excessively.
Xingming:
“Xingming,” often translated as “names and realities” or “form and performance,” is a Legalist method of matching a minister’s words, office, and results. A minister who promises certain duties must produce corresponding achievements.
Guan Zhong and Prince Jiu:
Before Duke Huan ruled Qi, he competed with his brother Prince Jiu. Guan Zhong had served Prince Jiu and once tried to kill Duke Huan. After Prince Jiu’s death, Guan Zhong entered Duke Huan’s service, largely through Bao Shuya’s recommendation.
Bao Shuya:
A close friend and rival of Guan Zhong. He recommended Guan Zhong for high office and yielded position to him, an act traditionally praised as unselfish.
The Duke of Zhou and King Cheng:
The Duke of Zhou served as regent after the Zhou conquest and later returned power to the young King Cheng. Confucian tradition treats this as the highest example of loyal service. Han Fei contrasts Guan Zhong with him to show that Guan Zhong’s loyalty is less certain.
Tang and Wu:
Tang, founder of the Shang dynasty, and King Wu, founder of the Zhou dynasty, were vassals who overthrew tyrannical rulers. Han Fei warns that a minister of extraordinary worth may also have the capacity to replace his ruler.
Tian Chang and Duke Jian of Qi:
Tian Chang, also known as Tian Heng, was a Qi minister who killed Duke Jian. This case represents the danger of a powerful minister usurping the ruler.
Shu Diao and Yi Ya:
Favorites of Duke Huan in his later years. After Guan Zhong’s death, they gained influence and contributed to the chaos following Duke Huan’s death. His corpse was allegedly left unburied for a long time, becoming a famous symbol of his tragic end.
Legalist view of trust:
Han Fei does not believe a ruler should rely on personal trust in a minister. Even if one minister appears loyal, the ruler must maintain law, standards, and methods of inspection. Exclusive trust, whether in a capable minister or in flattering favorites, can destroy the ruler.
五
齐桓公之时，晋客至，有司请礼。桓公曰：“告仲父”者三。而优笑曰：“易哉，为君！一曰仲父，二曰仲父。”桓公曰：“吾闻君人者劳于索人，佚于使从。吾得仲父已难矣，得仲父之后，何为不易乎哉？”
或曰：桓公之所应优，非君人者之言也。桓公以君人为劳于索人，何索人为劳哉？伊尹自以为宰干汤，百里奚自以为虏干穆公。虏，所辱也；宰，所羞也。蒙羞辱而接君上，贤者之忧世急也。然则君人者无逆贤而已矣，索贤不为人主难。且官职，所以任贤也；爵禄，所以赏功也。设官职，陈爵禄，而士自至，君人者奚其劳哉？使人又非所佚也。人主虽使人，必度量准之，以刑名参之；以事遇于法则行，不遇于法则止；功当其言则赏，不当则诛。以刑名收臣，以度量准下，此不可释也，君人者焉佚哉？
索人不劳，使人不佚，而桓公曰：“劳于索人，佚于使人”者，不然。且桓公得管仲又不难。管仲不死其君而归桓公，鲍叔轻官让能而任之，桓公得管仲又不难，明矣。已得管仲之后，奚遽易哉？管仲非周公旦。周公旦假为天子七年，成王壮，授之以政，非为天下计也，为其职也。夫不夺子而行天下者，必不背死君而事其仇；背死君而事其仇者，必不难夺子而行天下；不难夺子而行天下者，必不难夺其君国矣。管仲，公子纠之臣也，谋杀桓公而不能，其君死而臣桓公，管仲之取舍非周公旦，未可知也。若使管仲大贤也，且为汤武，桀、纣之臣也；桀、纣作乱，汤、武夺之。今桓公以易居其上，是以桀、纣之行居汤、武之上，桓公危矣。若使管仲不肖人也，且为田常。田常，简公之臣也，而弑其君。今桓公以易居其上，是以简公之易居田常之上也，桓公又危矣。管仲非周公旦以明矣，然为汤、武与田常，未可知也。为汤、武，有桀、纣之危；为田常，有简公之乱也。已得仲父之后，桓公奚遽易哉？若使桓公之任管仲，必知不欺己也，是知不欺主之臣也。然虽知不欺主之臣，今桓公以任管仲之专借竖刁、易牙，虫流出尸而不葬，桓公不知臣欺主与不欺主已明矣，而任臣如彼其专也，故曰：桓公暗主。
Leave a Reply