When Duke Wen of Jin was in exile, Duke Xian sent the eunuch Pi to attack him at Pu. Pi cut off the sleeve of Duke Wen’s robe, and Duke Wen fled to Di. When Duke Hui came to the throne, he again sent Pi to attack him at Huidou, but he did not catch him. Later, when Duke Wen returned to rule his state, Pi asked for an audience. The duke said, “During the affair at Pu, the ruler ordered you to wait one night before setting out, yet you arrived at once. During the crisis at Huidou, the ruler ordered you to wait three nights, yet you came after only one night. Why were you so quick?” Pi replied, “In carrying out the ruler’s command, there should be no double-mindedness. In removing what the ruler detests, I only feared that my strength would be insufficient. As for the people of Pu and Di, what concern were they to me? Now that you have taken the throne, will there not again be enemies like those of Pu and Di? Moreover, Duke Huan of Qi set aside the grievance of the arrow shot at his hook and made Guan Zhong his minister.” The duke therefore received him.
Someone says: Was it not fitting that the sacrifices of Qi and Jin were eventually cut off? Duke Huan could make use of Guan Zhong’s merit and forget the grievance of the arrow shot at his hook; Duke Wen could heed the eunuch’s words and abandon the crime of having his sleeve cut off. These two rulers were able to tolerate these two men. But later rulers were not as enlightened as these two dukes, and later ministers were not as worthy as these two men. When disloyal ministers serve an unenlightened ruler, if the ruler does not detect them, disasters like those of Yan Cao, Zihan, and Tian Chang will arise. If the ruler does detect them, the ministers will excuse themselves by citing Guan Zhong and the eunuch. If the ruler does not punish them and instead believes he possesses the virtue of Duke Huan and Duke Wen, then he treats an enemy as loyal while his own insight fails to illuminate the truth. He grants such men much authority, thinks himself wise, and takes no precautions. Even if he leaves no descendants, is that not fitting? Moreover, the eunuch’s words merely dress up his obedience to the ruler’s command as single-minded loyalty. If he serves the ruler faithfully while the ruler lives, but feels no shame in serving another after that ruler’s death, how can such conduct be called loyalty? Duke Hui died in the morning, and by evening the eunuch was serving Duke Wen. Where, then, was his “no double-mindedness”?
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 38.2 critiques Duke Wen’s acceptance of eunuch Pi. It warns later rulers against blindly imitating ancient tolerance, for disloyal ministers may misuse such precedents to usurp state power.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is a major Legalist text from the late Warring States period. The Nan chapters often challenge admired historical anecdotes by showing that a ruler’s imitation of past virtue can become dangerous if he lacks the insight to judge people correctly.
Duke Wen of Jin:
Duke Xian of Jin:
Father of Duke Wen. He sent forces against his own son during the succession struggles in Jin.
The eunuch Pi:
A court eunuch sent to attack Duke Wen. “Eunuch” here refers to a palace attendant, not merely a castrated servant. Such men could serve as messengers and agents of the ruler.
Pu and Di:
Pu was a place where Duke Wen stayed during exile. Di was a non-Zhou people on the frontier. Duke Wen sought refuge there.
Duke Hui of Jin:
Another ruler of Jin who succeeded Duke Xian and also opposed Duke Wen.
Duke Huan of Qi and Guan Zhong:
A famous ruler-minister pair from the early Spring and Autumn period. Guan Zhong once shot an arrow at Duke Huan’s belt hook while serving a rival. Duke Huan later forgave him and made him chief minister.
The arrow shot at the hook:
Guan Zhong’s arrow struck Duke Huan’s belt hook rather than killing him. The story became a classic example of a ruler putting public benefit above private grievance.
Yan Cao, Zihan, and Tian Chang:
Examples used by Han Fei of ministers who seized power. Yan Cao refers to Zizhi, who seized power in Yan. Zihan was a Song minister who took control of Song. Tian Chang, also known as Chen Heng, seized power in Qi and helped end the old ruling line.
Ancestral sacrifices:
In early Chinese political thought, a state’s survival was measured by whether its ruling house could continue its ancestral sacrifices. To “cut off the sacrifices” meant the loss of the dynasty.
Han Fei’s warning:
Han Fei does not deny that Duke Huan and Duke Wen acted wisely in their own cases. He argues that later rulers, being less perceptive, should not imitate their generosity without being able to distinguish true talent from dangerous flatterers.
二
文公出亡，献公使寺人披攻之蒲城，披斩其祛，文公奔翟。惠公即位，又使攻之惠窦，不得也。及文公反国，披求见。公曰：“蒲城之役，君令一宿，而汝即至；惠窦之难，君令三宿，而汝一宿，何其速也？”披对曰：“君令不二。除君之恶，恐不堪。蒲人、翟人，余何有焉？今公即位，其无蒲、翟乎？且桓公置射钩而相管仲。”君乃见之。
或曰：齐、晋绝祀，不亦宜乎？桓公能用管仲之功而忘射钩之怨，文公能听寺人之言而弃斩祛之罪，桓公、文公能容二子者也。后世之君，明不及二公；后世之臣，贤不如二子。不忠之臣以事不明之君，君不知，则有燕操、子罕、田常之贼；知之，则以管仲、寺人自解。君必不诛而自以为有桓、文之德，是臣仇而明不能烛，多假之资，自以为贤而不戒，则虽无后嗣，不亦可乎？且寺人之言也，直饰君令而不贰者，则是贞于君也。死君后生，臣不愧，而复为贞。今惠公朝卒而暮事文公，寺人之不贰何如？
Leave a Reply