The Five Vermin (Han Feizi, Chapter 49)
In the age of high antiquity, the people were few and the birds and beasts numerous. The people could not overcome the birds, beasts, insects, and snakes. A sage arose who built nests in trees to avoid the myriad harms, and the people were delighted with him, made him king over the world, and called him the Nest-Builder (Youchao). The people ate fruits, melons, mussels, and clams, which were rank, foul, and evil-smelling and harmed the stomach and intestines, so many people fell ill. A sage arose who drilled wood to make fire to cook away the rank and foul smells, and the people were pleased with him, made him king over the world, and called him the Fire-Drillers (Suiren). In the middle antiquity, the world was greatly flooded, and Gun and Yu dredged the channels. In near antiquity, Jie and Zhou were violent and disorderly, and Tang and Wu campaigned against them. If now, in the age of the Xia sovereigns, someone were to build nests and drill wood for fire, he would surely be laughed at by Gun and Yu; if someone were to dredge channels in the age of Yin and Zhou, he would surely be laughed at by Tang and Wu. Then if now, in the present age, someone were to praise the ways of Yao, Shun, Tang, Wu, and Yu, he would surely be laughed at by the new sages. Therefore the sage does not expect to follow antiquity, nor does he model himself on constant norms; he examines the affairs of the age and makes preparations accordingly. A man of Song was ploughing his field, and in the field was a stump. A rabbit ran and struck the stump, broke its neck, and died. Thereupon he laid down his plough and guarded the stump, hoping to get another rabbit. The rabbit could not be gotten again, and he himself became a laughingstock of the state of Song. If now one wishes to use the government of the early kings to govern the people of the present age, it is all of the same kind as guarding the stump.
In antiquity, men did not plough, for the fruits of plants and trees were enough to eat; women did not weave, for the skins of birds and beasts were enough to wear. Without exerting strength, sustenance was sufficient; the people were few and wealth was surplus, so the people did not contend. Therefore generous rewards were not used, heavy punishments were not employed, and the people governed themselves. Now if a man has five sons, that is not considered many; each son again has five sons, so before the grandfather dies there are twenty-five grandsons. Therefore the people are numerous and wealth is scarce; they exert strength and toil but their support is meager, so the people contend, and even doubled rewards and repeated punishments do not avert disorder.
When Yao ruled the world, his thatched roof was not trimmed, his oaken rafters were not cut; he ate coarse grain and drank soup of wild greens; in winter he wore a deer-skin fur, in summer a hemp garment; even the clothing and support of a gatekeeper were not inferior to this. When Yu ruled the world, he himself took up the plough and spade and led the people; the muscles of his thighs were worn away, and no hair grew on his shins; even the toil of a slave was not more bitter than this. From this point of view, those who ceded the position of Son of Heaven in antiquity were escaping the support of a gatekeeper and leaving the toil of a slave; hence the handing down of the world in antiquity is not worthy of much praise. Now a county magistrate, once he dies, his sons and grandsons for generations are carried in carriages, so people value this. Therefore in the matter of ceding, people easily decline the ancient position of Son of Heaven but find it hard to give up the present county magistracy, because the reality of thinness and thickness is different. Those who live in the mountains and draw water from the valleys give water as presents at the La and winter sacrifices; those who live in marshes and suffer from water hire laborers to drain the channels. Therefore in a year of famine in spring, even a younger brother is not fed; in a year of plenty in autumn, even a distant guest is surely fed. This is not because they are distant from flesh and blood and love passing guests, but because the reality of much and little is different. Therefore the ancients’ lightening of wealth was not benevolence, but wealth was much; the present contention and seizure is not meanness, but wealth is little. Lightly declining the Son of Heaven was not high-mindedness, but the power was thin; heavily contending for office was not baseness, but the power was heavy. Therefore the sage considers much and little, weighs thin and thick, and makes his government accordingly. Thus thin punishments are not for the sake of compassion, and severe executions are not for the sake of cruelty; they are measured according to custom and carried out. Therefore affairs accord with the age, and preparations fit the affairs.
In antiquity, King Wen of Zhou was between Feng and Hao, with a territory of a hundred li; he practiced benevolence and righteousness and won over the Western Rong, and so became king over the world. King Yan of Xu was east of the Han River, with a territory of five hundred li; he practiced benevolence and righteousness, and thirty-six states ceded territory and came to his court. King Wen of Jing (Chu) feared he would harm him, raised troops and attacked Xu, and destroyed it. Therefore King Wen practiced benevolence and righteousness and became king over the world, while King Yan practiced benevolence and righteousness and lost his state; this shows that benevolence and righteousness were used in antiquity but are not used today. Therefore it is said: When the age differs, affairs differ. In the time of Shun, the Youmiao did not submit, and Yu was about to attack them. Shun said: “Not so. If the ruler’s virtue is not abundant and he resorts to arms, this is not the Way.” Thereupon he cultivated instruction for three years, and with shield and axe danced, and the Youmiao submitted. In the battle of Gonggong, those with long iron weapons reached the enemy, and those whose armor was not strong were wounded in the body. This shows that shields and axes were used in antiquity but are not used today. Therefore it is said: When affairs differ, preparations change. In high antiquity they competed in virtue and morality; in middle antiquity they pursued wisdom and strategy; in the present age they contend in strength and force. The state of Qi was about to attack Lu, and Lu sent Zigong to persuade them. The men of Qi said: “Your words are not uneloquent, but what we want is land, not what your words speak of.” Thereupon they raised troops and attacked Lu, and took the area ten li from the gate as the border. Therefore King Yan practiced benevolence and righteousness and Xu perished; Zigong was eloquent and wise and Lu was reduced. From this point of view, benevolence, righteousness, eloquence, and wisdom are not what preserves a state. If one discards the benevolence of King Yan, stops the wisdom of Zigong, and follows the strength of Xu and Lu to resist a state of ten thousand chariots, then the desires of Qi and Jing could not be carried out against those two states.
Now antiquity and the present have different customs, and the new and the old have different preparations. If one wishes to use lenient and relaxed government to govern the people of an urgent age, it is like driving a wild horse without reins and whip; this is the calamity of ignorance. Now the Confucians and Mohists all praise the early kings for loving the world universally, and say they looked on the people as parents. How is this proved? They say: “When the minister of justice carried out executions, the ruler did not have music performed for him; when he heard the report of a death sentence, the ruler shed tears for him.” This is what they adduce about the early kings. If ruler and minister were like father and son, then there would surely be order; extending this, there would be no disorderly fathers and sons. In human feelings, none is more intimate than parents; all are loved, yet there is not necessarily order. Even with deep love, how can disorder be prevented? Now the early kings’ love for the people did not exceed parents’ love for children; children are not necessarily orderly, so how can the people be orderly? Moreover, when the law is carried out and punishment executed, and the ruler sheds tears for them, this is to display benevolence, not to achieve order. To shed tears and not wish to punish is benevolence; yet it cannot but punish, this is law. The early kings overcame their law and did not follow their weeping; then it is clear that benevolence cannot be used for government.
Moreover, the people are inherently submissive to power and rarely can be won over by righteousness. Confucius was a sage of the world; he cultivated conduct and made clear the Way and traveled within the four seas; those within the four seas who were pleased with his benevolence and praised his righteousness and became his servants were seventy men. This is because those who value benevolence are few, and those who can practice righteousness are rare. Therefore with the greatness of the world, those who became his servants were seventy, and the benevolent and righteous man was one. Duke Ai of Lu was an inferior ruler; he faced south and ruled the state, and none of the people within the borders dared not be his subject. The people are inherently submissive to power, and truly easy to make submit; therefore Confucius instead was a subject and Duke Ai was the ruler. Confucius did not embrace his righteousness but submitted to his power. Therefore in terms of righteousness, Confucius would not submit to Duke Ai; but riding on power, Duke Ai made Confucius his subject. Now the scholars’ persuasions of rulers do not ride on the power that must win, but strive to practice benevolence and righteousness and thereby become king; this is to seek that the ruler must equal Confucius and that the ordinary people of the age all be like his disciples. This is a necessarily unattainable calculation.
Now there is an unworthy son: his parents are angry with him but he does not reform; the villagers reproach him but he is not moved; his teachers instruct him but he does not change. With the love of parents, the conduct of villagers, and the wisdom of teachers, three excellences added together, he still does not move, and the hair on his shins does not change. But when the officers of the district, holding official weapons and promoting the public law, search for criminals, then he is afraid, changes his conduct, and alters his behavior. Therefore the love of parents is not enough to teach children; it must await the severe punishments of the district, for the people are inherently arrogant under love and obedient to authority. Therefore a wall of ten ren, which Lou Ji could not climb over, is because it is steep; a mountain of a thousand ren, which a lame ewe can easily graze on, is because it is level. Therefore the enlightened king makes his laws steep and his punishments severe. Cloth of ordinary length, a common man will not let go; molten gold of a hundred yi, Robber Zhi will not pick up. If it is not necessarily harmful, then one does not let go of ordinary cloth; if it will surely harm the hand, then one does not pick up a hundred yi. Therefore the enlightened ruler makes his executions certain. Thus rewards should be generous and trustworthy, making the people benefit from them; punishments should be heavy and certain, making the people fear them; laws should be unified and firm, making the people know them. Therefore the ruler dispenses rewards without change, carries out executions without pardon, praise accompanies his rewards, and blame follows his punishments; then the worthy and unworthy alike exert their strength.
Now it is not so. When men have merit, they are given rank, yet their official position is demeaned; when they have ploughed, they are rewarded, yet their family estate is belittled; when they do not accept office, they are distanced, yet their contempt for the world is exalted; when they violate prohibitions, they are punished, yet their courage is praised. The application of blame and praise, reward and punishment, is mutually contradictory, so the laws and prohibitions are ruined and the people are more disorderly. Now if a brother is invaded, one must attack the offender – this is called uprightness; if a close friend is insulted, one follows him in revenge – this is called loyalty. When the conduct of uprightness and loyalty is formed, the ruler’s laws are violated. The ruler honors the conduct of loyalty and uprightness but forgets the crime of violating prohibitions, so the people compete in courage, and the officials cannot overcome them. To get food and clothing without exerting strength is called ability; to be honored without military merit is called worthiness. When the conduct of worthiness and ability is formed, the army is weak and the land is desolate. The ruler delights in the conduct of worthiness and ability but forgets the calamity of a weak army and desolate land, so private conduct is established and public benefit is destroyed.
The Confucians use letters to disorder the law, and the knights use force to violate prohibitions, yet the ruler honors both; this is why there is disorder. Those who depart from the law are punished, yet the various masters are chosen for their literary learning; those who violate prohibitions are executed, yet the crowd of knights are supported for their private swords. Therefore what the law condemns, the ruler chooses; what the officials execute, the superior supports. Law, preferences, superiors, and inferiors – these four are mutually contrary, and there is no fixed standard; even with ten Yellow Emperors, they could not govern. Therefore those who practice benevolence and righteousness should not be praised; praising them harms merit. Those who are skilled in literature should not be employed; employing them disorders the law. In Chu there was a man named Zhi Gong; his father stole a sheep, and he reported it to the officials. The prime minister said: “Kill him!” He considered him upright toward the ruler but crooked toward his father, and reported and punished him. From this we see that the ruler’s upright minister is the father’s violent son. A man of Lu followed his ruler into battle and three times three times fled. Confucius asked him why, and he replied: “I have an old father; if I die, no one will support him.” Confucius considered him filial and promoted him. From this we see that the father’s filial son is the ruler’s treacherous subject. Therefore when the prime minister executed Zhi Gong, the villains of Chu no longer reported to the superior; when Confucius rewarded the filial son, the people of Lu easily surrendered and fled. The interests of superior and inferior are thus different, yet the ruler simultaneously promotes the conduct of ordinary men and seeks to bring about the blessing of the state – this is surely far from possible.
In antiquity, when Cang Jie created writing, what turned around itself he called private; what turned away from private he called public. That public and private are mutually contrary, Cang Jie already knew. Now to consider them as sharing the same benefit is the calamity of not examining. Yet if one plans for an ordinary man, nothing is better than cultivating conduct and righteousness and practicing literature. When conduct and righteousness are cultivated, one is trusted; when trusted, one receives office. When literature is practiced, one becomes a clear teacher; as a clear teacher, one is honored and glorious. This is the beauty of an ordinary man. Yet if without merit one receives office, and without rank one is honored and glorious, and government is like this, then the state will surely be disorderly and the ruler will surely be in danger. Therefore incompatible things do not both stand. Those who behead the enemy receive rewards, yet the conduct of compassion and kindness is exalted; those who take cities receive rank and emoluments, yet the doctrine of uprightness and love is trusted; strong armor and sharp weapons are prepared for emergencies, yet the adornments of the scholar’s sash are praised; the state is enriched by agriculture and the enemy resisted by soldiers, yet the literati are honored; the people who respect superiors and fear the law are discarded, yet the followers of wandering knights and private swords are supported. If conduct is like this, order and strength cannot be obtained. In peace the state supports Confucians and knights; when trouble comes it uses armored soldiers. What is benefited is not what is used; what is used is not what is benefited. Therefore those who serve simplify their tasks, while those who wander in learning daily increase – this is why the age is disorderly.
Moreover, what the world calls worthy is the conduct of loyalty and trust; what it calls wise is subtle words. Subtle words are what even the highest wisdom finds hard to understand. Now if one makes laws for the multitude and uses what the highest wisdom finds hard to understand, then the people have no way to know it. Therefore those who are not satisfied with chaff and husks do not seek fine grain and meat; those whose short jackets are not whole do not await embroidery. In governing the affairs of the age, if the urgent is not obtained, then the slow is not what is pursued. Now in the government being administered, the affairs of the people, what husbands and wives clearly know is not used, but what is admired is the discourse of the highest wisdom; then this is contrary to governance. Therefore subtle words are not what the people urgently need. As for the conduct of worthiness, goodness, loyalty, and trust, one will surely value men who do not deceive; but men who do not deceive also have no art of not deceiving. Commoners in their mutual dealings have no wealth to benefit each other and no power to fear each other, so they seek men who do not deceive. Now the ruler occupies the power of controlling men and holds the wealth of a whole state; with heavy rewards and severe executions he holds the handle, and with what his art illumines, even ministers like Tian Chang and Zi Han would not dare deceive him – why wait for men who do not deceive? Now men of loyalty and trust do not fill ten, while the officials within the borders number in the hundreds. If one must appoint men of loyalty and trust, then there will not be enough men for office. If there are not enough men for office, then those who govern will be few and those who disorder will be many. Therefore the way of the enlightened ruler is to unify the law and not seek wisdom, to firm his art and not admire trust; thus the law is not ruined, and the officials have no treachery.
Now the ruler, in regard to words, delights in their eloquence but does not seek their fitness; in regard to their use in action, he admires their reputation but does not exact their merit. Therefore the multitude of the world, those who talk, strive to be eloquent but do not fit use; thus those who cite the early kings and speak of benevolence and righteousness fill the court, yet the government does not escape disorder. Those who cultivate themselves compete to be high but do not fit merit; thus wise men retire to caves and refuse salaries, yet the army does not escape weakness and the government does not escape disorder. What is the reason for this? What the people praise and the ruler honors is the art of ruining the state. Now the people within the borders all speak of government, and those who store the laws of Shang Yang and Guan Zhong have them in every home, yet the state is poor – because those who speak of ploughing are many, while those who hold the plough are few. Within the borders all speak of war, and those who store the books of Sun Wu and Wu Qi have them in every home, yet the army is weaker – because those who speak of war are many, while those who wear armor are few. Therefore the enlightened ruler uses their strength and does not listen to their words; he rewards their merit and prohibits useless things. Thus the people exhaust their death-strength to follow their superior. Ploughing is toil of strength, yet the people do it, saying: By this I can become rich. War is a dangerous affair, yet the people do it, saying: By this I can become honored. Now if one cultivates literature and practices speech, then without the toil of ploughing one has the reality of wealth, and without the danger of war one has the honor of nobility – then who would not do it? Therefore a hundred men serve wisdom and one man uses strength. When those who serve wisdom are many, the law is ruined; when those who use strength are few, the state is poor – this is why the age is disorderly.
Therefore in the state of the enlightened ruler there are no written texts of books and bamboo slips; the law is the teaching. There are no words of the early kings; the officials are the teachers. There is no defense of private swords; beheading the enemy is courage. Thus the people within the borders, those who talk must conform to the law, those who act must return to merit, and those who are brave must exhaust themselves in the army. Therefore in peace the state is rich, and in trouble the army is strong – this is called the resources of a king. Having accumulated the resources of a king and seizing the flaws of enemy states, to surpass the Five Emperors and equal the Three Kings, this is surely the method.
Now it is not so. The scholars and people indulge themselves within, and the talkers create power without; both within and without are wicked, and with this to await a strong enemy – is this not perilous! Therefore when the ministers speak of external affairs, they either belong to the parties of Vertical or Horizontal alliance, or have the loyalty of personal enemies, and borrow the strength of the state. The Vertical (合纵) is to unite the many weak to attack the one strong; the Horizontal (连横) is to serve the one strong to attack the many weak. Neither is the way to preserve a state. Now when ministers speak of Horizontal, they all say: “If you do not serve the great, then you will meet the enemy and suffer calamity.” Serving the great may not have substance, yet one raises maps and hands them over, and offers the seal and asks for troops. Offering the map, the land is reduced; offering the seal, the name is lowered. When the land is reduced, the state is weakened; when the name is lowered, the government is disordered. To serve the great in Horizontal, before seeing its benefit, one has already lost land and disordered government. When ministers speak of Vertical, they all say: “If you do not save the small and attack the great, then you will lose the world; losing the world, the state is in danger; the state in danger, the ruler is humbled.” Saving the small may not have substance, yet one raises troops and opposes the great. Saving the small may not preserve it, and allying with the great may not be without gaps; with gaps, one is controlled by the strong state. Sending out troops, the army is defeated; retreating to defend, the city is taken. Saving the small in Vertical, before seeing its benefit, one has already lost land and defeated the army. Therefore serving the strong, one uses external power to establish officials within; saving the small, one uses internal weight to seek benefit without. Before the state’s benefit is established, fiefs and rich emoluments have arrived; though the ruler is humbled, the minister is honored; though the state’s land is reduced, the private family is enriched. When the affair succeeds, one uses power to grow heavy; when it fails, one uses wealth to retire. The ruler, in listening to his ministers, before the affair is completed, has already honored them with rank and emoluments; when the affair fails, he does not execute them – then which wandering persuader would not use the rhetoric of the arrow and snare and hope for luck afterward? Therefore states are broken and rulers destroyed by listening to the floating words of talkers. What is the reason? The ruler does not understand the benefit of public and private, does not examine whether words are fitting, and does not certainly execute punishments afterward. They all say: “In external affairs, the great can become king, the small can be secure.” To become king is to be able to attack others; to be secure is to be unable to be attacked. To be strong is to be able to attack others; to be ordered is to be unable to be attacked. Order and strength cannot be sought from without; they lie in internal government. Now if one does not practice law and art within, but applies wisdom without, then one will not reach order and strength.
A vulgar proverb says: “Long sleeves are good for dancing; much money is good for trade.” This speaks of how with much capital it is easy to do work well. Therefore order and strength are easy to plan for; weakness and disorder are hard to scheme for. Therefore those employed by Qin, with ten changes their plans rarely fail; those employed by Yan, with one change their schemes rarely succeed. It is not that those employed by Qin are necessarily wise and those employed by Yan necessarily foolish; it is that the resources of order and disorder are different. Therefore when Zhou left Qin for Vertical, within a year it was taken; when Wei left Wei for Horizontal, within half a year it perished. Thus Zhou was destroyed by Vertical and Wei by Horizontal. If Zhou and Wei had slowed their Vertical and Horizontal plans and strictly governed within their borders, making clear their laws and prohibitions, certain their rewards and punishments, exhausting the strength of their land to increase their stores, and causing their people to die to strengthen their city defenses, then if the world got their land the benefit would be little, and if it attacked their states the harm would be great; a state of ten thousand chariots would not dare to lodge itself under a strong city and let a strong enemy judge its exhaustion. This is the art of certain non-destruction. To abandon the art of certain non-destruction and walk the road of certain destruction is the fault of the ruler. When wisdom is trapped within and government is disordered without, then destruction cannot be saved.
The constant calculations of the people all tend toward security and benefit and avoid danger and poverty. Now if one makes them attack and fight, advancing they die at the hands of the enemy, retreating they die by execution – then it is dangerous. If they abandon private affairs and must undergo the toil of sweat and horses, and their families are in difficulty while the superior does not consider them – then it is poverty. Where poverty and danger are, how can the people not avoid them? Therefore they serve private gates and repair their houses; when the houses are repaired, they are far from war; being far from war, they are secure. They practice bribery and attach themselves to those in power, and so obtain what they seek; having obtained it, they are privately secure; being privately secure, that is where benefit lies – how can they not go toward it? Therefore public citizens are few and private men are many.
The government of the enlightened king in governing the state makes the merchants, artisans, and wandering eaters few and their names low, in order to reduce those who tend to the fundamental task and run to secondary pursuits. Now in the present age the requests of favorites are carried out, so offices and ranks can be bought; when offices and ranks can be bought, then merchants and artisans are not low. When treacherous wealth and goods can be used in the market, then merchants are not few. When their amassed wealth is double that of farmers and their honor exceeds that of ploughmen and soldiers, then upright men are few and high-priced people are many.
Therefore the customs of a disorderly state: its scholars cite the way of the early kings and rely on benevolence and righteousness, dress grandly and adorn their rhetoric, to cast doubt on the laws of the age and to make double the ruler’s mind. Its talkers set up false claims, borrow external force to accomplish their private ends, and abandon the benefit of the state. Its swordsmen gather followers, establish a reputation for integrity, to display their names and violate the prohibitions of the five offices. Its shirkers of service accumulate at private gates, exhaust bribes, and use the requests of the powerful to push aside the toil of sweat and horses. Its merchants and artisans make poor and shoddy vessels, gather extravagant wealth, store up and wait for the times, and match the profit of the farmer. These five are the vermin of the state. If the ruler does not remove these five kinds of vermin and does not support upright men, then even if within the four seas there are broken and destroyed states and extinguished dynasties, it is no wonder.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 49 (Five Vermin) argues governance must adapt to changing eras. It denounces five harmful social groups sapping state strength, advocating strict law‑reward‑punishment and prioritizing farming‑warfare over empty moral rhetoric.
The Five Vermin (五蠹):
Han Fei‘s term for five classes he considered harmful to the state: scholars (儒), talkers (言谈者), swordsmen (带剑者), shirkers of service (患御者), and merchants/artisans (商工之民). This is the central concept of the chapter.
Youchao (有巢氏) and Suiren (燧人氏):
Legendary culture heroes of Chinese prehistory. Youchao taught people to build tree dwellings; Suiren taught them to make fire by drilling wood. They represent the transition from animal-like existence to civilization.
Gun (鲧) and Yu (禹):
Father and son in Chinese mythology. Gun failed to control the great flood; Yu succeeded by dredging channels. Yu founded the Xia dynasty and is a model of selfless labor.
Jie (桀) and Zhou (纣):
The infamous last rulers of the Xia and Shang dynasties, archetypes of tyranny. Tang overthrew Jie and founded the Shang; Wu overthrew Zhou and founded the Zhou.
Yao (尧) and Shun (舜):
Founder of the Zhou dynasty’s rise; known for benevolence and virtue. **King Yan of Xu (徐偃王):** A ruler who practiced benevolence but was destroyed by Chu – Han Fei’s example that virtue alone cannot preserve a state.
Zigong (Zi Gong, 子贡):
A disciple of Confucius, famous for eloquence and diplomacy. Han Fei uses him to show that rhetoric cannot save a state from military force.
The great sage and founder of Confucianism. Han Fei argues that even Confucius had only seventy followers, proving that virtue is rare and power is more effective.
Duke Ai of Lu (鲁哀公):
A minor ruler of Lu. Han Fei points out that Confucius, though a sage, was Duke Ai’s subject – proving that position and power, not virtue, command obedience.
Lou Ji (楼季):
A legendary strongman or acrobat. Used to illustrate that even a strong man cannot climb a steep wall, but a lame sheep can graze on a level mountain – circumstances matter more than ability.
A legendary bandit. Han Fei says even Robber Zhi would not pick up molten gold if it would burn his hand – illustrating that certain punishment deters even the boldest.
Cang Jie (苍颉):
Legendary inventor of Chinese writing. Han Fei uses his distinction between “private” (自环) and “public” (背私) to argue that public and private interests are inherently opposed.
Tian Chang (田常) and Zi Han (子罕):
Ministers who usurped power from their rulers. Han Fei uses them as examples of dangerous ministers who would be deterred only by strict law and art.
Vertical (合纵) and Horizontal (连横) Alliances:
The two main diplomatic strategies during the Warring States period. Vertical: weak states unite against the strong Qin. Horizontal: weak states serve Qin to attack other weak states. Han Fei argues both are ruinous because they rely on external force rather than internal strength.
“Long sleeves are good for dancing, much money is good for trade” (长袖善舞，多钱善贾):
A proverb meaning that with ample resources, success comes easily. Han Fei uses it to argue that a well-governed, strong state finds it easy to make plans, while a weak, disorderly state finds it hard.
五蠹第四十九
上古之世，人民少而禽兽众，人民不胜禽兽虫蛇。有圣人作，构木为巢以避群害，而民悦之，使王天下，号曰有巢氏。民食果蓏蚌蛤，腥臊恶臭而伤害腹胃，民多疾病。有圣人作，钻燧取火以化腥臊，而民说之，使王天下，号之曰燧人氏。中古之世，天下大水，而鲧、禹决渎。近古之世，桀、纣暴乱，而汤、武征伐。今有构木钻燧于夏后氏之世者，必为鲧、禹笑矣；有决渎于殷、周之世者，必为汤、武笑矣。然则今有美尧、舜、汤、武、禹之道于当今之世者，必为新圣笑矣。是以圣人不期修古，不法常可，论世之事，因为之备。宋有人耕田者，田中有株，兔走触株，折颈而死，因释其耒而守株，冀复得兔，兔不可复得，而身为宋国笑。今欲以先王之政，治当世之民，皆守株之类也。
古者丈夫不耕，草木之实足食也；妇人不织，禽兽之皮足衣也。不事力而养足，人民少而财有余，故民不争。是以厚赏不行，重罚不用，而民自治。今人有五子不为多，子又有五子，大父未死而有二十五孙。是以人民众而财寡，事力劳而供养薄，故民争，虽倍赏累罚而不免于乱。
尧之王天下也，茅茨不翦，采椽不斫；粝粢之食，藜藿之羹；冬日麑裘，夏日葛衣；虽监门之服养，不亏于此矣。禹之王天下也，身执耒臿以为民先，股无胈，胫不生毛，虽臣虏之劳，不苦于此矣。以是言之，夫古之让天子者，是去监门之养，而离臣虏之劳也，古传天下而不足多也。今之县令，一日身死，子孙累世絜驾，故人重之。是以人之于让也，轻辞古之天子，难去今之县令者，薄厚之实异也。夫山居而谷汲者，膢腊而相遗以水；泽居苦水者，买庸而决窦。故饥岁之春，幼弟不饷；穰岁之秋，疏客必食。非疏骨肉，爱过客，多少之实异也。是以古之易财，非仁也，财多也；今之争夺，非鄙也，财寡也。轻辞天子，非高也，势薄也；重争士橐，非下也，权重也。故圣人议多少、论薄厚为之政。故罚薄不为慈，诛严不为戾，称俗而行也。故事因于世，而备适于事。
古者文王处丰、镐之间，地方百里，行仁义而怀西戎，遂王天下。徐偃王处汉东，地方五百里，行仁义，割地而朝者三十有六国。荆文王恐其害己也，举兵伐徐，遂灭之。故文王行仁义而王天下，偃王行仁义而丧其国，是仁义用于古不用于今也。故曰：世异则事异。当舜之时，有苗不服，禹将伐之。舜曰：“不可。上德不厚而行武，非道也。”乃修教三年，执干戚舞，有苗乃服。共工之战，铁铦矩者及乎敌，铠甲不坚者伤乎体。是干戚用于古不用于今也。故曰：事异则备变。上古竞于道德，中世逐于智谋，当今争于气力。齐将攻鲁，鲁使子贡说之。齐人曰：“子言非不辩也，吾所欲者土地也，非斯言所谓也。”遂举兵伐鲁，去门十里以为界。故偃王仁义而徐亡，子贡辩智而鲁削。以是言之，夫仁义辩智，非所以持国也。去偃王之仁，息子贡之智，循徐、鲁之力使敌万乘，则齐、荆之欲不得行于二国矣。
夫古今异俗，新故异备。如欲以宽缓之政，治急世之民，犹无辔策而御駻马，此不知之患也。今儒、墨皆称先王兼爱天下，则视民如父母。何以明其然也？曰：“司寇行刑，君为之不举乐；闻死刑之报，君为流涕。”此所举先王也。夫以君臣为如父子则必治，推是言之，是无乱父子也。人之情性莫先于父母，皆见爱而未必治也，虽厚爱矣，奚遽不乱？今先王之爱民，不过父母之爱子，子未必不乱也，则民奚遽治哉？且夫以法行刑，而君为之流涕，此以效仁，非以为治也。夫垂泣不欲刑者，仁也；然而不可不刑者，法也。先王胜其法，不听其泣，则仁之不可以为治亦明矣。
且民者固服于势，寡能怀于义。仲尼，天下圣人也，修行明道以游海内，海内说其仁、美其义而为服役者七十人。盖贵仁者寡，能义者难也。故以天下之大，而为服役者七十人，而仁义者一人。鲁哀公，下主也，南面君国，境内之民莫敢不臣。民者固服于势，诚易以服人，故仲尼反为臣而哀公顾为君。仲尼非怀其义，服其势也。故以义则仲尼不服于哀公，乘势则哀公臣仲尼。今学者之说人主也，不乘必胜之势，而务行仁义则可以王，是求人主之必及仲尼，而以世之凡民皆如列徒，此必不得之数也。
今有不才之子，父母怒之弗为改，乡人谯之弗为动，师长教之弗为变。夫以父母之爱、乡人之行、师长之智，三美加焉，而终不动，其胫毛不改。州部之吏，操官兵，推公法，而求索奸人，然后恐惧，变其节，易其行矣。故父母之爱不足以教子，必待州部之严刑者，民固骄于爱、听于威矣。故十仞之城，楼季弗能逾者，峭也；千仞之山，跛牂易牧者，夷也。故明王峭其法而严其刑也。布帛寻常，庸人不释；铄金百镒，盗跖不掇。不必害，则不释寻常；必害手，则不掇百溢。故明主必其诛也。是以赏莫如厚而信，使民利之；罚莫如重而必，使民畏之；法莫如一而固，使民知之。故主施赏不迁，行诛无赦，誉辅其赏，毁随其罚，则贤、不肖俱尽其力矣。
今则不然。其有功也爵之，而卑其士官也；以其耕作也赏之，而少其家业也；以其不收也外之，而高其轻世也；以其犯禁罪之，而多其有勇也。毁誉、赏罚之所加者，相与悖缪也，故法禁坏而民愈乱。今兄弟被侵，必攻者，廉也；知友辱，随仇者，贞也。廉贞之行成，而君上之法犯矣。人主尊贞廉之行，而忘犯禁之罪，故民程于勇，而吏不能胜也。不事力而衣食，谓之能；不战功而尊，则谓之贤。贤能之行成，而兵弱而地荒矣。人主说贤能之行，而忘兵弱地荒之祸，则私行立而公利灭矣。
儒以文乱法，侠以武犯禁，而人主兼礼之，此所以乱也。夫离法者罪，而诸先生以文学取；犯禁者诛，而群侠以私剑养。故法之所非，君之所取；吏之所诛，上之所养也。法、趣、上、下，四相反也，而无所定，虽有十黄帝不能治也。故行仁义者非所誉，誉之则害功，工文学者非所用，用之则乱法。楚之有直躬，其父窃羊，而谒之吏。令尹曰：“杀之！”以为直于君而曲于父，报而罪之。以是观之，夫君之直臣，父之暴子也。鲁人从君战，三战三北。仲尼问其故，对曰：“吾有老父，身死莫之养也。”仲尼以为孝，举而上之。以是观之，夫父之孝子，君之背臣也。故令尹诛而楚奸不上闻，仲尼赏而鲁民易降北。上下之利，若是其异也，而人主兼举匹夫之行，而求致社稷之福，必不几矣。
古者苍颉之作书也，自环者谓之私，背私谓之公，公私之相背也，乃苍颉固以知之矣。今以为同利者，不察之患也，然则为匹夫计者，莫如修行义而习文学。行义修则见信，见信则受事；文学习则为明师，为明师则显荣：此匹夫之美也。然则无功而受事，无爵而显荣，为有政如此，则国必乱，主必危矣。故不相容之事，不两立也。斩敌者受赏，而高慈惠之行；拔城者受爵禄，而信廉爱之说；坚甲厉兵以备难，而美荐绅之饰；富国以农，距敌恃卒，而贵文学之士；废敬上畏法之民，而养游侠私剑之属。举行如此，治强不可得也。国平养儒侠，难至用介士，所利非所用，所用非所利。是故服事者简其业，而于游学者日众，是世之所以乱也。
且世之所谓贤者，贞信之行也；所谓智者，微妙之言也。微妙之言，上智之所难知也。今为众人法，而以上智之所难知，则民无从识之矣。故糟糠不饱者不务粱肉，短褐不完者不待文绣。夫治世之事，急者不得，则缓者非所务也。今所治之政，民间之事，夫妇所明知者不用，而慕上知之论，则其于治反矣。故微妙之言，非民务也。若夫贤良贞信之行者，必将贵不欺之士；不欺之士者，亦无不欺之术也。布衣相与交，无富厚以相利，无威势以相惧也，故求不欺之士。今人主处制人之势，有一国之厚，重赏严诛，得操其柄，以修明术之所烛，虽有田常、子罕之臣，不敢欺也，奚待于不欺之士？今贞信之士不盈于十，而境内之官以百数，必任贞信之士，则人不足官。人不足官，则治者寡而乱者众矣。故明主之道，一法而不求智，固术而不慕信，故法不败，而群官无奸诈矣。
今人主之于言也，说其辩而不求其当焉；其用于行也，美其声而不责其功。是以天下之众，其谈言者务为辨而不周于用，故举先王言仁义者盈廷，而政不免于乱；行身者竞于为高而不合于功，故智士退处岩穴，归禄不受，而兵不免于弱，政不免于乱，此其故何也？民之所誉，上之所礼，乱国之术也。今境内之民皆言治，藏商、管之法者家有之，而国贫，言耕者众，执耒者寡也；境内皆言兵，藏孙、吴之书者家有之，而兵愈弱，言战者多，被甲者少也。故明主用其力，不听其言；赏其功，伐禁无用。故民尽死力以从其上。夫耕之用力也劳，而民为之者，曰：可得以富也。战之事也危，而民为之者，曰：可得以贵也。今修文学，习言谈，则无耕之劳而有富之实，无战之危而有贵之尊，则人孰不为也？是以百人事智而一人用力。事智者众，则法败；用力者寡，则国贫：此世之所以乱也。>>>>故明主之国，无书简之文，以法为教；无先王之语，以吏为师；无私剑之捍，以斩首为勇。是境内之民，其言谈者必轨于法，动作者归之于功，为勇者尽之于军。是故无事则国富，有事则兵强，此之谓王资。既畜王资而承敌国之釁，超五帝侔三王者，必此法也。
今则不然，士民纵恣于内，言谈者为势于外，外内称恶，以待强敌，不亦殆乎！故群臣之言外事者，非有分于从衡之党，则有仇雠之忠，而借力于国也。从者，合众弱以攻一强也；而衡者，事一强以攻众弱也：皆非所以持国也。今人臣之言衡者，皆曰：“不事大，则遇敌受祸矣。”事大未必有实，则举图而委，效玺而请兵矣。献图则地削，效玺则名卑，地削则国削，名卑则政乱矣。事大为衡，未见其利也，而亡地乱政矣。人臣之言从者，皆曰：“不救小而伐大，则失天下，失天下则国危，国危而主卑。”救小未必有实，则起兵而敌大矣。救小未必能存，而交大未必不有疏，有疏则为强国制矣。出兵则军败，退守则城拔。救小为从，未见其利，而亡地败军矣。是故事强，则以外权士官于内；救小，则以内重求利于外。国利未立，封土厚禄至矣；主上虽卑，人臣尊矣；国地虽削，私家富矣。事成，则以权长重；事败，则以富退处。人主之于其听说也于其臣，事未成则爵禄已尊矣；事败而弗诛，则游说之士孰不为用缯缴之说而侥幸其后？故破国亡主以听言谈者之浮说。此其故何也？是人君不明乎公私之利，不察当否之言，而诛罚不必其后也。皆曰：“外事，大可以王，小可以安。”夫王者，能攻人者也；而安，则不可攻也。强，则能攻人者也；治，则不可攻也。治强不可责于外，内政之有也。今不行法术于内，而事智于外，则不至于治强矣。
鄙谚曰：“长袖善舞，多钱善贾。”此言多资之易为工也。故治强易为谋，弱乱难为计。故用于秦者，十变而谋希失；用于燕者，一变而计希得。非用于秦者必智，用于燕者必愚也，盖治乱之资异也。故周去秦为从，期年而举；卫离魏为衡，半岁而亡。是周灭于从，卫亡于衡也。使周、卫缓其从衡之计，而严其境内之治，明其法禁，必其赏罚，尽其地力以多其积，致其民死以坚其城守，天下得其地则其利少，攻其国则其伤大，万乘之国莫敢自顿于坚城之下，而使强敌裁其弊也，此必不亡之术也。舍必不亡之术而道必灭之事，治国者之过也。智困于内而政乱于外，则亡不可振也。
民之故计，皆就安利如辟危穷。今为之攻战，进则死于敌，退则死于诛，则危矣。弃私家之事而必汗马之劳，家困而上弗论，则穷矣。穷危之所在也，民安得勿避？故事私门而完解舍，解舍完则远战，远战则安。行货赂而袭当涂者则求得，求得则私安，私安则利之所在，安得勿就？是以公民少而私人众矣。
夫明王治国之政，使其商工游食之民少而名卑，以寡趣本务而趋末作。今世近习之请行，则官爵可买；官爵可买，则商工不卑也矣。奸财货贾得用于市，则商人不少矣。聚敛倍农而致尊过耕战之士，则耿介之士寡而高价之民多矣。
是故乱国之俗：其学者，则称先王之道以籍仁义，盛容服而饰辩说，以疑当世之法，而贰人主之心。其言谈者，为设诈称，借于外力，以成其私，而遗社稷之利。其带剑者，聚徒属，立节操，以显其名，而犯五官之禁。其患御者，积于私门，尽货赂，而用重人之谒，退汗马之劳。其商工之民，修治苦窳之器，聚弗靡之财，蓄积待时，而侔农夫之利。此五者，邦之蠹也。人主不除此五蠹之民，不养耿介之士，则海内虽有破亡之国，削灭之朝，亦勿怪矣。
Leave a Reply