The ruler’s fault lies in this: having appointed certain ministers, he then uses those he distrusts to check them. Such checkers inevitably oppose the appointed ministers in speech, and the ruler ends up controlled by those he distrusts. Moreover, those whom the ruler uses to check others are themselves former objects of surveillance.
If a ruler cannot clarify law to restrain the power of high ministers, he cannot win the trust of common subjects. When a ruler abandons law and uses ministers to check other ministers, allies collude to praise one another, while rivals form cliques to slander one another. Amid conflicting praise and blame, the ruler falls into confusion.
Ministers cannot advance without reputation and private influence, cannot gain authority without bending the law arbitrarily, and cannot indulge misdeeds without feigning loyalty‑trustworthiness. These three factors enable muddled rulers to undermine the legal system.
A wise ruler ensures that ministers, however intelligent or capable, cannot act arbitrarily against law; however virtuous, cannot receive rewards beyond their merits; however loyal‑trustworthy, cannot neglect law to indulge misdeeds. This is called clarifying the law.
Note
This passage states a key Legalist political rule: using ministers to check ministers causes factional chaos. Only impartial, strict law can control ministerial power, standardize rewards, and prevent arbitrary abuse of authority.
Late Warring‑States Legalist philosopher. This passage is excerpted from Facing South (Nan Mian), an essay on autocratic ruling principles. He criticizes the political trick of balancing ministers against each other and advocates strict legal governance instead.
Check‑and‑Balance by Ministers (Ministerial Counterbalance)
A common political strategy in pre‑Qin courts: rulers pit one group of ministers against another. Han Fei rejects this as unstable, arguing it breeds cliques and factional strife.
Three Tools of Treacherous Ministers
Reputation‑seeking, arbitrary power, and pretended loyalty are the three ways ministers manipulate weak rulers and damage law.
Clarifying the Law (Ming Fa)
Core Legalist principle: law alone, not personal virtue, reputation or loyalty, should regulate ministerial conduct, power and rewards.
Facing‑South Governance
In ancient China rulers sat facing south, symbolizing supreme authority. The essay title means core principles for monarchical rule.
人主之過，在己任在臣矣，又必反與其所不任者備之，此其說必與其所任者為讎，而主反制於其所不任者。今所與備人者，且曩之所備也。人主不能明法而以制大臣之威，無道得小人之信矣。人主釋法而以臣備臣，則相愛者比周而相譽，相憎者朋黨而相非，非譽交爭，則主惑亂矣。人臣者，非名譽請謁無以進取，非背法專制無以為威，非假於忠信無以不禁，三者，惛主壞法之資也。人主使人臣雖有智能不得背法而專制，雖有賢行不得踰功而先勞，雖有忠信不得釋法而不禁，此之謂明法。
Leave a Reply