Therefore I state: he who understands statecraft can enrich a small state. With careful and trustworthy rewards‑and‑punishments, he can strengthen a sparse population. When rewards and punishments lack standards, even a large state with numerous troops loses its land and people. Without land and people, even Yao and Shun could not become kings, nor could the Three Dynasties grow powerful.
Rulers grant rewards improperly, while ministers obtain them undeservedly. Those who abandon law and praise ancient sage‑kings are entrusted with state power by rulers. Thus I say: such men admire ancient achievements yet reward modern people with ancient standards. Rulers bestow undeserved favors, and ministers gain rewards for nothing.
When rulers give rewards arbitrarily, ministers rely on luck. When ministers gain rewards without merit, real achievement is devalued. Rewarding the unmeritorious drains wealth and stirs public resentment; impoverished finance and discontented people mean the populace will not exert themselves. Improper rewards alienate the people; improper punishments leave them fearless. If rewards fail to encourage good conduct and punishments fail to restrain evil, even a large state is doomed.
Hence: petty cleverness cannot plan great affairs, petty loyalty cannot administer law.
King Gong of Chu fought Duke Li of Jin at Yanling. Chu’s army was defeated and the king wounded. Amid fierce battle, Minister‑of‑War Zi Fan (Zifan) grew thirsty and asked for drink. His servant Gu Yang brought wine. Zi Fan said: “Take it away; this is wine.” Gu Yang replied: “It is not.” Zi Fan drank it. Fond of wine, he became drunk and fell asleep.
King Gong planned a counterattack and summoned Zi Fan, who feigned illness. The king visited his tent, smelled wine, and returned, saying: “I was wounded in today’s battle. I depended on the Minister‑of‑War, yet he acts like this. He disregards Chu’s fate and my soldiers. I cannot fight again.” He withdrew troops and executed Zi Fan publicly.
Gu Yang offered wine not out of malice toward Zi Fan, but from personal devotion that ended up killing him. This is petty loyalty harming grand loyalty. Thus petty loyalty ruins grand loyalty. If petty‑loyal men administer law, they will pardon criminals out of personal affection, soothing subordinates yet undermining state governance.
Note
This passage delivers a key Legalist ethical‑political rule: private personal loyalty and kindness cannot govern the state. Law must be prioritized over individual emotion, and petty loyalty must be rejected to uphold grand state‑oriented loyalty.
Late Warring‑States Legalist philosopher. This passage is from Exposing Superstition (Shi Xie), establishing the famous Legalist concept of petty loyalty vs grand loyalty.
King Gong of Chu, Duke Li of Jin
Rulers who fought the Battle of Yanling (575 BCE), a major Spring‑and‑Autumn conflict.
Zi Fan
Chu Minister‑of‑War; ruined by his servant’s personal kindness, executed for military failure.
Gu Yang
Zi Fan’s servant; his private loyal gesture caused his master’s downfall.
Yao, Shun
Yao and Shun were the legendary sage‑kings used by Han Fei to stress that even ideal rulers depend on territory and population.
Petty Loyalty vs Grand Loyalty
Core Legalist distinction: personal emotional loyalty to an individual (petty loyalty) is harmful to state‑level public loyalty and legal justice (grand loyalty).
Strict Reward‑Punishment Principle
Rewards and punishments must follow fixed legal standards, not arbitrary personal favor; unmerited rewards corrupt official conduct and popular morale.
The Yanling Battle Allegory
A classic pre‑Qin political parable showing that private affection overrides public duty and leads to state crisis.
臣故曰：明於治之數，則國雖小，富。賞罰敬信，民雖寡，強。賞罰無度，國雖大兵弱者，地非其地，民非其民也。無地無民，堯、舜不能以王，三代不能以強。人主又以過予；人臣又以徒取。舍法律而言先王明君之功者，上任之以國，臣故曰：是願古之功，以古之賞賞今之人也，主以是過予，而臣以此徒取矣。主過予則臣偷幸，臣徒取則功不尊。無功者受賞則財匱而民望，財匱而民望則民不盡力矣。故用賞過者失民，用刑過者民不畏。有賞不足以勸，有刑不足以禁，則國雖大，必危。故曰：小知不可使謀事，小忠不可使主法。荊恭王與晉厲公戰於鄢陵，荊師敗，恭王傷，酣戰而司馬子反渴而求飲，其友豎穀陽奉卮酒而進之，子反曰：「去之，此酒也。」豎穀陽曰：「非也。」子反受而飲之。子反為人嗜酒，甘之，不能絕之於口，醉而臥。恭王欲復戰而謀事，使人召子反，子反辭以心疾，恭王駕而往視之，入幄中聞酒臭而還，曰：「今日之戰，寡人目親傷，所恃者司馬，司馬又如此，是亡荊國之社稷而不恤吾眾也，寡人無與復戰矣。」罷師而去之，斬子反以為大戮。故曰：豎穀陽之進酒也，非以端惡子反也，實心以忠愛之而適足以殺之而已矣。此行小忠而賊大忠者也。故曰：小忠，大忠之賊也。若使小忠主法，則必將赦罪以相愛，是與下安矣，然而妨害於治民者也。
Leave a Reply