When Wei strictly enforced criminal laws and decrees, merit‑earners were rewarded and criminals punished. It grew powerful enough to regulate the realm and intimidate neighboring states. When laws slackened and rewards were granted arbitrarily, its territory shrank day by day.
When Zhao upheld national laws and strengthened its army, its population and troops were strong, seizing land from Qi and Yan. When laws decayed and incompetent men held power, the state weakened steadily.
When Yan observed laws strictly and appointed officials prudently, it annexed eastern Qi land and occupied all Zhongshan territory. When laws collapsed, officials abandoned legal judgment, palace attendants fought for power, and policies followed ministerial whims. Its army weakened, territory shrank, and the state fell under enemy control.
Therefore: states that uphold law prosper; those that neglect it decline. Though this truth is clear, modern rulers refuse to follow it, making state ruin inevitable. A proverb states: “A household with steady livelihood never starves in famine; a state with constant law never perishes in crisis.”
Abandoning fixed law for personal whims lets ministers flaunt cleverness, which undermines legal authority. Thus arbitrary personal rule prevails and proper statecraft is discarded. True governance eliminates law‑breakers, so rulers are not misled by ministerial wit or false reputations.
In ancient times, Shun sent an official to control floods and executed him for claiming merit prematurely. Yu summoned feudal lords at Kuaiji Mountain and beheaded Lord Fang Feng for arriving late. This shows ancient rulers prioritized obedience to decrees: those acting ahead of orders were killed, and late‑comers executed.
A mirror remains pure and passive, reflecting beauty and ugliness. A balance stays level and passive, weighing lightness and heaviness. Shaking the mirror blurs reflection; tilting the balance ruins fairness – the same applies to law.
Former kings took natural principles as constant norms and law as foundation. Firm legal governance brings royal honor; legal collapse brings royal ruin. Individual intelligence succeeds only under legal principles and fails without them. Personal wit is narrow and untransferable, while law and principle are comprehensive and reliable.
Hanging a balance judges fairness; using compasses judges roundness – perfect objective methods. Wise rulers guide people by stable principles, achieving success with ease. Abandoning compasses for trickery and law for personal wit brings chaos. Foolish rulers rely on individual cleverness rather than objective principles, toiling endlessly with no achievement.
Note
This passage establishes a definitive Legalist governance rule: law is objective, impartial and reliable; personal intelligence and arbitrary judgment are unstable. States prosper with strict legal systems and decline without them.
Late Warring‑States Legalist political philosopher. This passage is excerpted from Exposing Superstition (Shi Xie), demonstrating that national rise and fall hinge strictly on legal enforcement.
Shun, Yu
Shun, Yu were the two legendary sage‑kings of ancient China. Han Fei cites them enforcing harsh legal penalties to validate the supremacy of law over personal favor.
Lord Fang Feng
A feudal lord executed by Yu for tardiness, symbolizing the necessity of strict obedience to royal decrees.
Wei, Zhao, Yan
Three Warring‑States powers whose rise and fall illustrated the rule‑of‑law principle in practice.
Law as Foundation
Core Legalist principle: law is the permanent, objective foundation of governance, superior to individual wisdom or personal will.
Mirror & Balance Metaphor
Classic Legalist analogy: law must remain impartial and neutral, just like a mirror or weighing scale, free from arbitrary human manipulation.
Objective Principles vs Subjective Wit
Han Fei contrasts stable, universal legal systems with fallible personal cleverness, arguing rulers must rely on institutional law rather than individual talent.
Three‑State Historical Proof
Wei, Zhao and Yan serve as real‑world examples proving that strict legal enforcement brings strength while legal neglect brings decline.
當魏之方明立辟、從憲令行之時，有功者必賞，有罪者必誅，強匡天下，威行四鄰；及法慢，妄予，而國日削矣。當趙之方明國律、從大軍之時，人眾兵強，辟地齊、燕；及國律慢，用者弱，而國日削矣。當燕之方明奉法、審官斷之時，東縣齊國，南盡中山之地；及奉法已亡，官斷不用，左右交爭，論從其下，則兵弱而地削，國制於鄰敵矣。故曰：明法者強，慢法者弱。強弱如是其明矣，而世主弗為，國亡宜矣。語曰：「家有常業，雖饑不餓。國有常法，雖危不亡。」夫舍常法而從私意，則臣下飾於智能，臣下飾於智能則法禁不立矣。是妄意之道行，治國之道廢也。治國之道，去害法者，則不惑於智能、不矯於名譽矣。昔者舜使吏決鴻水，先令有功而舜殺之；禹朝諸侯之君會稽之上，防風之君後至而禹斬之。以此觀之，先令者殺，後令者斬，則古者先貴如令矣。故鏡執清而無事，美惡從而比焉；衡執正而無事，輕重從而載焉。夫搖鏡則不得為明，搖衡則不得為正，法之謂也。故先王以道為常，以法為本，本治者名尊，本亂者名絕。凡智能明通，有以則行，無以則止。故智能單道，不可傳於人。而道法萬全，智能多失。夫懸衡而知平，設規而知圓，萬全之道也。明主使民飾於道之故，故佚而則功。釋規而任巧，釋法而任智，惑亂之道也。亂主使民飾於智，不知道之故，故勞而無功。
Leave a Reply