Duke Wen of Jin was about to engage the Chu forces in battle. He summoned Jiu Fan and asked, “I am about to fight Chu. Their forces are numerous, ours are few. What should I do?” Jiu Fan replied, “I have heard that a gentleman who abounds in ritual does not tire of loyalty and good faith; but in the affairs of battle, one does not tire of deception and trickery. You should simply deceive them.” Duke Wen dismissed Jiu Fan and then summoned Yong Ji, asking the same question. Yong Ji answered, “If one burns a forest to hunt, one may temporarily obtain many beasts, but afterward there will be no more beasts. If one meets the people with deception, one may gain a temporary advantage, but afterward they will not be won again.” Duke Wen said, “Well said.” He dismissed Yong Ji, adopted Jiu Fan’s stratagem, fought Chu, and defeated them.
After returning, he distributed titles and rewards, placing Yong Ji first and Jiu Fan second. His ministers said, “At Chengpu, it was Jiu Fan who provided the plan. To use his words yet place him last – is this acceptable?” Duke Wen replied, “This is not something you can understand. Jiu Fan’s words were an expedient for the moment; Yong Ji’s words concerned the benefit of ten thousand generations.” When Confucius heard of this, he said, “It was fitting that Duke Wen became hegemon! He understood both the expedient of the moment and the enduring benefit of the ages.”
Another voice says: Yong Ji’s reply did not match Duke Wen’s question. In answering a question, one should respond according to its scale, urgency, and importance. If the question is grand and urgent, but the reply is petty and remote, an enlightened ruler would not accept it. Now Duke Wen asked how to confront a larger force with a smaller one, and Yong Ji answered, “Afterward they will not be won again.” This was not a proper response. Moreover, Duke Wen understood neither the expedient of the moment nor the benefit of the ages. If he won the battle, the state would be secure, his person safe, his army strong, and his authority established. Even if there were later consequences, nothing could surpass this victory; why worry that the benefit of ten thousand generations would not arrive? If he lost, the state would perish, the army weaken, and he would die in disgrace. He would not even be able to escape immediate disaster – how could he wait for some distant benefit? The benefit of ten thousand generations depends on victory today; victory today depends on deceiving the enemy; and deceiving the enemy is precisely what serves the benefit of ten thousand generations. Therefore, Yong Ji’s reply did not answer Duke Wen’s question.
Furthermore, Duke Wen misunderstood Jiu Fan’s words. When Jiu Fan said one “does not tire of deception and trickery,” he did not mean deceiving one’s own people, but deceiving the enemy. The enemy is the state one attacks; even if one cannot deceive it again later, what harm is there? If Duke Wen ranked Yong Ji first because of merit, it was Jiu Fan’s plan that defeated Chu. If he ranked him first because of wise words, Yong Ji merely warned that “afterward they will not be won again,” which was not a helpful answer to the question at hand. Jiu Fan, by contrast, possessed both merits. When he said, “A gentleman who abounds in ritual does not tire of loyalty and good faith,” he meant that loyalty is how one loves those below, and good faith is how one does not deceive the people. Having already spoken of loving and not deceiving the people, what words could be better? Yet he added that deception is proper in military affairs. Thus Jiu Fan offered wise counsel beforehand and achieved victory afterward; he had two merits, yet was judged afterward. Yong Ji had neither, yet was rewarded first. As for the claim that “Duke Wen’s hegemony was fitting,” this shows only that Confucius did not understand proper rewarding.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.1 recounts the Chengpu‑battle story. It rebuts the traditional praise for Duke Wen’s reward practice, arguing rewards should match actual military achievements instead of hollow long‑term moral speeches.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is a foundational Legalist text. The Nan chapters are structured as critical rebuttals: they first present a well-known story or Confucian judgment, then use “or someone says” to challenge it.
Duke Wen of Jin:
Duke Wen of Jin was one of the Five Hegemons of the Spring and Autumn period. His victory at Chengpu in 632 BCE secured Jin’s dominance.
Jiu Fan:
Also called Hu Yan or Jiu Fan, he was Duke Wen’s uncle and close adviser. He recommends deception in war.
Yong Ji:
A minister consulted by Duke Wen. He warns against using deception as a lasting method of governance.
A decisive Jin–Chu battle. Han Fei uses it to discuss the relationship between military expediency and long-term political order.
Confucius’ praise:
In the first part of the story, Confucius approves Duke Wen’s reward order because it seems to value long-term moral benefit over short-term trickery.
Han Fei’s rebuttal:
Han Fei argues that Jiu Fan’s “deception” was aimed at the enemy, not at the ruler’s own people. He also insists that rewards should match actual contribution.
Legalist view of reward:
For Han Fei, rewards must be clear, consistent, and tied to measurable achievement. Rewarding the wrong person weakens state discipline.
一
晋文公将与楚人战，召舅犯问之，曰：“吾将与楚人战，彼众我寡，为之奈何？”舅犯曰：“臣闻之，繁礼君子，不厌忠信；战阵之间，不厌诈伪。君其诈之而已矣。”文公辞舅犯，因召雍季而问之，曰：“我将与楚人战，彼众我寡，为之奈何？”雍季对曰：“焚林而田，偷取多兽，后必无兽；以诈遇民，偷取一时，后必无复。”文公曰：“善。”辞雍季，以舅犯之谋与楚人战以败之。归而行爵，先雍季而后舅犯。群臣曰：“城濮之事，舅犯谋也。夫用其言而后其身，可乎？”文公曰：“此非君所知也。夫舅犯言，一时之权也；雍季言，万世之利也。”仲尼闻之，曰：“文公之霸也，宜哉！既知一时之权，又知万世之利。”
或曰：雍季之对，不当文公之问。凡对问者，有因问小大缓急而对也。所问高大，而对以卑狭，则明主弗受也。今文公问“以少遇众”，而对曰“后必无复”，此非所以应也。且文公不知一时之权，又不知万世之利。战而胜，则国安而身定，兵强而威立，虽有后复，莫大于此，万世之利奚患不至？战而不胜，则国亡兵弱，身死名息，拔拂今日之死不及，安暇待万世之利？待万世之利，在今日之胜；今日之胜，在诈于敌；诈敌，万世之利而已。故曰：雍季之对，不当文公之问。且文公不知舅犯之言。舅犯所谓“不厌诈伪”者，不谓诈其民，谓诈其敌也。敌者，所伐之国也，后虽无复，何伤哉？文公之所以先雍季者，以其功耶？则所以胜楚破军者，舅犯之谋也；以其善言耶？则雍季乃道其“后之无复”也，此未有善言也。舅犯则以兼之矣。舅犯曰“繁礼君子，不厌忠信”者：忠，所以爱其下也；信，所以不欺其民也。夫既以爱而不欺矣，言孰善于此？然必曰“出于诈伪”者，军旅之计也。舅犯前有善言，后有战胜，故舅犯有二功而后论，雍季无一焉而先赏。“文公之霸，不亦宜乎？”仲尼不知善赏也。
Leave a Reply