Duke Ping of Jin was drinking with his ministers. When the drinking was at its height, he sighed and said, “There is no greater joy in being a ruler than that no one dares to disobey his words.” Shi Kuang, who was seated before him, took up a zither and struck at him with it. The duke lifted his robe and avoided the blow, and the zither was smashed against the wall. The duke said, “Grand Master, whom did you strike?” Shi Kuang replied, “Just now a petty man spoke at my side, so I struck at him.” The duke said, “It was I.” Shi Kuang said, “Ah! Those are not the words of one who rules men.” The attendants asked to punish him, but the duke said, “Release him, and let it serve as a warning to me.”
Someone says: Duke Ping failed in the way of the ruler, and Shi Kuang failed in the propriety of the minister. When a ruler disapproves of a minister’s conduct, he may punish him; when a minister disapproves of a ruler’s conduct, he should present remonstrance, and if good remonstrance is not heeded, he should withdraw from court and treat rank and emolument lightly. Now Shi Kuang disapproved of Duke Ping’s conduct, yet he did not offer the remonstrance proper to a minister. Instead, he carried out the punishment proper to a ruler, raised a zither, and struck his lord’s body. This inverted the positions of superior and inferior and violated ministerial propriety.
A minister’s duty is this: when the ruler errs, he remonstrates; if remonstrance is ignored, he lightly forsakes rank and emolument and awaits the ruler’s change. This is the righteousness of ministerial propriety. Yet Shi Kuang, disapproving of Duke Ping’s fault, raised a zither and struck his lord’s person. Even a strict father would not do this to his son, yet Shi Kuang did it to his ruler. This was the method of great rebellion. That Duke Ping was pleased and accepted it shows that he failed in the way of the ruler.
If Duke Ping’s conduct were made a model, rulers would indulge in excessive tolerance and fail to recognize their errors. If Shi Kuang’s conduct were made a model, treacherous ministers would imitate extreme remonstrance and disguise the way of regicide. Neither can be rightly held up as exemplary; this is a double fault. Hence it is said: Duke Ping failed in the way of the ruler, and Shi Kuang also failed in the propriety of the minister.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.5 critiques the well‑known Shi Kuang anecdote. It argues Duke Ping violated ruler‑principles and Shi Kuang breached ministerial etiquette, as ministers should remonstrate verbally instead of using physical force.
Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:
The Han Feizi is a foundational Legalist text from the late Warring States period. The Nan chapters examine well-known anecdotes and challenge Confucian-style praise by exposing institutional and logical problems.
Duke Ping of Jin:
A ruler of the state of Jin during the Spring and Autumn period. Here he represents a ruler who enjoys unchecked authority.
A famous blind musician and Grand Master of Music in Jin. In early Chinese courts, musicians and ritual specialists could advise rulers, but Han Fei denies them the right to use physical force.
The zither as ritual instrument:
The qin or zither was associated with music, moral cultivation, and courtly refinement. Using it as a weapon makes Shi Kuang’s action especially shocking.
Remonstrance in Chinese political culture:
Ministers were expected to correct rulers through speech, not violence. Han Fei accepts remonstrance but insists it must remain within proper ministerial bounds.
Legalist concern with roles:
Han Fei stresses that ruler and minister must keep distinct functions. A minister may advise; the ruler holds authority to punish. Blurring these roles invites disorder.
Danger of “extreme remonstrance”:
Han Fei warns that if violent protest is praised as loyalty, rebellious ministers may use it to justify attacking the ruler.
五
晋平公与群臣饮，饮酣，乃喟然叹曰：“莫乐为人君，惟其言而莫之违。”师旷侍坐于前，援琴撞之。公披衽而避，琴坏于壁。公曰：“太师谁撞？”师旷曰：“今者有小人言于侧者，故撞之。”公曰：“寡人也。”师旷曰：“哑！是非君人者之言也。”左右请除之，公曰：“释之，以为寡人戒。”
或曰：平公失君道，师旷失臣礼。夫非其行而诛其身，君子于臣也；非其行则陈其言，善谏不听则远其身者，臣之于君也。今师旷非平公之行，不陈人臣之谏，而行人主之诛，举琴而亲其体，是逆上下之位，而失人臣之礼也。夫为人臣者，君有过则谏，谏不听则轻爵禄以待之，此人臣之礼义也。今师旷非平公之过，举琴而亲其体，虽严父不加于子，而师旷行之于君，此大逆之术也。臣行大逆，平公喜而听之，是失君道也。故平公之迹不可明也，使人主过于听而不悟其失；师旷之行亦不可明也，使奸臣袭极谏而饰弑君之道。不可谓两明，此为两过。故曰：平公失君道，师旷亦失臣礼矣。
Leave a Reply