Han Feizi – Chapter 36.9

King Xuan of Han asked Jiu Liu, “I wish to employ both Gongzhong and Gongshu. Is this acceptable?” Jiu Liu replied, “In the past, Wei employed both Lou and Di and lost the Xihe region; Chu employed both Zhao and Jing and lost Yan and Ying. Now if Your Majesty employs both Gongzhong and Gongshu, they will surely contend for affairs and trade with foreign states, and the state will certainly face disaster.”

Someone says: In the past, Duke Huan of Qi employed both Guan Zhong and Bao Shu, and Tang employed both Yi Yin and Zhong Hui. If employing two ministers together necessarily brings disaster to the state, then Duke Huan would not have become hegemon, and Tang would not have become king. King Min of Qi employed only Zhuo Chi, yet he died by violence in the eastern temple; Lord Father employed only Li Dui, yet he was starved to death. When a ruler possesses the method of statecraft, employing two ministers does not become a calamity; when he lacks the method, employing two leads them to contend for power and collude with foreign states, while employing one leads a minister to monopolize power and commit regicide. Now Jiu Liu offered no method to guide his ruler, but caused him to abandon dual employment in favor of single employment. Thus the ruler would either face the disasters of losing Xihe, Yan, and Ying, or suffer the calamity of being killed or starved. This shows that Jiu Liu did not truly understand governance, and his words were not sound.

Note

This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.9 rebuts Jiu Liu’s warning against dual‑minister appointments. It argues risk lies not in the number of ministers, but in whether the ruler wields proper statecraft to keep them under control.

Han Feizi and the “Nan” chapters:

The Han Feizi is a foundational Legalist text from the late Warring States period. The Nan chapters test familiar political judgments by arguing that outcomes depend less on simple rules – such as “never appoint two ministers” – than on whether the ruler controls power through method, law, and authority.

King Xuan of Han:

A ruler of the state of Han during the Warring States period. He is concerned about whether appointing two powerful ministers will create rivalry.

Jiu Liu:

A minister or adviser consulted by King Xuan. He warns that dual appointments cause factional competition and foreign collusion.

Gongzhong and Gongshu:

Two ministers or noble figures in Han. Their exact identities are less important here than their role as potential rivals for power.

Wei and the Xihe region:

Wei was a major Warring States state. The Xihe region, west of the Yellow River, was a strategically valuable area often contested between Wei and Qin.

Chu and the loss of Yan and Ying:

Chu was a large southern state. Yan and Ying were important Chu cities; Ying served as a Chu capital. Their loss marked serious military and political decline.

Zhao and Jing:

Two powerful aristocratic clans in Chu. Their dominance illustrates how hereditary families could weaken central authority.

Duke Huan of Qi, Guan Zhong, and Bao Shu:

Duke Huan of Qi was a Spring and Autumn hegemon. Guan Zhong and Bao Shu served him together and are traditionally praised as complementary ministers.

Tang, Yi Yin, and Zhong Hui:

Tang was the founder of the Shang dynasty. Yi Yin and Zhong Hui were his chief ministers, cited as examples of successful dual appointment.

King Min of Qi and Zhuo Chi:

King Min was a late Warring States ruler of Qi. Zhuo Chi was a Chu general who, according to tradition, turned against him, leading to King Min’s violent death.

Lord Father and Li Dui:

“Lord Father” refers to King Wuling of Zhao, who abdicated but later became trapped by his son’s minister Li Dui and died of starvation.

The ruler’s method:

For Han Fei, the key issue is not whether one or two ministers serve, but whether the ruler can control them. Without method, dual ministers create rivalry, while a single minister may become a dictator.

　九

　　韩宣王问于樛留：“吾欲两用公仲、公叔，其可乎？”樛留对曰：“昔魏两用楼、翟而亡西河，楚两用昭、景而亡鄢、郢。今君两用公仲、公叔，此必将争事而外市，则国必忧矣。”

　　或曰：“昔者齐桓公两用管仲、鲍叔，成汤两用伊尹、仲虺。夫两用臣者国之忧，则是桓公不霸，成汤不王也。湣王一用淖齿，而手死乎东庙；主父一用李兑，减食而死。主有术，两用不为患；无术，两用则争事而外市，一则专制而劫弑。今留无术以规上，使其主去两用一，是不有西河、鄢、郢之忧，则必有身死减食之患，是樛留未有善以知之知言也。