Sun Wenzi of Wei came on a mission to Lu. When the duke ascended the steps, he ascended at the same time. Shusun Muzi hastened forward and said, “In meetings of the feudal lords, our lord has never been placed behind the lord of Wei. Now you do not remain one step behind our lord, and our lord does not know what fault he has committed. Please slow down a little.” Sunzi offered no reply and showed no sign of repentance. Muzi withdrew and told others, “Sunzi is sure to perish. He is a minister who does not walk behind his lord, and he does not repent after fault. This is the root of ruin.”
Someone says: When the Son of Heaven loses the Way, the feudal lords punish him; hence there were Tang and Wu. When a feudal lord loses the Way, his great ministers punish him; hence there were the new regimes in Qi and Jin. If a minister who attacks his lord is certain to perish, then Tang and Wu would not have become kings, and the new powers in Qi and Jin would not have been established. Sunzi acted as lord in Wei, and so he did not behave as a minister in Lu. He was a minister in name, yet a lord in effect. When the lord errs, the minister gains. To predict ruin for the minister who gains, but not for the lord who errs, is poor discernment. Lu had no right to punish a Wei minister, and the lord of Wei was not wise enough to recognize a minister who would not repent. Sunzi may have had these two faults, yet would he therefore perish? What he lost through his fault was precisely what enabled him to gain the position of lord.
Someone else says: The relationship between ruler and minister is a matter of proper allotment. A minister can take the ruler’s place only when he has gained the people’s support. What one takes beyond one’s allotment will be taken back by the multitude; what one receives after yielding one’s allotment is granted by the people. Thus Jie sought the woman of Minshan, and Zhou cut out Bi Gan’s heart, and the world turned away from them. Tang changed his name, and Wu endured reproach, and all within the seas submitted. Zhao Xuanzi fled to the mountains, and the Tian clan served humbly abroad, and the people of Qi and Jin followed them. Tang and Wu became kings, and the new regimes in Qi and Jin were established, not necessarily because of their former lords, but because they first gained the people and only then took the ruler’s place. Now Sunzi has not yet gained what would justify his position, yet he acts as though he already occupies it. This inverts rightness and opposes virtue. When rightness is inverted, affairs fail; when virtue is opposed, resentment gathers. If he does not understand why this leads to ruin, what is the reason?
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 39.1 conducts layered debates over Sun Wenzi’s ritual offense. It discusses usurpation, political legitimacy and popular support, arguing power‑seizing ministers perish without winning the people beforehand.
Sun Wenzi of Wei:
Also known as Sun Linfu, a powerful minister of the state of Wei in the Spring and Autumn period. He often acted with authority close to that of a ruler.
Duke of Lu:
Here referring to Duke Xiang of Lu. In early Chinese court ritual, the ruler and his guests or ministers observed strict order when ascending steps.
Shusun Muzi:
Also known as Shusun Bao, a senior minister of Lu. He interprets Sun Wenzi’s failure to yield as a sign of future disaster.
Ascending the steps:
Court steps symbolized political rank. A minister walking level with a ruler violated ritual hierarchy.
Tang and Wu:
Tang, founder of the Shang dynasty, and King Wu, founder of the Zhou dynasty. They are classic examples of ministers who overthrew rulers said to have lost the Way.
Qi and Jin:
These refer not simply to the old states of Qi and Jin, but to the new ruling powers that emerged when ministers displaced former rulers: the Tian clan replacing the Jiang clan in Qi, and the three families dividing Jin.
Jie and the woman of Minshan:
Jie was the last ruler of the Xia dynasty. “Seeking the woman of Minshan” represents tyrannical indulgence.
Zhou and Bi Gan:
Zhou was the last Shang ruler. Bi Gan, his uncle, was said to have been killed and his heart cut out for remonstrating against him.
Zhao Xuanzi:
Also called Zhao Dun, a powerful Jin minister. “Fleeing to the mountains” refers to a moment of political danger in which he withdrew from court.
The Tian clan:
The Tian family gradually won support in Qi and eventually replaced the original ruling house.
Legalist argument:
The passage shows Han Fei‘s layered debate. The first voice defends ritual order; the second says power depends on real advantage; the third insists that lasting power still requires the people’s acceptance.
一
卫孙文子聘于鲁，公登亦登。叔孙穆子趋进曰：“诸侯之会，寡君未尝后卫君也。今子不后寡君一等，寡君未知所过也。子其少安。”孙子无辞，亦无悛容。穆子退而告人曰：“孙子必亡。亡臣而不后君，过而不悛，亡之本也。”
或曰：天子失道，诸侯伐之，故有汤、武。诸侯失道，大夫伐之，故有齐、晋。臣而伐君者必亡，则是汤、武不王，晋、齐不立也。孙子君于卫，而后不臣于鲁，臣之君也。君有失也，故臣有得也。不命亡于有失之君，而命亡于有得之臣，不察。鲁不得诛卫大夫，而卫君之明不知不悛之臣。孙子虽有是二也，臣以亡？其所以亡其失，所以得君也。
或曰：臣主之施，分也。臣能夺君者，以得相也。故非其分而取者，众之所夺也；辞其分而取者，民之所予也。是以桀索岷山之女，纣求比干之心，而天下离；汤身易名，武身受詈，而海内服；赵咺走山，田氏外仆，而齐、晋从。则汤、武之所以王，齐晋之所以立，非必以其君也，彼得之而后以君处之也。今未有其所以得，而行其所以处，是倒义而逆德也。倒义，则事之所以败也；逆德，则怨之所以聚也。败亡之不察，何也？
Leave a Reply