The ruler of Zheng intended to appoint Gao Qumi as minister. Zhao Gong detested him and remonstrated firmly, but was not heeded. When Zhao Gong ascended the throne, Gao Qumi, fearing that he would kill him, murdered Zhao Gong on a xinmao day and installed Zi Dan. A gentleman said, “Zhao Gong knew whom he detested.” Prince Yu said, “Gao Bo will probably be put to death; his retaliation for being detested is excessive.”
Someone says: Are not Prince Yu’s words self-contradictory? Zhao Gong met disaster because his retaliation against the man he detested came too late. That Gao Bo died later than Zhao Gong shows instead that his retaliation was severe. An enlightened ruler does not suspend his anger. If he suspends it, ministers will rashly carry out their schemes, and the ruler will be endangered. Thus, at the drink on the Spirit Terrace, the lord of Wei was angry but did not execute Chu Shi, and so Chu Shi raised rebellion. When the ruler of Zheng was angry over the turtle soup, he did not execute Zi Gong, and so Zi Gong killed his lord. The gentleman’s remark that “Zhao Gong knew whom he detested” is not praise; it means that although his knowledge was so clear, he did not carry out execution, and so he came to his death. To say that he “knew whom he detested” is to show that he lacked command of power. A ruler may fail not only to perceive danger, but also to make decisive judgments. Zhao Gong revealed his detestation, delayed punishment, and let Gao Qumi harbor hatred and fear, hoping for luck; thus he could not escape murder. This shows that Zhao Gong’s retaliation was not severe enough.
Someone else says: Severe retaliation means imposing a great punishment for a small offense. To impose a great punishment for a small offense is the extreme of penal severity. The trouble with such severity lies not in the punishment itself, but in the many enemies it creates. Thus Duke Li of Jin destroyed the three Xi, and the houses of Luan and Zhonghang raised rebellion. Zheng Zidu killed Bo Xuan, and Shi Ding brought disaster. The king of Wu executed Wu Zixu, and Goujian of Yue achieved hegemony. The expulsion of the lord of Wei and the regicide of the lord of Zheng did not occur because Chu Shi and Zi Gong were spared at the time, but because the rulers showed anger when they should not have been angry, and harbored thoughts of execution when they should not have executed. If anger matches the offense, and execution does not go against the people’s mind, what harm is there in suspending it? If a minister has not yet committed a crime, and after ascending the throne the ruler executes him for an old grievance, this is why Duke Hu of Qi perished. If a ruler treats his ministers in this way, trouble will follow; how much more if a minister treats his ruler so? If punishment is improper, yet one is bent on extermination, one becomes an enemy to all under heaven. In that case, is it not fitting that he be killed?
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 39.3 offers dual rebuttals over Zhao Gong’s murder by Gao Qumi. It debates statecraft: whether rulers should promptly execute hated ministers or avoid excessive, untimely punishments that breed widespread enemies.
Zheng and its rulers:
Zheng was a mid-level state in the Spring and Autumn period. “Zheng Bo” here is Duke Zhuang of Zheng. Zhao Gong is his son, later known as Duke Zhao of Zheng.
Gao Qumi:
A Zheng minister. After Duke Zhuang ignored Zhao Gong’s warning, Gao Qumi later killed Zhao Gong and installed Zi Dan. The Zuo Zhuan says he installed Zi Wei, showing a discrepancy between Han Fei’s account and other records.
“A gentleman says”:
A conventional voice in early Chinese texts, often expressing moral judgment. Han Fei frequently reinterprets such remarks to expose political weakness.
Prince Yu:
Also called Gongzi Yu. He criticizes Gao Qumi’s retaliation as excessive.
Spirit Terrace and Chu Shi:
At a banquet on the Spirit Terrace, the lord of Wei became angry at Chu Shi but did not punish him; Chu Shi later rebelled and expelled him.
Turtle soup and Zi Gong:
Duke Ling of Zheng received a large soft-shelled turtle. Zi Gong, also called Gongzi Song, expected to taste it. When the duke refused him, the duke grew angry but did not act; Zi Gong later helped kill him.
Duke Li of Jin and the three Xi:
Duke Li of Jin killed three members of the Xi clan. Fearing further purges, the Luan and Zhonghang families turned against him.
Zheng Zidu and Bo Xuan:
Details are obscure. Han Fei cites this as another case where punishment created new enemies.
Wu Zixu and Goujian:
Duke Hu of Qi:
Han Fei uses him as an example of a ruler who punished old grievances after taking the throne, thereby creating dangerous resentment.
三
郑伯将以高渠弥为卿，昭公恶之，固谏不听。及昭公即位，惧其杀己也，辛卯，弑昭公而立子亶也。君子曰：“昭公知所恶矣。”公子圉曰：“高伯其为戮乎，报恶已甚矣。”
或曰：公子圉之言也，不亦反乎？昭公之及于难者，报恶晚也。然则高伯之晚于死者，报恶甚也。明君不悬怒，悬怒，则臣罪轻举以行计，则人主危。故灵台之饮，卫侯怒而不诛，故褚师作难；食鼋之羹，郑君怒而不诛，故子公杀君。君子之举“知所恶”，非甚之也，曰：知之若是其明也，而不行诛焉，以及于死。故“故所恶”，以见其无权也。人君非独不足于见难而已，或不足于断制，今昭公见恶，稽罪而不诛，使渠弥含憎惧死以侥幸，故不免于杀，是昭公之报恶不甚也。
或曰：报恶甚者，大诛报小罪。大诛报小罪也者，狱之至也。狱之患，故非在所以诛也，以仇之众也。是以晋厉公灭三郄而栾、中行作难，郑子都杀伯咺而食鼎起祸，吴王诛子胥而越句践成霸。则卫侯之逐，郑灵之弑，不以褚师之不死而公父之不诛也，以未可以怒而有怒之色，未可诛而有诛之心。怒其当罪，而诛不逆人心，虽悬奚害？夫未立有罪，即位之后，宿罪而诛，齐胡之所以灭也。君行之臣，犹有后患，况为臣而行之君乎？诛既不当，而以尽为心，是与天下有仇也。则虽为戮，不亦可乎！
Leave a Reply