鐔津文集 15.16

15.16

韓子以三書自薦。求用於宰相。吾讀之未始不為歎息。世謂韓子若繼聖之賢之出也。余謂聖賢進退語默動有師法。不宜與常士相浮沈也。古之士皆欲用。非其禮不與之用。三代之士仕以天下自任。無如伊尹。周之末憂天下。無如孔子。戰國之時欲行其道。無如孟軻。雖然皆以禮聘而為政。不聞以書自舉而求其用也。禮曰儒有席上之珍以待聘。夙夜強學以待問。懷忠信以待舉。力行以待取。語曰。夫子溫良恭儉讓以得之。夫子之求之也。其諸異乎人之求之歟。陳子謂孟子曰。古之君子何如則仕。孟子曰。所就三所去三。迎之致敬以有禮言將行其言也則就之。禮貌未衰言弗行也則去之云云。夫古之聖賢待而不求也。如此待而不求。蓋貴義而守道也。此其所以為聖賢也。韓子既不能守道而貴義如古之聖賢也。又以書而自舉於其上。固宜恭其言平其氣自道可也。烏得躁以忿遽非人之政治耶。孔子曰。言未及之而言謂之躁。又曰。今之矜者忿戾韓子推周公之事而較其時之政治。非其不至。夫身未及居位而輒誚其政。非躁乎。自舉不得而責人。非矜乎忿耶。儒行曰。澡身而浴德。陳言而伏。靜而正之。上弗知也。麁而翹之。又不急為也。陳言而伏也者。謂儒有所陳說。必伏而待上之命也。靜而正之也者。謂雖不得命必靜而守之。正不以傾躁也。上弗知麁而翹之又不急為也者。謂已雖有善言正行上弗之知。則同其顏色粗略而發之。不必急暴而為也。聖人如此之謂。蓋欲人遵理而遠辱也。遵禮所以為儒也。韓子慕孔子謂為純儒。而其所為反聖人之法如此。可謂真儒乎。不唯不至於儒。亦恐誤後世之。人失禮而招辱也。韓子之書欲其朝廷因己爵祿以誘致天下遺逸之士。韓子以此言待天下。何其淺且謬也。天下固亦有不隕穫於貧賤不充詘於富貴。大能守道。抱節而賢過韓子者。如傅說諸葛亮輩。傅說諸葛亮豈止因人而遽來。徉徉然以趨祿利耶。此猶略舉其世之聞見之盛者。時主可以禮義誠聘而致之有為者也。況有沈名絕迹。逃越世網者耶。蓋有視分國如錙銖而不臣不仕。若泰伯伯夷者。雖爵命百返蔑如也。韓子亦何能誘而致之乎。吾恐韓子之策。未必能為國家取其至賢者也。韓子曰。古之人三月不仕則相吊。此引孟子滕文公下章初答周霄之問也。韓子徒略孟子之言（略或作掠）而不能以盡其意。其卒章孟子乃曰。古之人未嘗不欲仕也。又惡不由其道不由其道而往者與鑽穴隙之類也。其意正謂。士雖急於仕也。亦待其命而用。不可苟進而求用也。苟進而求用者。固如男女不待父母之命媒妁之言。鑽穴隙相窺踰牆相從。為人之所賤者也。今韓子自薦而求用。乃援孟子此章為諭。何忽自彰其失禮亡義也哉。吾聞古者欲有所見。唯以其所贄而前。天子則贄鬯。諸侯則贄玉。卿則贄羔。大夫則贄雁。士則贄雉。故孟子曰。孔子出疆必載質。不聞以書而見其上者。蓋後世者之苟為也。漢孝武時。四方之士如東方朔之徒。矜誕衒鬻。蓋以書而自薦。天下乃相效靡然而成風。孟子謂自鬻以成君。鄉黨自好者不為。而謂賢者為之乎。然而孰嘗以此而為愧也。嗚呼後世益衰風教浮薄愈甚。學者以藝相夸以能相勝。傲誕自大。孰不然也。溫良恭儉讓其道殆廢。當是時韓子固宜力行聖人之道。以身率先天下而正其風俗可也。又從事其事而矜夸忿躁愈盛。後生者學不知根本。徒見韓子之書乃相謂曰。韓子大儒。吾輩宜傚其所為也。如此不唯益損其風教。抑又害其臣之節。辱其人之身。故曰。韓子之書不法。吾無所取也。或曰。韓子之時。其取士之道異乎古也。韓子蓋因其時而為之也。必若守古之道。待其聘而後用。士君子之道必至死而不得其行也。曰不然。韓子尚以周公之道而責其時之宰相。當是何不念。今之時與古異矣。不可以古道而求今也。豈謀身即謂隨時而責人即謂必如古道。君子果如是為意耶。然聘士之禮何世無之。唐之時亦尚聞以禮而詔其隱者也。豈有遺聖賢而不聘耶。語曰。不患無位患所以立。不患莫己知求為可知也。此韓子之徒。亦宜思之也。

Master Han recommended himself through three letters, seeking employment by the prime minister. Whenever I read them, I cannot help but sigh. The world says that Master Han was an emerging worthy who succeeded the sages. I say that when sages and worthies advance, withdraw, speak, or keep silent, their every action has a model; they ought not to drift along with ordinary scholars. In antiquity, all scholars desired employment, but if it was contrary to propriety, they would not accept employment. Among the scholars of the Three Dynasties who took office assuming responsibility for the realm under Heaven, none compared to Yi Yin. At the close of the Zhou, among those who grieved for the realm under Heaven, none compared to Confucius. During the Warring States period, among those who wished to practice their Way, none compared to Meng Ke. Even so, they all took part in governance only when summoned with ritual propriety; one never heard of them promoting themselves through letters to seek employment. The Rites state: 'The classicist possesses treasures upon his mat and awaits invitation; he studies diligently day and night and awaits inquiry; he cherishes loyalty and trustworthiness and awaits promotion; he acts with vigour and awaits selection.' The Analects state: 'The Master obtained it through being gentle, upright, courteous, frugal, and yielding. Was not the Master’s way of seeking it different from other men’s seeking of it?' Chenzi asked Mencius: 'Under what circumstances did the gentleman of antiquity take office?' Mencius said: 'There were three conditions for taking office, and three for leaving. If one was received with utmost respect and ritual propriety, and it was said that one's words would be put into practice, then one took office. If the courtesy had not yet waned but one's words were not put into practice, then one left,' and so forth. Sages and worthies of antiquity waited and did not seek in such a way. Waiting and not seeking was because they valued righteousness and guarded the Way. This is precisely why they were sages and worthies. Since Master Han was unable to guard the Way and value righteousness like the sages and worthies of antiquity, and moreover promoted himself to his superiors with letters, he should properly have made his words respectful and his temper calm, simply expressing his own thoughts. How could he be impetuous and angry, summarily condemning the governance of others? Confucius said: 'To speak when it is not yet time to speak is called impetuous.' He also said: 'The boastful of today are angry and perverse.' Master Han adduced the affairs of the Duke of Zhou to compare them with the governance of his time, condemning it as inadequate. When he himself had not yet occupied a position, he abruptly criticized their administration—was this not impetuous? When his self-promotion bore no fruit, he blamed others—was this not boastful and angry? The 'Conduct of the Classicist' states: 'He bathes his person and soaks in virtue; he states his words and bows down; he remains calm and corrects them. If the superior does not know of him, he raises them roughly and does not act hastily.' 'He states his words and bows down' means that when a classicist has an explanation to state, he must bow down and await the command of his superior. 'He remains calm and corrects them' means that even if he does not receive the command, he must calmly maintain his resolve and be upright without becoming partial or impetuous. 'If the superior does not know of him, he raises them roughly and does not act hastily' means that even if he has good words and upright deeds but his superior does not know of them, he accommodates the superior's countenance, puts them forward roughly, and does not act with haste or violence. What the sage spoke of like this was surely intended to lead men to follow reason and keep away from disgrace. Following propriety is what makes one a classicist. Master Han admired Confucius and claimed to be a pure classicist, yet his actions went against the sage’s rules to such an extent; can he be called a true classicist? Not only did he fall short of being a classicist, but I fear he also misled later generations, causing people to abandon propriety and invite disgrace. Master Han's letters desired the court to use ranks and stipends to entice and attract the recluse scholars of the realm under Heaven. For Master Han to treat the realm under Heaven with such words, how shallow and erroneous! In the realm under Heaven there were certainly those who were not dismayed by poverty and humble station, not overbearing in wealth and honor, who could greatly guard the Way, cling to integrity, and whose worthiness surpassed Master Han's, such as the likes of Fu Yue and Zhuge Liang. Could Fu Yue and Zhuge Liang have come abruptly merely because of others, rushing off self-satisfied in pursuit of emoluments and profit? These are just slightly citing those whose reputation was renowned in their generations, whom contemporary rulers could summon with propriety, righteousness, and sincerity to accomplish great deeds. How much more so for those who submerged their names, concealed their traces, and escaped beyond the nets of the world? There were those who viewed parting with a state as a mere grain of rice, neither serving as ministers nor taking office, like Taibo and Boyi; even if conferred ranks and commands were repeated a hundred times, they treated them as nothing. How could Master Han entice and attract them? I fear Master Han’s plan could not necessarily secure the most worthy for the state. Master Han said: 'If the ancients did not take office for three months, they condoled with one another.' This cites Mencius, in the lower chapter of 'Duke Wen of Teng', when he first answered Zhou Xiao's inquiry. Master Han merely took Mencius's words casually without penetrating their complete meaning. At the end of that chapter, Mencius then said: 'The ancients never did not desire to take office; yet they also hated not going by the proper Way. To go not by the proper Way is of the same category as boring holes and creeping through walls.' His intended meaning was precisely: though a scholar may be eager to take office, he also awaits his summons before being employed; he cannot improperly advance and seek employment. Those who improperly advance and seek employment are indeed like men and women who do not wait for their parents' command or the words of matchmakers, but bore through crevices to peek at one another and climb over walls to follow one another, becoming despised by others. Now Master Han recommended himself and sought employment, yet cited this chapter of Mencius as an analogy; why did he so unawares reveal his own loss of propriety and destruction of righteousness? I have heard that in antiquity, when one wished to have an audience, one only stepped forward with what was prescribed as an introductory gift: the Son of Heaven presented sacrificial spirits; feudal lords presented jade; ministers presented a lamb; grand masters presented a wild goose; and scholars presented a pheasant. Therefore Mencius said: 'When Confucius crossed the border, he always carried an introductory gift.' One did not hear of seeing one's superior with letters; this was surely an improper practice of later generations. During the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han, scholars from the four quarters, such as Dongfang Shuo and his like, were boastful, extravagant, and peddled their talents, recommending themselves through letters. The realm under Heaven followed suit, and it became a sweeping trend. Mencius said that selling oneself to serve one's ruler was something that even self-respecting men in villages would not do, so would a worthy do it? Yet who has ever felt ashamed of this? Alas! Later generations have declined even further, and the moral education has grown increasingly superficial and frivolous. Scholars boast to one another of their skills and vie with one another in ability, arrogant, extravagant, and full of self-importance—who is not like this? The way of being gentle, upright, courteous, frugal, and yielding has almost been abandoned. At that time, Master Han should properly have practiced the Way of the sages with vigour, taking the lead before the realm under Heaven to correct its customs; yet he pursued these very practices, and his boastfulness, anger, and impetuousness grew even more intense. Later students learn without understanding the roots; merely seeing Master Han's letters, they say to one another: 'Master Han was a great classicist; we ought to emulate what he did.' Doing so not only further harms moral education, but also damages a minister's integrity and disgraces a man's person. Therefore I say: Master Han's letters did not follow the model; I find nothing worthy in them. Some say: 'In Master Han's time, the method of selecting scholars was different from antiquity. Master Han merely acted in accord with his times. If one must maintain the ancient Way, waiting for an invitation before being employed, the Way of the scholar-gentleman would surely never be put into practice until death.' I say this is not so. Master Han still held the prime minister of his time accountable to the Way of the Duke of Zhou; why did he not consider then: 'Present times are different from antiquity; one cannot judge the present by the ancient Way'? Could it be that when scheming for himself he claimed to follow the times, but when censuring others he claimed they must conform to the ancient Way? Would a gentleman truly act with such intentions? Furthermore, in what generation has the ritual of inviting scholars been lacking? In the Tang dynasty, one also still heard of using ritual courtesy to summon hermits. How could they have overlooked sages and worthies without inviting them? The Analects state: 'Do not worry about having no position; worry about that by which you may establish yourself. Do not worry that no one knows you; seek to be worthy of being known.' Master Han and his like ought also to reflect upon this.