鐔津文集 16.12

16.12

昔陽城以處士被詔遷諫議大夫。久之其諫爭未見。眾皆以虛名譏城。謂其忝也。而韓子遂作諫臣論非之。其意亦以城既處諫官。而使天下不聞其諫爭之言。豈有道之士所為乎。逮城出守道州。以善政聞。而韓子為序送太學生何堅還城之州。又特賢城所治為有道之國。特比漢之黃霸為頴川時。感鳳鳥集鳴之賀。余小時視此二說。怪韓子議論不定。而是非相反。夫是必是之。非必非之。何其前後混惑如此。古今所論。謂聖賢正以其能知人於未名之間。見事於未然之時也。昔王𤀹有大志。其未效之時。人皆笑之。唯羊叔子謂其必堪大事。而善待之。而𤀹果立功於晉。唐征淮西之時。李光顏初碌碌於行伍。人未之識。獨裴中立稱其才於憲宗。不數日奏光顏能大破賊兵。晉時戴睎少有才惠。人皆許以有遠政。唯嵇侍中謂其必不成器。其後睎果以無行被斥。故唐晉書稱其知人。而稽羊裴晉公三君子之美。灼灼然照萬世矣。韓子賢者。其識鑒人物固宜如此也。使賢城果賢。方其諫爭未有所聞之時。韓子當推之以質眾人之相譏。豈前既不賢。其後因時之所美。而隨又賢之。若是則韓子稱其有道無道。是皆因人乃爾。豈韓子能自知之耶。余視唐書。見陽子素君子人也。非其賢為太守而不賢於諫官。乃韓子自不知陽耳。韓子謂。亢宗居諫官之職。而欲守處士之志。乃引易蠱之上九與蹇之六二交辭。以折其行事。此陽氏居官。自有王臣謇謇之意。而韓子不見。按唐書。正（避後諱）元之初。諫官紛紛競言。事細碎者無不聞達。天子益厭苦之。然當此亢宗自山林以有道詔為諫列。固宜相時而發。烏可如他諫臣齗齗遽騁口舌以重人主厭惡。詳亢宗在官而人不見其諫爭者。非不言也。蓋用禮五諫之義。而其所發微直自有次序。不可得而輒見。其五諫也者。曰諷。曰順。曰闚。曰指。曰陷也。諷諫者。謂知禍患之萌而諷告之也。順諫者。謂出詞遜順不逆君心。闚諫者。謂視君顏色而諫。指諫者。謂質指其事而諫。陷諫者。謂言國之害而忘生為君也。然其事未至亡國大害於政。則未可以指陷也。指陷謂言直而氣厲。激怒於人主。失身多而濟事少也。魏文正曰。臣願陛下使臣為良臣。勿使臣為忠臣。忠臣縱殺身有直諫之名。而不益其事。更彰君之惡。若是則諷諫果優隱於直諫。直諫豈不為不得已而用之耶。故古之聖賢多尚諷諫。孔子曰。吾從其諷諫乎。禮曰。為人臣之禮不顯諫。又曰。事君欲諫而不欲陳。此豈不然乎。陽子蓋如此之謂也。及裴延齡輩用事。邪人為黨。傾覆宰相。大害國政。亢宗不得已。遂與王仲舒伏閣下。一疏論其姦邪。天子果怒欲加罪誅城。會順宗適在東宮。解救僅免。然城諫爭法。經緊緩乃隨其事宜。始城與其二弟日夕痛飲。客苟有造城欲問其所以。城知其意即坐客強之以酒醉客。欲其不暇發語。此足見陽子居官其意有在。雖尋常之士。亦可以揣知陽子之意。韓子何其特昧而遽作論譊譊。輒引尚書君陳之詞而曰。若書所謂則大臣宰相之事。非陽子之所宜行也。是又韓子不知經也。若君陳曰。爾有嘉謨嘉猷則入告爾后于內。爾乃順之于外。曰斯謨斯猷維我后之德也。嗚呼臣人咸若時惟良顯哉。其所以嗚呼也者。蓋慨嘆凡臣於人者咸皆順行此入告順外之道。豈不為良臣大能昭顯其君之德也。孔安國傳之亦然也。如此則入則諫其君。出不使外人知者。何獨在大臣宰相者乃得行之耶。陽子立朝為諫議大夫。其位豈甚下。其官豈甚小。入則諫出則不使人知。豈不宜其所行。孰謂不可耶。夫諫爭自古罕有得其所者。漢之善諫者袁盎汲黯。而言事尚忤觸人主所不陷其身者。賴文武賢主而納諫。其後薛廣德朱雲劉輔輩。激怒天子又其甚矣。方陽氏之諫爭。師經有法。在韓子固當推之以教後世可也。更沮之。謬論如此。不亦易乎。

In the past, Yang Cheng was summoned as an unregistered scholar (chushi) and promoted to Grand Master of Remonstrance (jianyidafu). For a long time, his remonstrance and dispute were not seen. The multitude all mocked Cheng for having an empty reputation, claiming that he disgraced his post. Master Han then composed "A Treatise on the Remonstrating Minister" to criticize him. His idea was likewise that since Cheng occupied the post of a remonstrating official yet caused the realm not to hear his words of remonstrance and dispute, how could this be the doing of a man of the Dao? Later, when Cheng went out to govern Daozhou, he was heard of for his benevolent administration. When Master Han wrote a preface seeing off the imperial academy student He Jian returning to Cheng's prefecture, he specifically praised Cheng's governed domain as a state having the Dao, uniquely comparing it to Huang Ba of the Han governing Yingchuan, which received congratulations for phoenixes gathering and singing. When I examined these two accounts in my youth, I found it strange that Master Han's discussions were inconsistent and that his rights and wrongs were contradictory. What is right must be affirmed as right, and what is wrong must be condemned as wrong; how could his before and after be so confused? Discussions from ancient to modern times state that the reason sages and worthies are esteemed precisely lies in their ability to recognize persons before they are famous and foresee affairs before they have happened. Formerly, Wang Jun had grand ambitions; before he had proven himself, people all mocked him. Only Yang Shuzi (Yang Hu) said that he would certainly prove equal to great undertakings and treated him well, and Jun indeed established achievements for the Jin. At the time of the Tang expedition against Huaixi, Li Guangyan was initially obscure in the ranks and unknown to people. Pei Zhongli (Pei Du) alone praised his talent to Xianzong, and within a few days it was memorialized that Guangyan had thoroughly crushed the rebel troops. During the Jin dynasty, Dai Xi had talent and cleverness in his youth, and everyone praised him as having long-term administrative capacity; only Palace Attendant Ji (Ji Shao) said that he would certainly never become a worthy vessel. Thereafter, Xi was indeed cashiered for lack of conduct. Therefore, the Tang and Jin histories praised their knowledge of men, and the excellence of the three gentlemen—Ji, Yang, and Duke of Jin Pei—shines brightly across ten thousand generations. Master Han was a worthy; his discernment of persons ought certainly to have been like this. Supposing Cheng were truly worthy, then when his remonstrance and dispute were not yet heard of, Master Han should have promoted him to arbitrate against the mutual derision of the crowd. How could he first deem him unworthy, and later, following the praises of the times, subsequently deem him worthy again? If it is like this, then whether Master Han praises someone as possessing the Dao or lacking the Dao is all merely contingent on others. How could it be that Master Han knew this of himself? Examining the Tang History, I see that Master Yang was fundamentally a gentleman. It was not that he was worthy as a prefect but unworthy as a remonstrating official; it was simply that Master Han himself did not understand Yang. Master Han said that Kangzong (Yang Cheng) occupied the office of a remonstrating official yet sought to preserve the resolve of an unregistered scholar; he then cited the upper nine of "Gu" (Hexagram 18) and the six in the second place of "Jian" (Hexagram 39) in the *Classic of Changes* to refute his conduct. This showed that Yang's holding of office inherently contained the intent of a royal minister speaking out honestly, which Master Han failed to see. According to the Tang History, in the beginning of the Zhenyuan era, remonstrating officials vied with one another in garrulous speech; nothing, no matter how trivial, went unsubmitted. The Son of Heaven grew increasingly weary and burdened by it. Under such circumstances, when Kangzong was summoned from the mountain forests as one who possessed the Dao to join the ranks of remonstrators, he ought certainly to have acted according to the times. How could he, like other remonstrating ministers, aggressively wag his tongue in dispute to add to the sovereign's disgust? Carefully examining Kangzong's tenure in office, that people did not see his remonstrance and dispute was not because he did not speak; he was applying the principle of the five kinds of remonstrance from the rites, whose subtle and direct unfoldings naturally had an order that could not be casually seen. These five kinds of remonstrance are called indirect suggestion (feng), compliance (shun), observation (kui), pointing (zhi), and risking danger (xian). Remonstrance by indirect suggestion means knowing the sprouts of calamity and suggesting them beforehand. Remonstrance by compliance means uttering words meekly and obediently without running counter to the ruler's mind. Remonstrance by observation means remonstrating by observing the ruler's facial expressions. Remonstrance by pointing means remonstrating by directly identifying the matter. Remonstrance by risking danger means speaking of harm to the state and forgetting one's own life for the sake of the ruler. However, if the matter has not reached the point of the destruction of the state or great injury to governance, one may not employ pointing or risking danger. Pointing and risking danger mean that the words are blunt and the tone is severe; they provoke the sovereign to wrath, frequently resulting in the destruction of oneself with little accomplished. Wei Wenzheng said: 'I wish Your Majesty would make me a good minister, not a loyal minister. Even if a loyal minister sacrifices his life to obtain the name of direct remonstrance, it does not benefit the matter and further exposes the ruler's wickedness.' If so, then indirect remonstrance is indeed superior to and more subtle than direct remonstrance. Is direct remonstrance not used only when there is no alternative? Therefore, the sages and worthies of antiquity mostly valued indirect remonstrance. Confucius said: 'Shall I follow indirect remonstrance?' The *Rites* says: 'The etiquette of a minister is not to remonstrate overtly.' It also says: 'In serving one's ruler, one desires to remonstrate but not to display it.' How could this not be so? Master Yang was likely of this kind. When Pei Yanling and his cohort held power, wicked men formed a faction, overturned the grand councilor, and brought great harm to state governance. Kangzong had no choice; he thereupon prostrated himself below the palace gate with Wang Zhongshu, submitting a single memorial exposing their villainy and treachery. The Son of Heaven was indeed enraged and wanted to punish and execute Cheng; it happened that Shunzong was currently in the Eastern Palace and rescued him, so he barely escaped. Thus, in Cheng's methods of remonstrance and dispute, firmness and laxity followed what was appropriate to the matter. At first, Cheng drank heavily day and night with his two younger brothers; if a visitor came to Cheng intending to ask about his affairs, Cheng knew his intent, immediately seated the guest, and plied him with wine until he was drunk, so that the guest had no leisure to speak. This fully demonstrates that Master Yang had his reasons in holding office; even an ordinary scholar could deduce Master Yang's intentions. Why was Master Han so uniquely obtuse that he hastily composed a treatise clamoring in debate, casually quoting the words of 'Jun Chen' from the *Classic of Documents*, saying: 'What the *Documents* mentions is the affair of great ministers and grand councilors, not what should be practiced by Master Yang'? This again shows that Master Han did not know the classics. For 'Jun Chen' says: 'If you have good counsels and plans, enter and report them to your ruler within; and you should comply with them outside, saying, "These counsels and plans are the virtue of my ruler." Alas! When ministers all act like this, how good and illustrious they are!' The reason for exclaiming 'Alas!' is lamenting that if all who are ministers to others were to follow this way of entering to report within and complying outside, would they not become good ministers who can greatly illuminate their ruler's virtue? Kong Anguo's commentary is also like this. In this case, regarding entering to remonstrate with one's ruler and not letting outsiders know upon leaving, why should this be practiced solely by great ministers and grand councilors? When Master Yang stood at court as Grand Master of Remonstrance, was his position so very lowly? Was his office so very small? That he remonstrated upon entering and did not let people know upon leaving—was this not suitable for his conduct? Who can say it was impermissible? From antiquity, remonstrance and dispute have rarely achieved their proper place. In the Han, the skilled remonstrators were Yuan Ang and Ji An; yet their speech in affairs still offended the sovereign, and the reason they did not bring destruction upon themselves was that they relied on virtuous rulers like Wen and Wu who accepted remonstrance. Later, men like Xue Guode, Zhu Yun, and Liu Fu enraged the Son of Heaven to an even greater degree. Master Yang's remonstrance and dispute were modeled on the classics and had a method; Master Han ought certainly to have promoted it to teach later generations. To undermine it instead with such fallacious discourse—is that not too frivolous?