鐔津文集 6.8

6.8

問者曰。君子稱王或不稱霸。謂霸執權。謂王修信也。而霸孰謂無信邪。固疑其道也。幸吾子辯之。使桓文之事皆悉也。曰王尚德霸尚功夫王有權。王者以權而行德也。霸有權。霸者以權而取功也。取功故其權未必不私也。行德故其權未必不公也。故公者為權而私者為詐也。王有信誠信也。霸有信假信也。假信故愈久而愈渝。誠信故愈久而愈信。齊桓公方會諸侯。自北杏抵幽十一主盟而諸侯皆順。其信存也。及城緣陵而諸侯皆散。其信渝也。晉文公其戰克楚踐土之盟。以功自高遂召天王。其章詐也。是故君子稱之。稱其當時之功也。不稱者（或無者字）惡其詐且不誠也。詩稱投我以木瓜報之以瓊琚。匪報也永以為好也。善罰之功也。子曰。管仲之器小哉。卑霸之道也。中古之霸。有異禮而無異道。後古之霸。有異道而無異禮。守職命而不擅征。不亦有異禮乎。信征伐而尚詐力。不亦有異道乎。故曰霸非古也。亂王政自桓文始也。今俗曰。霸道適變治者不可不用也。仲尼曰。管仲相桓公霸諸侯一匡天下。民到于今受其賜。微管仲吾其被髮左衽矣。我其舍諸。噫致合天下之猖狂詭譎。傳會于孫子吳起之說淫溺而不反者也。此誠愚者之言。烏足與知聖人之意邪。所謂適變者。蓋君子因事而正之以義者也。豈曰以智詐而變正道者也。春秋之譏變古正以諸侯用私而變公者也。夫至道之世不顯權。至德之世不懷功。懷功恐其人因功而競利也。顯權恐其人因權而生詐也。是故堯舜之化淳而文王之化讓。漢氏曰。吾家雜以王霸而治天下。暫厚而終薄。少讓而多諍。

The questioner said: “Gentlemen praise kingship and sometimes do not praise hegemony, saying that the hegemon grasps expedience, while the king cultivates trustworthiness. But who could say that a hegemon is without trustworthiness? I certainly have doubts about their ways. I hope you, sir, will discriminate between them so that the affairs of Duke Huan [of Qi] and Duke Wen [of Jin] may become fully clear.” [The old man] said: “The king values virtue; the hegemon values merit. Now, the king has expedience: the king uses expedience to practice virtue. The hegemon has expedience: the hegemon uses expedience to seize merit. Because he seizes merit, his expedience is not necessarily free of selfishness. Because [the king] practices virtue, his expedience is not necessarily free of impartiality. Therefore, the impartial is true expedience, while the selfish is deceit. The king has trustworthiness: it is sincere trustworthiness. The hegemon has trustworthiness: it is feigned trustworthiness. Because it is feigned trustworthiness, the longer it lasts, the more it alters. Because it is sincere trustworthiness, the longer it lasts, the more trustworthy it becomes. When Duke Huan of Qi assembled the feudal lords, from Beixing to You, he presided over the covenant eleven times, and the feudal lords all complied: his trustworthiness was preserved. When he fortified Yuanling, the feudal lords all dispersed: his trustworthiness was altered. When Duke Wen of Jin achieved victory in battle over Chu and held the covenant of Jiantu, he exalted himself on account of his merit and thereupon summoned the Heavenly King: this was a clear manifestation of deceit. For this reason, gentlemen praise them: they praise their merits of that time. When they do not praise them, it is because they detest their deceit and lack of sincerity. The Odes praise: ‘He threw me a papaya, and I requited him with a precious girdle-gem; not as a requital, but to perpetuate our friendship forever.’ This is to praise the merit of penalizing [the wrong]. The Master said: ‘Small indeed was the capacity of Guan Zhong!’ This belittles the way of the hegemon. The hegemons of middle antiquity had different rituals but did not have a different way. The hegemons of late antiquity had a different way and did not have different rituals. Keeping to one's official commission and not campaigning arbitrarily—is this not having different rituals? Making a show of trustworthiness in military expeditions while exalting deceit and force—is this not having a different way? Therefore it is said: Hegemony is not of antiquity; the disordering of kingly governance began with Duke Huan and Duke Wen. Nowadays popular opinion says: ‘The way of the hegemon adapts to circumstances, and those who govern cannot avoid employing it.’ Zhongni said: ‘Guan Zhong assisted Duke Huan, made him hegemon over the feudal lords, and united and rectified all under Heaven; down to the present day, the people enjoy the benefits. Were it not for Guan Zhong, we should be wearing our hair loose and folding our robes to the left. How could I abandon him?’ Alas! This brings together the wild reckless deceit of the world, collating it with the theories of Sunzi and Wu Qi, wallowing therein without returning. These are truly the words of foolish men; how are they sufficient to know the intention of the sage? That which is called ‘adapting to circumstances’ means that the gentleman, in accord with affairs, rectifies them with righteousness. How could it mean altering the correct Way through craftiness and deceit? The Spring and Autumn Annals' condemnation of changing ancient ways is precisely because the feudal lords used selfishness to alter impartiality. In an age of the Utmost Way, expedience is not made manifest; in an age of the Utmost Virtue, merit is not cherished. If merit is cherished, one fears people will contend for profit on account of merit; if expedience is made manifest, one fears people will engender deceit on account of expedience. For this reason, the transformation under Yao and Shun was pure, and the transformation under King Wen was yielding. The Han dynasty said: ‘Our family governs the world by intermingling the ways of the king and the hegemon.’ It was temporarily substantial, but ultimately flimsy; there was little yielding and much contention.”