鐔津文集 16.12

16.12

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?