鐔津文集 6.8

6.8

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.”