| | 政略: |
夫君王之治，必须贤佐然后为泰，故君称元首，臣为股肱，譬之一体。相须而行也。是以陶唐钦明，羲氏平秩，有虞明目，元恺敷教，皆此君唱臣和，同亮天功，故能天成地平，咸熙于和穆，盛德之治也。夫随俗树化，因世建业，慎在务三而已，一曰择人，二曰因民，三曰从时，时移而不移，违天之祥也。民望而不因，违人之咎也。好善而不能择人，败官之患也。三者失，则天人之事悖矣。夫人乖则时逆，时逆则天违，天违而望国安，未有也。 |
| | For a ruler to govern well, he must have virtuous assistants before peace and stability can be achieved. Therefore, the ruler is called the head of the body, while ministers are compared to the limbs; they form one single entity. They depend on each other in order to function properly. Therefore, Taotang was reverent and wise, the Fuxi clan maintained orderly governance; Youyu had clear vision, Yu Kai spread moral instruction. All of these exemplified how a ruler initiated action while ministers harmonized with it, jointly assisting in heavenly duties. Thus they were able to achieve harmony between heaven and earth, universal prosperity through peace and concord—this was the rule of great virtue. To follow the customs of the times and establish moral influence, to build achievements according to the era—caution lies in attending to three matters alone. First is selecting people; second is following the will of the people; third is adapting to the time. If circumstances change but one does not adapt, it would be an ill omen against Heaven's will. If the people look forward to something but their expectations are ignored, it is a fault of defying the people. To desire virtue yet be unable to select proper individuals leads to the calamity of corrupt governance. If these three principles are lost, then the relationship between Heaven and humanity becomes inverted. When people become disunited, the time becomes adverse; when the time is adverse, Heaven's will is defied. To defy Heaven and yet hope for national stability has never occurred.
|
| | 刑论: |
患之巨者，狡猾之狱焉。狡黠之民，不事家事，烦贷乡党，以见厌贱，因反忿恨，看国家忌讳，造诽谤，崇饰戏言以成丑语，被以叛逆告白长吏，长吏或内利疾恶尽节之名，外以为功，遂使无罪并门灭族，父子孩耄，肝脑涂地，岂不剧哉。求媚之臣，侧入取舍，虽烝子啖君，孤己悦主而不惮也。况因捕叛之时，无悦亲之民，必获尽节之称乎。夫妄造诽谤，虚书叛逆，狡黠之民也。而诈忠者知而族之，此国之大残，不可不察也。 |
| | The greater the calamity, the more it is a prison of cunning and deceit. Cunning and deceitful people do not attend to their family affairs, but trouble the local community by frequently borrowing money. Because of this, they are disliked and despised; thus, they become resentful and vengeful. They then look for national taboos, fabricate slanderous remarks, and embellish jests into disgraceful words. They accuse innocent people of treason before the magistrates. Some magistrates, seeking internal profit while appearing to be righteous in hating evil and upholding virtue, take this as an external achievement. As a result, the innocent suffer entire family annihilation; fathers, sons, children, and elders are slaughtered without mercy, their livers and brains smeared on the ground—how tragic is that! Flattering ministers, by taking advantage of opportunities and making choices from the side, would even cook their own sons to please the ruler. For their own sake, they seek to please the sovereign without any hesitation or fear. In times of capturing rebels, there are no people who take joy in their relatives; how could they possibly earn the reputation of upholding virtue and righteousness? Those who fabricate slander and falsely accuse others of treason are cunning and deceitful people. Yet, those who feign loyalty know this and exterminate entire families. This is a great injustice to the state; it cannot be overlooked.
|
| | 用奇: |
或曰：官人用士，累功积效，以次相叙，明主之法，忠臣之节尽矣。若拔奇求异，超等逾第，非臣之事也。应之曰：顾当忧世无奇人，倘有，又不能识耳，明法忠节，未必已尽也。自昔五帝之冠，固有黜陟之谟矣。复勤扬侧陋，殷有考诫之诰矣。复力索岩穴，西伯有呈效之誓矣。复旁求鱼钓，小伯有督课之法矣。复遽求囚俘，汉祖有赏爵之约矣。复急追亡信，若修叙为明法，拔奇为非事，是两帝三君非圣哲，而鲍，萧非忠吏也。然则考功案第，守成之法也。拔奇取异，定社稷之事也。当多事之世而论无事之法，处用奇之时而必效一官之智，此所以上古多无严之国也。是以高世之主，成功之臣，张法以御常人，厚礼以延奇逸，求之若不及，索之若骨肉，故能消灾除难，君臣同烈也。曩使五主二臣，牵于有司，束于修常，不念畴谘，则唐民康哉之歌不作，殷无高宗之号，周无殪商雅颂之美，齐无九合功，汉歼于京索而不帝矣。故明君良臣垂意于奇异，诚欲济其事也。使奇异塡于沟壑，有国者将不兴其治矣。 |
| | Some say: Officials should employ scholars, accumulate achievements and merits step by step in order, which is the law of a wise ruler, and thus the loyalty of a loyal minister is fully demonstrated. If one seeks to appoint outstanding individuals or pursue uniqueness, promoting them beyond their rank or grade, this is not the duty of a minister. He replied: The concern should be that the world lacks extraordinary people; if there are any, it is perhaps because we cannot recognize them. Clear laws and loyal integrity may not have been fully exhausted either. Since the time of the Five Emperors, there has certainly been a plan for promotion and demotion. Again, they diligently promoted those from humble backgrounds; the Shang dynasty had already issued edicts of examination and admonition. They once again made great efforts to seek out recluses in remote places; King Wen of Zhou had already made an oath to present achievements. Again, they sought widely among fishermen and anglers; Xiao Bo had already established a method for supervision and assessment. They once more urgently sought prisoners of war; Emperor Gaozu of Han had already made an agreement to bestow rewards and titles. To urgently pursue fugitives, if arranging ranks according to clear laws is considered proper and appointing outstanding individuals is deemed improper, then these two emperors and three rulers would not be wise or sagacious, and Bao Huanzhong and Xiao He would not be loyal officials. Thus, examining achievements and determining ranks is the method for preserving established order. Selecting outstanding individuals and seeking uniqueness is a matter of securing the state. To discuss laws for times of peace in an era of turmoil, and to insist on the wisdom of a single official at a time when extraordinary measures are needed—this is why many ancient states lacked strict discipline. Therefore, a great ruler and a successful minister establish laws to govern ordinary people, offer generous rites to attract outstanding recluses, seek them as if they were urgently needed, pursue them as one would cherish family members; thus, they are able to eliminate disasters and difficulties, achieving shared glory between ruler and minister. If those five rulers and two ministers had been constrained by officials, bound by the routine of following conventions, without considering consultation with capable individuals, then the song of Tang's people singing about peace would not have been composed, Shang would not have earned the title Gaozong, Zhou would have lacked the beauty of its odes to defeating Shang and praising virtue, Qi would not have achieved the feat of uniting nine times, and Han would have perished at Jing Su without becoming an emperor. Therefore, wise rulers and capable ministers pay attention to the extraordinary; this is indeed their sincere desire to accomplish great deeds. If outstanding individuals are buried in obscurity, those who hold a state will not be able to achieve good governance.
|
| | 用奇: |
汉元帝为太子时，谏持法泰深，求用儒生，宣帝作色怒之云，俗儒不达不足任，乱吾家者太子也。据如斯言，汉之中灭，职由宣帝，非太子也。乃知班固步骤盛衰，发明是非之理，弗逮古史远矣。昔秦穆公近纳英儒，招致智辩，知富国强兵，至于始皇，乘历世馀，灭吞六国，建帝号，而坑儒任刑，疏扶苏之谏，外蒙恬之直，受胡亥之曲，信赵高之谄，身没三岁，秦无噍类矣。前史书二世之祸，始皇所起也。夫汉祖初以三章结黔首之心，并任儒辩以并诸侯，然后罔漏吞舟之鱼，烝民朴谨，天下大治，宣帝受六世之洪业，继武昭之成法，四夷怖征伐之威，生民厌兵革之苦，海内归势，适当安乐时也。而以峻法绳下，贱儒贵刑名，是时名则石显，弘恭之徒，便僻危险，杜塞公论，专制于事，使其君负无穷之谤也如此，谁果乱宣帝家哉。向使宣帝豫料柱石之士，骨鲠之臣，属之社稷，不令宦竪秉持天机，岂近于元世栋桡榱崩，三十年间，汉为新家哉。推计之，始皇任刑，祸近及身，宣帝好刑，短丧天下，不同于秦祸少者耳。 |
| | When Emperor Yuan of Han was a crown prince, he advised that the law should be enforced too strictly and advocated for employing Confucian scholars. Emperor Xuan became angry and said in an indignant tone: "Superficial Confucians do not understand affairs and are unfit to hold office; it is you, Crown Prince, who will bring disorder to our family." According to these words, the decline of the Han dynasty in its middle period was due entirely to Emperor Xuan, not the crown prince. Thus we know that Ban Gu's account of rise and decline, his explanation of right and wrong, is far inferior to ancient historical records. In the past, Duke Mu of Qin welcomed outstanding scholars and recruited wise debaters; he understood how to enrich the state and strengthen its military. By the time of Emperor Qin Shi Huang, building upon the legacy of previous generations, he conquered and absorbed the six states, declared himself emperor, yet buried Confucian scholars alive and relied on harsh punishments. He ignored Fu Su's advice, rejected Meng Tian's integrity from outside, accepted Hu Hai's crookedness, trusted Zhao Gao's flattery; within three years after his death, not a single Qin family member survived. Previous historical records attribute the calamity of Emperor Er Shi to Emperor Qin Shi Huang's actions. Emperor Gaozu of Han initially won the hearts of the common people with his Three Laws, and by employing both Confucian scholars and debaters to unify the feudal lords, he ensured that not even a great fish could escape from his net. The populace was simple and cautious, and the realm enjoyed great governance. Emperor Xuan inherited an immense legacy spanning six generations, continued the established laws of Wu Di and Zhao Di, and through the might of military campaigns, terrified all four foreign tribes; the people were weary of warfare and its hardships, and within the empire, unity prevailed—this was precisely a time of peace and happiness. Yet, by enforcing harsh laws upon the people below him and devaluing Confucianism while elevating legalist doctrines, at that time figures such as Shi Xian, Hong Gong and their ilk, with their sycophantic and dangerous inclinations, blocked public discourse and monopolized authority in affairs, causing his ruler to bear endless blame. In this way, who actually brought disorder to Emperor Xuan's family? Had Emperor Xuan foreseen the importance of pillars and foundation stones—loyal, upright officials—and entrusted them with state affairs rather than allowing eunuchs to control imperial authority, would it have come so close to what happened in the Yuan dynasty, where beams collapsed and the structure crumbled within thirty years, leading Han to be replaced by the Xin dynasty? Judging from this, Emperor Qin Shi Huang's reliance on legalist punishments brought disaster that nearly affected himself; Emperor Xuan's preference for harsh laws led to the early loss of his empire. The difference is merely that the calamity did not reach as far in Han as it did in Qin.
|
