韩 非 子
Translated by W. K. Liao
Book Fifteen
Chapter XXXVI
Criticisms of The Ancients, Series One
WhenDuke Wên of Chin was about to fight the Ch`u forces, he summoned Uncle Fan {Tzŭ-fan was the pen-name of Hu Yen who was a maternal uncle of Duke Wên. Therefore, Hu Yen was frequently called Uncle Fan.} and asked him: "We are about to fight the Ch`us. They are many. We are few. What shall we do?" In reply Uncle Fan said: "Thy servant has heard, in observing the rules of strict etiquette, gentlemen never become weary of loyalty and faithfulness; in engaging enemies at the battlefield, they never disapprove the measures of deception and falsification. May Your Highness deceive them by all means!" After sending out Uncle Fan, Duke Wên summoned Yung Chi and asked him: "We are about to fight the Ch`us. They are many. We are few. What shall we do?" In reply Yung Chi said: "If you burn the forest and go hunting, you will temporarily have much game, but there will be no more animals left afterwards. If you adopt the measure of deception in dealing with people, you may have the advantage for a time, but the same measure can never be repeated afterwards." "Right," said Duke Wên. Then he sent Yung Chi out. However, by applying Uncle Fan’s stratagem, he engaged the Ch`us and defeated them. After his victorious return, when heconferred ranks, he ranked Yung Chi first and Uncle Fan next. Thereupon the body of officials said: "The victory at Ch`êng-po was due to Uncle Fan’s stratagem. Is it right to take his advice and put him in the second place?" In response Duke Wên said: "This is not what you, gentlemen, understand. To be sure, what Uncle Fan suggested was a temporary expediency; whereas what Yung Chi advised was an everlasting advantage." Hearing about this, Chung-ni said: "How reasonable it must be that Duke Wên became Hegemonic Ruler! He knew both the temporary expediency and the everlasting advantage."
Some critic {By "some critic" Han Fei Tzŭ apparently meant himself.} says: Yung Chi’s reply did not suit Duke Wên’s question. As a rule, who replies to a question must make out the objective, and give his reply according to whether the object of the question is either big or small, urgent or lenient. If the objective of the question is high and big but the reply is low and narrow, the enlightened sovereign will not accept it. Now Duke Wên asked Yung Chi how to face the many with the few, but Yung Chi replied, "The same measure can never be repeated afterwards." Thereby the reply was not to the point of the question.
On the other hand, Duke Wên himself did not understand either a temporary expediency or an everlasting advantage. If he won the war at all, he could safeguard his country and stabilize his position while his army would become strong and his prestige would be enhanced. Therefore, even though there might be another war much greater than this, why should he worry that he would not gain another everlasting advantage? If he lost the war, the country would decline and the army would become weak while he would die broken-hearted and lose his fame. Thus, if he could hardly evade the impending death of the present, how could he have time to wait for an everlasting advantage? The everlasting advantage rested with the present victory. The present victory depended upon deception of the enemies. In short, the deception of enemies implied an everlasting advantage. Hence the saying: "Yung Chi’s reply did not suit Duke Wên’s question."
Furthermore, Duke Wên did not understand Uncle Fan’s suggestion. By saying, "Gentlemen never disapprove the measure of deception and falsification," Uncle Fan did not mean that they approved the deception of their own people, but meant that they approved the deception of their enemies. After all, enemies belonged to the country they were attacking. Even though the same could not be repeated, what harm would there be in adopting the measure of deception? Did Duke Wên rank Yung Chi first for Yung Chi’s meritorious service? The victory over Ch`u and the defeat of the enemies were due to Uncle Fan’s stratagem, however. Did he do that for Yung Chi’s virtuous advice? Yung Chi only said, "The same measure could never be repeated," which involved no virtuous word at all. As regards Uncle Fan’s saying, it involved both a merit and a virtue. Uncle Fan said: "In observing the rules of strict etiquette, gentlemen never become weary of loyalty and faithfulness." By remaining loyal they love their subordinates; by remaining faithful they do not deceive their people. Thus, he advocated the measure of love and nondeception. What saying could be more virtuous than this? However, he had to suggest the measure of deception and falsification because it was based on strategical consideration.
Thus, Uncle Fan uttered a virtuous saying at the beginning and waged a victorious war in the end. Accordingly, he had two merits, but was ranked second. Yung Chi had none but was rewarded first. "How reasonable it must be that Duke Wên became Hegemonic Ruler!" Chung-ni, when making such a remark, did not know the right way to reward people.
Once upon a time, farmers of the Li Mountains trespassed on each other’s fields. Thereupon Shun went there and tilled among them. In the course of one year, all the boundary ridges of the fields became correct. Another time fishermen living by the Yellow River disputed about small shoals. Thereupon Shun went there and fished among them. In the course of one year they came to make concessions to elders. The potters in the Eastern Barbaric Land made very poor earthenware. Thereupon Shun went there and made earthenware among them. In the course of one year, the earthenware they made became substantial. With admiration Chung-ni said: "Neither tillage nor fishing nor earthen industry was Shun’s official duty. Yet he went to pursue such kinds of work in order thereby to save the fallen. How benevolent a man Shun was! He experienced all hardships himself, till the people followed his example. Hence the saying `Great is, indeed, the moral influence of the sage!’"
Somebody asked the literati, "At that time where was Yao?" "Yao was then the Son of Heaven," they replied. "If so, why did Chung-ni regard Yao as saintly? The saintly man, being clear-sighted and seated on the throne, was supposed to purge All-under-Heaven from wickedness, make the tillers and fishermen stop disputing, and allow no poor earthenware to be made. In that case, how could Shun exercise his moral influence at all? If Shun had to save the fallen, Yao must have had faults. Therefore, if one considers Shun worthy, he disproves the clear-sightedness of Yao; if he considers Yao saintly, he disproves the moral influence of Shun. He can not praise both of them."
Once there was a man of Ch`u selling shields and halberds. In praising his shields he said, "My shields are so solid that nothing can penetrate them." Again, in praising his halberds, he said, "My halberds are so sharp that they can penetrate anything." In response to his words somebody asked, "How about using your halberds to pierce through your shields?" To this the man could not give any reply. Indeed, impenetrable shields and absolutely penetrative halberds cannot stand together at the same time. Now both Yao and Shun cannot be praised at the same time just as the halberds and the shields are mutually incompatible.{v. infra, Work XL, p. 203.}
Moreover, in saving the fallen, Shun stopped one fault in a year and three faults in three years. The length of Shun’s life was limited, but the faults in All-under-Heaven were unlimited in number, If he attempted to remove the unlimited number of faults in the limited length of his life, what he could stop in his life would be very little. Contrary to this, reward and punishment make laws enforcible throughout All-under-Heaven. Suppose there is issued an order to the effect that who conforms to the law shall be rewarded and who does not conform to the law shall be punished. Then, if the order arrives in the morning, the people will change by the evening; if it arrives in the evening, they will change by the morning. In the course of ten days everybody within the seas will change. Why should the ruler wait a year then? However, Shun, instead of persuading Yao of this idea to make the people follow his orders, experienced all hardships himself. Was he not tactless?
Furthermore, to experience hardships personally and thereby transform the people afterwards was difficult even for Yao and Shun; whereas to make use of one’s august position and thereby correct the people is easy even for an average sovereign. When about to govern All-under-Heaven, if the ruler discards what is easy to the average sovereign and extols what was difficult to Yao and Shun, it is still practicable to assist him in political administration.
When Kuan Chung was ill, Duke Huan called on him and asked, "Uncle Chung is now ill. Should he unfortunately pass away by the decree of fate, what advice will he bequeath to me?" In reply Kuan Chung said: "Without Your Highness’s asking, thy servant intended to address a memorial. Will Your Highness dismiss Shu Tiao, remove Yi Ya, and alienate the Wei Prince K`ai-fang. When Yi Ya was the chef of Your Highness, because Your Highness had never tasted human flesh, he purposely steamed his son’s head and served it. {v. Work VII, p. 50, and Work X, p. 89. }Indeed, it is human nature that everybody loves his own son. Now that he did not love his son, how could he love his master? Similarly, as Your Highness was jealous and fond of women, Shu Tiao castrated himself in order thereby to manage the harem. It is human nature that everyone loves his body. If he did not love his body, how could he love his master? K`ai-fang has served Your Highness for fifteen years. The distance between Ch`i and Wei takes only a few days’ walk. Yet he left his mother at home and has never been home to see her during his long-term service. If he does not love his mother, how can he love his master? Thy servant has heard, `Forced hypocrisy never lasts long; covered falsehood is soon uncovered.’ May Your Highness remove these three men!" After the death of Kuan Chung, Duke Huan never carried his advice into practice. In consequence, when Duke Huan died, he was left unburied, till worms crawled outdoors.
Some critic says: What Kuan Chung suggested to Duke Huan was not what an upholder of legal standards ought to have said. His reason for suggesting the removal of Shu Tiao and Yi Ya was that in order to meet the demands of their master they stopped loving themselves. "If they did not love themselves," said he, "how could they love their master?" If so, then ministers who exert their strength to death for the sake of their sovereign, Kuan Chung would never take into service, saying, "If they did not love their lives and physical forces, how could they love their master?" This means that he wanted the ruler to remove loyal ministers. Moreover, if you infer their not loving their master from their not loving themselves, you will also infer Kuan Chung’s inability to die for the sake of Duke Huan from his inability to die for the sake of Prince Chiu. This means that Kuan Chung himself also fell under the rule of removal.
The way of the enlightened sovereign is not the same, however. He establishes what the people want and thereby gets meritorious services from them, wherefore he bestows ranks and emoluments to encourage them. Similarly, he establishes what the people dislike and thereby prohibits them from committing villainy, wherefore he inflicts censure and punishment to overawe them. As bestowal and reward are sure and censure and punishment are definite, the ruler can raise ministers of merit and no crook can join governmental service. Then, even though there are crooks like Shu Tiao and Yi Ya, what can they do against the ruler? Moreover, ministers exert their strength to death to comply with the ruler’s need; the ruler confers ranks and emoluments to comply with the minister’s want. Thus, the relationship of ruler and minister is not as intimate as the bond of father and son; It is an outcome of mutual calculations. {The ruler calculates the strength exerted by the minister; the minister calculates the emolument bestowed by the ruler.} If the ruler follows the right way, ministers will exert their strength and no crook will appear. If he misses the right way, ministers will delude the sovereign on the one hand and accomplish their selfish designs on the other. Now, Kuan Chung did not explain these rules to Duke Huan. Supposing he successfully made him remove one Shu Tiao, another Shu Tiao would certainly appear. It was not the way to exterminate crooks.
Furthermore, that Duke Huan died and worms crawled outdoors while the corpse lay unburied, was because his ministers were too powerful. The ministers being overpowerful resulted in their manipulation of the sovereign. Were there sovereign-manipulating ministers, then the ruler’s decrees could not take effect downward among the inferiors and the true information about the ministers would not travel upward to the superior. Thus, one man’s power could block the communication between ruler and minister, and make success and failure unknown to the ruler and good and bad news not transmitted to him. Hence followed the calamity of leaving the corpse unburied.
According to the way of the enlightened sovereign, nobody can hold any additional office; no office involves any extra duty; the low and humble do not have to depend upon the favour of the high and noble for distinction; chief vassals do not have to count on the courtiers in order to interview the sovereign; all officials can communicate their ideas to the throne; all ministers concentrate upon the interest of the country; the ruler sees the meritorious service rendered by the rewarded and knows the criminal offence committed by the punished; in seeing and knowing he is not mistaken; and in matters of reward and punishment he is not unjust. Were this the case, how could there arise the calamity of leaving his corpse unburied? Instead of explaining this principle to Duke Huan, however, Kuan Chung advised him to remove the three men. Hence the saying: "Kuan Chung upheld no legal standard."
Viscount Hsiang stood a long siege in Chin-yang. After the siege was raised he rewarded five men for their distinguished services, among whom Kao Ho was ranked at the top. Thereupon Chang Mêng-t`an said: "During the siege at Chin-yang, Ho rendered no great meritorious service. Why does Your Highness now confer the first reward upon him?" In reply Viscount Hsiang said: "During the crisis atChin-yang my country and family were in peril and the Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain was jeopardized. All my officials showed a contemptuous attitude to me, but Ho alone never broke the etiquette between ruler and minister. This is the reason why I rank him at the top." Hearing about this, Chung-ni said: "How well he rewarded people! Because Viscount Hsiang conferred the first reward upon one man, all ministers in All-under-Heaven dared not break etiquette."
Some critic says: Chung-ni did not know the right way of rewarding people. Indeed, if the superior knows the right way of rewarding and punishing people, all officials dare not override their commissions; no minister dares to break etiquette; the superior enacts the law; and the subjects have no crooked mind. Were this the case, he could be considered skilful in rewarding and punishing people. Suppose while Viscount Hsiang was in Chin-yang his orders took no effect and his prohibitions stopped nothing. This would mean that Viscount Hsiang had no country and Chin-yang had no ruler. Then with whom could he defend the city?
Now, while Viscount Hsiang was besieged in Chin-yang, though the Chih Clan inundated the city till frogs made their nests inside the mortars and ovens, yet the people had no rebellious mind. Thus were ruler and minister attached to each other. Notwithstanding that Viscount Hsiang enjoyed the intimate relationship between ruler and minister and that he had the legal authority of issuing effective orders and enforcible prohibitions, if there still remained arrogant ministers, it must have been because he missed the right way of punishing people. If ministers render meritorious services in the hour of need, they deserve reward. Now that solely because Ho had never been arrogant, Viscount Hsiang rewarded him, he certainly missed the right way of rewarding people. The enlightened sovereign neither bestows reward upon men of no merit nor inflicts punishment upon innocent people. Now that Viscount Hsiang did not punish arrogant ministers but rewarded Ho for no meritorious service, where could be found his right way of rewarding people? Hence the saying: "Chung-ni did not know the right way of rewarding people."
Once Duke P`ing of Chin held a carousal with the body of officials. When half-seas-over, he heaved a sigh and said, "Nothing is more pleasant to the ruler of men than the obedience of his lords." In response to this, Musician K`uang, seated in the front, raised the harp and threw it at the Duke. Immediately the Duke spread out the lapel in front of his coat and avoided it. The harp made a hole in the wall. Then the Duke said, "Whom did the Grand Tutor intend to strike?" "Just now," replied the Musician K`uang, "some small man by my side played upon words. Therefore, I threw the harp at him." "It was I," said the Duke. "Alas!" exclaimed Musician K`uang. "It was not what the ruler of men should have said." The attendants asked permission to plaster the broken wall. The Duke said, "Leave it there as a constant admonition to me." {Wang Hsien-shen suspected that there were hiatuses below this passage.}
Some critic says: Duke P`ing missed the way of the ruler: Musician K`uang broke the ministerial etiquette. Indeed, to censure the person when disapproving his action is the ruler’s measure against the minister. To address a memorial whendisapproving the ruler’s action and withdraw from thegovernment if the remonstration is not followed, is the minister’s attitude to the ruler. Now that Musician K`uang disapproved Duke P`ing’s action but did not address any ministerial remonstration against it, and, instead, performed the censure as the lord of men would do by raising the harp to strike the Duke’s body, he reversed high and low positions and broke the ministerial etiquette.
Indeed, who is minister, if the ruler has any fault, should remonstrate against it, and, if the remonstration is not followed, should make light of his title and emolument and leave him. This is the ministerial etiquette. Now, Musician K`uang, on disapproving Duke P`ing’s fault, raised the harp to strike his body. Even a severe father would not inflict such punishment upon his son, but Musician K`uang inflicted it upon his master. This was an act of high treason. When the minister committed high treason, Duke P`ing was glad to listen to him. Thereby he missed the way of the ruler. Thus the step taken by Duke P`ing was unjustifiable, for it would make the lord of men listen too much to ministers but never realize their faults. Likewise the action taken by Musician K`uang was unjustifiable, for it would make wicked ministers abuse exorbitant remonstration and justify the art of regicide. They cannot both be reasonable. They constitute two faults. Hence the saying: "Duke P`ing missed the way of the ruler; Musician Ku`ang broke the ministerial etiquette."
At the time of Duke Huan of Ch`i there was a private scholar named Hsiao-ch`ên Chi. Duke Huan paid him three visits but could not see him. Then Duke Huan said: "I have heard, `The commoner, unless he makes light of rank and emolument, has no way to keep off the sovereign of ten thousand chariots; the sovereign of ten thousand chariots, unless he is fond of benevolence and righteousness, has no way to condescend to associate with the commoner.’ " Accordingly, he went five times and was finally able to see him.
Some critic says: Duke Huan did not know benevolence and righteousness. Indeed, who is benevolent and righteous worries about the evil of All-under-Heaven and rushes at the calamity of the whole country regardless of his personal humility and disgrace, is called benevolent and righteous. For example Yi Yin regarded the Central States as disorderly and therefore became a cook in order thereby to ingratiate himself with King T`ang; and Pai-li Hsi regarded Ch`in as disorderly and therefore became a captive in order thereby to ingratiate himself with Duke Mu. Both worried about the evil of All-under-Heaven and rushed at the calamity of the whole country regardless of their personal humility and disgrace. Hence they have been called benevolent and righteous. Now, Duke Huan from the position of a ruler of ten thousand chariots condescended to associate with a commoner and thereby intended to eradicate the worry of the Ch`i state, but Hsiao-ch`ên refused him an interview. This meant that Hsiao-ch`ên took no notice of the welfare of the people. Who takes no notice of the welfare of the masses, cannot be called benevolent and righteous. A benevolent and righteous person would neither break the ministerial etiquette nor confuse the positions of ruler and minister. For this reason, within the four boundaries those who bring birds to visit the court are called vassals." When vassals and officials differentiate their duties and attend to their respective posts, then they are called "subjects."
Now, Hsiao-ch`ên, mingling among the mass of subjects, acted contrary to the wish of the ruler and therefore could not be called benevolent and righteous. While benevolence and righteousness were not found in him, Duke Huan condescended to pay him his respects. Suppose Hsiao-ch`ên had wisdom and talent and purposely avoided Duke Huan. Then his action meant retirement from useful life, wherefore he ought to be punished. If he had neither wisdom nor talent but made all kinds of pretences and behaved arrogantly toward Duke Huan, it meant fraud, for which he should be executed. Thus, Hsiao-ch`ên for his action should have been either penalized or executed. However, Duke Huan, unable to grasp the principle governing the relations between sovereign and subject, paid his repects to a man deserving penalty and execution. Thereby Duke Huan inculcated upon the people in the Ch`i State the habit of slighting the superior and insulting the ruler. It is not the way to political order. Hence the saying: "Duke Huan did not know benevolence and righteousness."
At the battle of Mt. Mi-chi, when Han Hsien-Tzŭ was about to execute a man, Ch`i Hsien-tzŭ went in a carriage to save the man. Upon his arrival the man had already been executed. Ch`i Tzŭ, accordingly, said, "Why is the execution not used as a warning to the masses?" Then his servants said, "Didn’t you intend to save the man?" In response Ch`i Tzŭ said, "How dare I not share the fault for executing an innocent man?"
Some critic says: Ch`i Tzŭ’s saying must be carefully scrutinized. Were the man executed by Han Tzŭ guilty, then he could not be saved. Saving the criminal would break the law. Should the law be broken, the country would fall into confusion. If the victim was not guilty, then Ch`i Tzŭ should not have advised Han Tzŭ to use the unjust execution as a warning to the masses. To use the unjust execution as a warning would double the injustice. Doubling the injustice would arouse popular resentment. Should the people become resentful, the country would be endangered. Thus the saying of Han Tzŭ would cause the country either danger or confusion. It must be carefully scrutinized.
Moreover, were the man executed by Han Tzŭ not guilty, then what blame could Ch`i Tzŭ share? Suppose the victim was not guilty. Then since Ch`i Tzŭ arrived after the execution, it meant that after the fault of Han Tzŭ had been completed, Ch`i Tzŭ arrived on the scene. Indeed, Ch`i Tzŭ said, "Use the execution as a popular warning!" Because he could not share the fault of executing an innocent man, he brought about the fault of using the unjust execution as a popular warning. In this way the saying of Ch`i Tzŭ was not to share the original fault but to bring about a new fault. Of old, when Chow inflicted the punishment of climbing a roasting pillar, Chung Hou and Wu Lai said, "Cut the shins of waders!" How could these two men share the fault of Chow then?
Moreover, the hope of the masses for justice from the authorities was very urgent. If they could not get it from Han Tzŭ, they would hope to get it from Ch`i Tzŭ. Now that they could not get it from Ch`i Tzŭ, either, they would give up their hope in the authorities. Hence the saying: "The saying of Ch`i Tzŭ was not to share the original fault but to bring about a new fault." Furthermore, Ch`i Tzŭ went to save the man because he thought Han Tzŭ was not right. Yet instead of telling Han Tzŭ that he was wrong, he advised him to use the unjust execution as a popular warning, whereby he made Han Tzŭ not realize his fault. Verily he made the people give up hope in the authorities and, besides, made Han Tzŭ not realize his fault. Thus, I have not yet found the way Ch`i Tzŭ could share the fault of Han Tzŭ.
After Duke Huan had untied the bonds of Kuan Chung and appointed him premier, Kuan Chung said: "Thy servant has enough favour, but is low in rank." "I will raise you above the Kaos and Kuos," said the Duke. Meanwhile, Kuan Chung said, "Thy servant is noble but poor." "You shall have the wealth of the Building of Three Returns," said the Duke. "Thy servant is now wealthy," said Kuan Chung, "but still very distant in relation to the ruling family." Thereupon the Duke made him Uncle Chung. {v. supra, Work XXXIII, p. 80. }Commenting on this, Hsiao Lüeh said: "Kung Chung, considering a humble man unable to govern the noble asked the ruler to raise him above the Kaos and Kuos. Considering a poor man unable to govern the wealthy, he asked for the wealth of the Building of Three Returns. Finally, considering a man distant in relation to the ruling family unable to govern the close relatives of the ruler, he asked for the title of Uncle Chung. In so doing, Kuan Chung was not greedy, but wanted to provide his government with facilities."
Some critic says: Now suppose bondmen and bondwomen by the ruler’s order summon nobles and ministers. Then nobody dares to disobey them. Not that the nobles and ministers are low in rank and the bondmen and bondwomen are high, but that nobody dares to disobey the sovereign’s decree. Now, suppose Kuan Chung’s government did not rely on Duke Huan’s authority. Then it would have no sovereign. Without a sovereign, no country could by any means be governed. If he acted under Duke Huan’s authority and issued decrees in his name, he could be trusted as the bondmen and bondwomen were. Why was it necessary for him to have the rank of the Kaos and the Kuos and the title of Uncle Chung before he enforced his rule over the country? The petty officials and local magistrates of the present age, on enforcing the orders of their superiors, neither except the high and noble nor apply them to the low and humble only. As long as the enforcement is legal, even business eunuchs in the court would be trusted by nobles and ministers. If the enforcement is illegal, even high officials would have to give way to ignorant people.
Now that Kuan Chung, instead of striving to elevate the prestige of the sovereign and clarify the law, simply attended to the increase of personal favour and the promotion of his rank, if he was not covetous of wealth and nobility he must have been stupid and ignorant of the right tact. Hence the saying: "Kuan Chung had misbehaved himself; Hsiao Lüeh overestimated him."
King Hsüan of Han asked Chiu Liu, "I want to employ both Kung-chung and Kung-shu simultaneously. Is it practicable?" In reply Chiu Liu said: "Formerly Wey employed both Lou Yüan and Chieh Huang and, as a result, lost the Western River. Likewise, Ch`u employed both the Chaos and the Chings and, as a result, lost the districts of Yen and Ying. Now, if Your Majesty employs both Kung-chung and Kung-shu, both will certainly dispute about affairs and cultivate private friendships with foreign countries. Then the state will, doubtless, have worries."
Some critic says: Of old, Duke Huan of Ch`i employed both Kuan Chung and Pao Shu while King T`ang, the successful, employed both Yi Yin and Chung Hui. If the simultaneous employment of two able men would cause the state worries at all, then Duke Huan could not become Hegemonic Ruler and T`ang, the Successful, could not become King. Contrary to this, King Min entrusted Cho Ch`ih alone with all state affairs and, in consequence, had himself murdered in the Easter Shrine.
Likewise, the Father Sovereign entrusted Li Tai with all state affairs and, in consequence, had his food reduced till he starved to death. If the sovereign is tactful at all, the simultaneous employment of two able men will beget no worry. If he is tactless, the simultaneous employment of two able men will create disputes about affairs and private frienships with foreign countries and the employment of only one man will result in autocracy, intimidation, and regicide. Now, Liu had no tact to rectify the policy of the sovereign. Instead, he advised him not to employ two men at the same time but to entrust one alone with the state affairs. As a result if the sovereign had no worry about territorial losses such as the losses of the Western River and the Yen and Ying districts, he would certainly suffer such disasters as regicide and starvation to death. Thus, Liu was not yet skilful in giving advice to his master.
(All Chinese characters in the notes are blank in the source text and, so, those notes containing such blanks have been either deleted or re-worded in the posting here. -- The New Legalist editor.) |
