On the Prerequisite of Being Tactful while Admonishing one's Ruler
Three Tweets: Attempt to Translate + Annotations - Fragment from 窮愁志忠諫論 by 李德裕
A few days ago, my eyes fell on the above thread of three tweets which constituted a fragment of a text which is in a language described as Medieval Chinese. The reason for me to try to translate the Chinese in the three tweets visible above is simply because I could not make head or tail of it while running my eyes over the bits of text, and got so annoyed by it that I thought I must make an effort to make a translation here online.
The reader beware. The translated portion below is part of a (much) larger text from the Táng (唐) period titled Qióngchóuzhìzhōngjiànlùn (窮愁志忠諫論) and authored by the Táng official Lǐ Déyù (李德裕, 787 - 850). The tweeter in question, Prof. Dr. Michael Höckelmann, produced a scholarly work on that historical figure, see the site of the book’s publisher. The scholar’s Twitter handle, by the way, is @MedievalChinese and he may just be an interesting specialist to follow. The original text from Medieval times was edited by 傅璇琮 Fù Xuáncóng and 周建国 Zhōu Jiànguó in the work Lǐdéyùwénjíxiàojiān 李德裕文集校笺 (Shíjiāzhuāng 石家庄: 河北教育出版社 Héběi Jiàoyù Chūbǎnshè, 1999), which actually may be regarded as containing the entire original text concerned. It is important to note, however, that as I do not own nor have access to either work, below translation has been done without either book.
I have added some footnotes, as you will see, in order to discuss certain things that may be interesting or are somehow not entirely clear to me. I guess, however, that there are many other parts of the texts that would be worthy of closer examination or discussion, and so may be my (raw) translation, not in the least because there may be some inaccuracies or even errors in it! Anyway: I would very much appreciate feedback from my dear followers and readers on the text, philological questions related to it, and my flawed translation.
Without any further ado I wish to present you the result of my attempt to translate, bit-by-bit:
人1君拒諫有二: 一曰生於愛名, 二曰不能去欲.
There are two motives for some rulers to turn away admonition: The first is called being too attached to one’s reputation in one’s lifetime, the second - being incapable of setting aside one’s (personal, petty) predilections.
Even the (notorious) rulers Jié, Zhòu, Huán, and Líng had not ever been able to forget about their reputations, whilst they themselves were aware that they had committed many evils acts!
畏天下之人知之, 將謂諫則惡不可掩, 故不欲人之諫己.
Those fearful of the world knew this6 , and (therefore) if they ever were7 to be called out and admonished then the evil acts (committed by them) would certainly be brought to light.8 For this reason they did not want to be admonished by others.
如晉獻非驪姬寢不安, 齊桓非易牙食不美, 必不能去之, 亦不欲諫己.
Duke Xiàn of Jìn,9 for instance, was not uncomfortable with sharing his bed with concubine Lí,10 and Duke Huán of Qí11 was not averse to Yìyá’s cooking,12 to the contrary, they could not do without these pleasures, and they, likewise, did not wish to be admonished (for that).
人臣忠諫亦有二: 欲道行於君, 可使身安國理者, 其辭婉; 欲名高後世, 不顧身危國傾者, 其辭訐.
There are two types of the few13 vassals who keep faithfully admonishing their rulers: Those who desire ethical, principled conduct from the ruler, and are able to exert themselves to bring stability to the affairs of the state. (Admonishing vassals of this type) are referred to as agreeable. (And there are) those who wish to achieve fame which is to last for generations to come, irrespective of whatever personal harm or fatal consequences for the very state (such enterprise may entail). (Admonishing vassals of this type) are referred to as accusatory.14
若考叔啟大隧以成莊公之孝, 倉唐獻犬雁以復文侯之愛, 留侯封雍齒以安群臣, 招四晧以定惠帝, 此所謂婉也.
For example, (how) Kǎoshū15 made the case16 for a tunnel so that Duke Zhuāng will fulfill his filial obligation, (how) Cāngtáng presented dogs and wild geese to requite Marquess Wén’s loving kindness,17 (how) the Marquess of Liú caused Yōng Chǐ to be granted a peerage (again) in order to appease (ruler Gāozǔ 高祖’s) retainers, (how one) called on the Four Whiteheads to appoint an emperor worthy of the (posthumous) name Huìdì,18 these (acts) are (all) called agreeable.19
諫大夫言婢不為主, 白馬令言帝欲不諦, 激主之怒, 自有其名, 望其聽從, 固不可得, 此所謂訐也.
(How) an admonishing senior court asserts that concubines are not the be-all and end-all, (how) Bái Mǎlìng stated that the emperor wished not to get to the bottom of things (which concern him),20 (that is to say) by rousing the ruler’s anger, and by making a reputation for oneself (as someone prone to find fault with rulers), hoping that he (i.e. the ruler) will listen and comply, which is prone to fail, this is called accusatory.21
漢元帝欲御樓船, 薛廣德當乘輿諫曰: 臣自刎，以血污車輪，則陛下不入廟矣.
Emperor Yuán of Hàn22 (once) intended to go by ship (with a superstructure built onto its main deck,)23 (thereupon official) Xuē Guǎngdé instantly mounted the chariot and addressed the emperor: "(If you go by ship) I will cut my throat, and I will defile the wheels of the chariot of my blood, then Your Majesty shall not enter the Imperial Shrine!"24
張猛曰: "乘船危, 就橋安, 聖主不乘危."
Zhāng Měng (then) said: "Getting aboard the ship is dangerous, crossing the bridge is safe. A sagely ruler does not embark upon something dangerous."
元帝曰: "曉人不當如是耶?" 則知諫之道在於婉矣.
Emperor Yuán said: "Now should an intelligent man not be like this?"25 This shows that knowing the way of admonition lies in agreeableness!
唯英主必能從諫. 何者? 自知功德及生人者大矣, 雖有小惡, 不諱人言.
Only a noble sovereign is surely capable of heeding (good) admonition. Why is that so? One who is aware of his merits and virtues in his lifetime is truly great, and even though he has his flaws, shall not shun what others have to say.
人 "(hu)man; other (person)" here is used adnominally to the noun 君 "ruler." It is not clear to me as to what this 人 really signifies. A 君 "ruler" is, in its normal usage understood as a human being, and therefore this 人 would be redundant if it were to mean "human" in the literal sense, as "being in human form." It does not seem to signify "other" either, although it may make sense if we were to take the whole text into consideration (what I translate here is merely a fragment of a whole text, so we cannot preclude the possibility of that interpretation being correct. To me that seems more probable a possibility than it meaning squarely "human, being human." I have decided to translate this 人 as "some," although dictionaries do not generally list this as one of the possible meanings of that character. Another possibly sensible meaningful interpretation of this 人 would be to perceive it as meaning "human" in a more putative, derivative sense ("being what may be considered typically human, especially with regard to human’s shortcomings"). Compare the use of "human" in the expression "to err is human," or that of "menschlich" in the German expression "allzu menschlich." I would encourage the reader to contemplate on the (possible or probable) semantic value of this 人 before 君, and share his or her thoughts in the comments.
桀 Jié (1728–1675 BC) - Final tyrannical ruler of the legendary Xià (夏) dynasty, whose misdeeds caused, according to classical Chinese historiography, the downfall of this kingdom.
紂 Zhòu (1155 - 1122 BC) - Final ruler of the Shāng (商) dynasty, whose government in the end became corrupt and decadent, thus sealing the dynasty's fate, according to classical, orthodox historiography.
桓 Huán - I believe that the ruler referred to here would be Emperor Huán of the state of Hàn (漢) (r. 146 - 168 AD). In historical writings he was severely criticized for giving eunuchs free rein in political affairs during his reign, which would be detrimental to the empire in the years to come.
靈 Líng - Emperor Líng (r. 168 - 189 AD). The direct successor of the aforementioned Emperor Huán. Also under his rule the Hàn (漢) dynasty went into further decay which resulted in factional infighting and the start of the Three Kingdoms period in China. Due to this, he was assessed as another inept ruler.
之, here translated as "this" refers probably to either the previous part 為惡多, namely "(the fact that the rulers) had committed many an evil act," or even the longer previous phrase 自知為惡多矣 "(the fact that the rulers) were well aware that they had committed many an evil act." The combination 畏天下之人, here translated, somewhat stiltedly, as "those fearful of the world," appears to refer to politicians with a keen sense of politics who had arrived at the (correct!) conclusion that the respective ruler’s misconduct had put the state in jeopardy.
將 here appears to be used as some kind of signifier of a future tense or aspect, but not of an imminent future ("to be/do about to," etc.) as is often the case in classical Chinese text. It rather seems to indicate something that might, at some point in the rule of those inept or evil leaders, have happened, but did not, and therefore I have opted to translate this part with an irrealis, or at least highly hypothetical, mood.
More literally: "… could not be/remain concealed."
晉獻 - Duke Xiàn 獻 of the state of Jìn (晉) (r. 676 - 651 BC)
驪姬 - Lí Jī, i.e. Concubine Lí, favourite concubine of Duke Xiàn of Jìn, who became even his main wife. She was known for hatching insidious machinations so that her male offspring may gain political domination.
齊桓 - Duke Huán 桓 of the state of Qí (齊) (r. 685 - 643 BC), who managed to gain ascendancy over his state as a hegemon, but in his later years saw his power dwindled.
易牙 - Yìyá, a cook at the court of the aforementioned Duke Huán 桓. Apparently the classical text Guǎnzǐ (管子) relates of how the cook could become one of the (candidate) power brokers who could gain political clout at the expense of old Duke Huán. The purport of the fragment at hand would suggest that Yìyá could make crafty use of Duke Huán's epicurist tendencies to secure a firm foothold.
Here 人 is translated with "few." The remarks in footnote no. 1 above naturally also apply for this instance of 人.
Perhaps in this context 訐 may better be translated as "confrontational," "relentless"
考叔, i.e. 潁考叔 Yǐng Kǎoshū - Court official serving under 鄭莊公, Duke Zhuāng 莊公 of the state of Zhèng (鄭) (r. 743 - 701 BC), apparently Yǐng Kǎoshū was the main figure exhorting this Duke Zhuāng to build a tunnel in order to meet with his mother, an event also mentioned on this Wikipedia page.
啟 is presented in dictionaries as having the meanings of "to open," but also "to realize," "to make (someone else) realize." In this context, I am inclined to interpret as either "to make the case (for a worthy pursuit, in this case building a tunnel)," or "to have a tunnel opened (i.e. built)," the reader, of course can pick one, or come up with what he or she feels is a better translation-cum-interpretation.
倉唐 - Cāngtáng - Apparently a retainer at the court of Marquess Wén 文侯 of the state of Wèi (魏) (r. 424 - 396 BC). The event appears to have been recorded in the famous Classical Chinese collection 說苑 Shuōyuàn, in English popularly known as "Garden of Stories." The relevant fragment can be found here.
On the Four Whiteheads and their role in selecting the (future) emperor of the state of Hàn (漢), see this Wikipedia article. Huìdì 惠帝 (r. 195 - 188 BC) was the posthumous name of the second ruler of that state, and was generally lauded as a benevolent ruler. His posthumous appellation actually means "Benevolent Emperor."
Note that these examples of 婉, "agreeable," acts, were all conducive for the strengthening and positive development of the state and internal politics. The author of this article certainly wished to get the point across that such 婉-like engagements with one’s own rulers may lead to desirable results, whereas coarse 訐-like scolding or other confrontational behaviours vis-à-vis the ruler are bound to fail in their purpose, as we will see in the coming paragraph.
Bái Mǎlìng 白馬令 apparently was a retainer who once explicitly and directly lambasted Emperor Huán 桓 of the state of Hàn (漢) (r. 146 - 168 AD) for remaining wilfully ignorant of matters an emperor ought to take note of. This incident is referred to in the chronicles titled 三國志 Sānguó Zhì (common English name: "Records of the Three Kingdoms"). See the fragment here.
See note 19, 訐 "accusatory" is clearly considered the exact opposite of 婉 "agreeable." Whereas being 婉 toward a ruler on part of the criticizing or suggesting retainer may bring about to a good outcome, being 訐 will defeat the purpose with 100 % certainty, according to the author.
漢元帝 - Emperor Yuán of the empire of Hàn (漢) (r. 48 - 33 BC)
The 樓 in the word 樓船 seems to signify a ship that has a two-storey structure on the main deck. Whether this is relevant for the given story is open to debate.
This story can allegedly be found in 群書治要 Qúnshūzhìyào, a compilation of texts first published in the early Táng (唐) period, under the rule of emperor Tàizōng 太宗 (r. 626 - 649). Other early sources may also contain this story. From what I could find online, this fragment only recounts the last part of official Xuē Guǎngdé 薛廣德 pleading with emperor Yuán of Hàn not to travel further by ship but to cross the body of water by a bridge that apparently could also be used for the journey to the Imperial Shrine, where emperor Yuán was to perform ancestral rites. Out of anger or despair, Xuē Guǎngdé thus downright threatened before his ruler to commit suicide in such a way that the emperor had no option but to cancel his visit to the shrine, an action which, I gather is 訐 to a very high degree (see note 19).
Rhetorical question, thus the emperor meant by this that the admonition of Zhāng Měng 張猛 (another senior retainer, so it seems) following Xuē Guǎngdé’s emotional threat to cut his own throat, was exactly what could be expected from an intelligent man.
