第三卷 問上

3.1 [51] 莊公問威當世服天下時耶晏子對以行也

齊莊公問威震當世使天下歸服是不是因為天時，晏子回答是因為德行

【原文】

莊公問晏子曰：“威當世而服天下，時耶？”晏子對曰：“行也?！惫唬骸昂涡?？”對曰：“能愛邦內之民者，能服境外之不善；重士民之死力者，能禁暴國之邪逆；〔中〕聽（賃）〔任〕賢者，能威諸侯；安仁義而樂利世者，能服天下。不能愛邦內之民者，不能服境外之不善；輕士民之死力者，不能禁暴國之邪逆；愎諫傲賢者（之言），不能威諸侯；倍仁義而貪名實者，不能威當世。而服天下者，此其道也已。”而公不用，晏子退而窮處。公任勇力之士，而輕臣仆之死，用兵無休，國罷民害，期年，百姓大亂，而身及崔氏禍。君子曰：“盡忠不豫交，不用不懷祿，（其）晏子可謂廉矣！”

【今譯】

齊莊公問晏子說：“威震當代而使天下歸服，是因為天時嗎？”晏子回答說：“是因為德行?！鼻f公問：“什么德行？”晏子回答說：“能愛護國內的百姓，就能使境外不好的人歸服；能重視臣民百姓的生死勞苦，就能禁除殘害國家的邪逆；能聽取中正之言而任用賢能，就能威震諸侯；能安于施行仁義而樂于為世間謀福利，就能使天下歸服。不能愛護國內的百姓，就不能使境外不好的人歸服；輕視臣民百姓的生死勞苦，就不能禁除殘害國家的邪逆；剛愎自用輕視賢良之臣的諫言，就不能威震諸侯；違背仁義之政而貪圖名利，就不能威震當世。這就是使天下歸服的方法?！钡乔f公不采納，于是晏子退出朝廷過著窮困的生活。莊公任用勇武有力的猛士，輕視臣民的死亡，不停地出兵征討，導致國家疲敝百姓遭殃，一年后，百姓大亂，莊公自己也被崔杼殺害。君子說：“竭盡忠誠而不提前結交國君，不被任用也不貪戀祿位，晏子可以說是廉正了！”

Duke Zhuang queried Yanzi as follow s: “Does instilling awe in one’s contemporaries and subjugating the realm depend on an opportune moment?”

Yanzi replied: “It is a matter of conduct.”

The Duke said: “What kind of conduct?”

Yanzi replied: “Whoever is able to love the people w ithin the state w ill be able to subjugate those who do evil beyond its border.^[1] Whoever regards the death and toil of his officers and his people w ith due gravity w ill be able to suppress the w icked and subversive activities of aggressor states. Whoever pays heed to the upright^[2] and employs the worthy will be able to instill awe upon the regional princes. Whoever rests content w ith humaneness and righteousness and delights in benefiting his contemporary generation w ill be able to subjugate the realm. ^[3] Whoever is incapable of love for the people w ithin the state w ill not be able to subjugate those who do evil from beyond it. Whoever regards the death and toil of his officers and his people lightly will not be able to suppress the wicked and subversive activities of aggressor states. Whoever is deaf to all remonstrations and is arrogant towards the worthy w ill not be able to instill awe upon the regional princes. Whoever turns his back on humaneness and righteousness and is greedy for fame and property w ill not be able to instill awe upon his contemporaries and subjugate the realm. This is the only way.”

But the Duke declined to put Yanzi’s advice into effect and Yanzi w ithdrew and lived in dire straits. The Duke employed officers for their courage and strength and took lightly the death of his m inisters and servants. He was perpetually engaged in warfare,the state was exhausted,and the people suffered as a consequence. A fter one year,the people were in great disorder and a disaster came upon the Duke in the person of Cui Zhu.^[4]

The man of noble character said:^[5] “Loyal to the utmost,he did not strive to maintain his relationship w ith the ruler. When his advice was not implemented,he was not preoccupied w ith his emolument. Yanzi can be called a man of integrity.”

---

注釋

[1]Guanzi,8.1/58/6,parallel statement.

[2]中聽→聽中正之言也 (JS,174/2).

[3]This statement is most probably a critical reaction to the lesser status of 利—profit and 知—know ledge,which Confucius and Mencius commonly held inferior to 仁—humaneness. The Analects’ distinctive statement (Analects 4.2/7/7) that the humane person rests content in humaneness while the know ledgeable person profits from humanness (仁者安仁,知者利仁),is paraphrased here as a com p lementary rather than an antithetical statement. In other words,while Confucius of the Analects states that the know ledgeable person (知者) manipulate humanness for personal profit,Yanzi assigns an identical status to both 仁—humaneness and 利—profit by arguing that the “awe inspiring ruler” not only rests content in humaneness and righteousness,but also delights in unselfishly benefiting the entire realm.

[4]For Duke Zhuang of Qi 齊莊公,see above,n.3.

[5]For a detailed and refined analysis of the six occurrences of the statement “The man of noble character said” (君子曰) in the YZCQ,see David Schaberg,“Platitude and Persona: Junzi Comments in Zuozhuan and Beyond.” In Helw ig Schm idt-Glintzer,et al.,eds. Historical Truth,Historical Criticism,and Ideology: Chinese Historiography and Historical Culture from a New Comparative Perspective. Leiden Studies in Comparative Historiography 1. Leiden and Boston: Brill,(2005): 177-96.