Chapter Two The Scholar Becomes the Official

第贰章 文人当官

In my first chapter I tried to analyze the position of the gentry in the political structure. My view is that, since the establishment of a central unified political power in the third century B.C., the gentry as a class have never attempted to control political power. That is, although occupying official positions, they have not exercised any decisive powers as to policy. Under the feudal system sovereignty belonged to the aristocracy; under the monarchy, to the king-emperor. The question which arises, then, is this: Why in Chinese history has there been no period in which the power of the aristocracy revived or in which a bourgeois middle class took over political power? The answer to this question leads us to a study of the political consciousness of the gentry and their attitude toward their own position. Why did they not struggle with the monarch to gain control? Why was there no movement similar to Magna Carta in England? The class who were landowners in the economic structure were gentry in the social structure. Why did they become so neutral, so negative in politics? In this chapter I shall be especially attentive to one question: What was the attitude of the gentry class toward their political position? It is true that their attitude was not cause but rather effect of the political system upon them. Nevertheless, it may be said that the attitudes of acquiescence which developed within the political system tended to reinforce the system.

Every social structure has a system of attitudes which define proper behavior and support the structure. What I am going to discuss in this chapter is the attitude of the gentry toward the monarchical power after they had come to be controlled by that power.

In the political philosophy of the traditional gentry class there was an important idea called tao-t'ung.[1] This idea took shape before the firm establishment of monarchical power and was probably necessary for its development. In my analysis I am concerned particularly with the period before the firm establishment of monarchical power when feudalism was in process of breaking down.

I am not inclined to think that this social philosophy originated in the minds of a few scholars. On the contrary, I believe that the scholars' elaboration of the system was accepted by society because it reflected a point of view which was generally shared. The function of the scholar was to formulate, to clarify, and to crystallize this point of view into a doctrine. In the period of transition between feudalism and imperialism the school of thought which reflected the philosophic trend of the times best was that of Confucius and his followers. But the Confucian school was only one of many in this period of the "hundred schools." It was only later, after the stabilization of the imperial power, that Confucianism came to be so popular and dominating. This shows, I think, that the ideology of the Confucian school represented the point of view best adapted to the Chinese imperial system.

我在第一章里试图分析士大夫在政治结构中的地位。我的观点是，自从大一统的集权政治在公元前3世纪确立之后，士大夫阶层从未试图掌握政治权力，即使做了官，也从未行使过政策决定权。在封建时代，主权属于贵族；在皇权时代，主权属于皇帝。这样就产生了一个问题，即为什么中国历史中不曾有过贵族权力复兴或中层阶级执政的政治结构？要回答这个问题，我们必须研究士大夫这个阶层的政治意识以及他们对于自己的政治地位的看法。为什么他们不去和皇帝争夺政权？为什么中国没有发生像英国宪章运动那样的政治事件？这个阶层在经济上是地主，在社会上是士绅，他们为什么对政治如此中立和消极？在本章里我想特别关注一个问题，即他们如何看待自己的政治地位。的确，他们的观点不是这种政治制度的原因，而是其结果。但是，可以说，在这种政治结构中形成的默许态度本身是一种支持这种结构的力量。

任何一种社会结构都有一套意识形态来界定正当的行为，以维持这个结构。我在本章所要讨论的是被皇权所控制的士大夫对于皇权的态度。

传统士大夫阶层的政治意识中有一个特别重要的观念是“道统”。[2]这个观念在皇权牢固确立之前已经产生，并且可能对于皇权结构的发展是必要的。在我的分析中，我特别要追溯到皇权牢固确立之前，即封建制度行将崩溃、封建和皇权交替的过渡时期。

我不愿意把这一社会意识的形成归结为出自几个思想家。相反，我认为思想家的言行能被社会所接受是因为他们反映了社会上一般的观点，他们的作用是将这一观点明白清晰地表达出来。在由封建过渡到皇权时，最能反映出这一时期趋势的是儒家。但是儒家只是当时“百家”中的一家，直到后来皇权稳固之后，儒学才开始广为传播并起主导作用。我认为这表明了儒家最能代表适合中国皇权制度的意识形态。

The conception of tao-t'ung developed from a set of social facts, of which one important element was that a class of socially important people had lost their political power. Confucian ideas, as formulated and organized into the Confucian system, following the concentration of monarchical power and the disintegration of the feudal system, underwent, it is true, an understandable process of change. And the writings we now have about Confucian ideas have been much modified by later scholars. I should like, however, to start here with the basic Confucian ideas and to try to trace their development to a later period. But, in discussing the influence of Confucius on the social history of China, we are not concerned with the question of whether the idea of tao-t'ung was that of Confucius himself but rather with the fact that this concept was selected and elaborated in his name by later scholars.

It appears to me that the development of the idea of tao-t'ung took place in Chinese traditional society because there had appeared a new type of person, the scholar-intellectual, one excluded from political authority but still possessing social prestige. Since he did not have political power, such a man could not decide political issues. Yet he might, through making known his opinions and formulating his principles, exercise a real influence. Such men did not try to control political power in their own interest but endeavored rather to put forward a set of ethical principles which should restrict the force of political power. The system of tao-t'ung which they developed came to be accepted by the gentry as the norm for their activity in politics. Eventually it came to serve the gentry not only as an ethical system but also as a protection for economic interests.

As the gentry attempted to restrict political power by ethical means, they put forward the teachings of Confucius, calling the latter the creator of tao, and a "king without a throne." And his spiritual descendants are those whom we now call master-scholars.

Legends which grew up concerning Confucius and his origins symbolize the separation of the ethical from the political line. In the early period of mythical history going back to such culture heroes as Sui Jen, the inventor of fire, and Shen Nung, who started agriculture, through the reigns of all San Huang and Wu Ti (the Three August Ones and the Five Sovereigns) through the recorded history of the feudal kings of Chou, Wen Wang, and Wu Wang,[3] one finds the tradition of ethics and politics united. The Confucian school upheld these ancient rulers as ideals. Here were men who both knew and followed the principles of right rulership. Following the rulers of Chou mentioned above, came Chou Kung, or the Duke of Chou, who, as uncle of the heir to the throne, ruled as regent. Much importance was attached to this individual by Confucius' school, because even under the feudal system he was able to attain high authority, being actually a sovereign. The regency itself was meaningful in that it symbolized the idea that, when the sovereign is unable to rule, the one who knows should take his place. Here was the beginning of the separation of the political and ethical lines. Confucius himself identified himself closely with Chou Kung. He said: "How utterly have things gone to the bad with me! It is long now indeed since I dreamed that I saw the Duke of Chou."[4] In the legend of Chou Kung there is, to be sure, not a very marked separation between the political and ethical lines, since, as uncle of the king, Chou Kung was entitled to rule as regent. But the later followers of Confucius put him next to Chou Kung in a line of descent of noted and wise leaders. Thus Chou Kung is the starting point of the political line deviating from the ethical.

“道统”这个观念有它所根据的社会事实，其中一个重要事实是一个社会重要阶层失去了政治权力。归纳和组织成为儒家体系的儒家思想，伴随着中央集权的形成和封建体制的解体，的确经历了一个可理解的变迁过程。我们现在看到的儒家思想的记录已经由后来的学者修改了许多。然而，我愿意在此从儒家的基本观点开始，试图来追溯它的发展。在讨论儒家思想对中国社会历史的影响时，我们关注的不是“道统”的观念是否出自孔子本人，而是后代的学者以他的名义选用并深化了这一概念。

在我看来，中国传统社会中“道统”观念的发展，是由于社会上产生了一类新的人物，即文人知识分子，他们被排斥于政治权力的圈子之外，但仍享有社会威望。由于没有政治权力，他们不能决定政治事务，但他们可以通过表达意见、归纳原则来产生实际的影响。他们不从占有政治权力来保障自己的利益，而是尽力提出一套伦理规范来限制政治权力的威力。“道统”的思想被士大夫接受为他们政治活动的标准。最终，它不仅仅是作为一种伦理道德体系服务于士大夫，还可以维护他们的经济利益。

当士大夫阶层要用“道统”来限制政治权力时，他们推出了孔子的学说，把他作为“道”的创始者，称他为“素王”。我们现在把那些“道统”的精神传承者叫做“师儒”。

关于孔子身世的传说象征着政统和道统的分离。从早期神话历史中的文化英雄，如火的发明者燧人氏、农业的鼻祖神农氏，传到“三皇”、“五帝”，再到有文字记载历史的封建君王周文王和周武王[5]，我们可以发现政道合一的传统。儒家把这些古老的君王奉为圭臬。这些人了解并且遵守了正确的统治原则。在上面所提到的周文王、周武王之后有一个周公，他作为王位继承人的叔叔，摄政主持国家大权。周公受到儒家推崇，因为即使在封建体制下他仍能得到最高权力，实际上是最高统治者。这种摄政统治本身意义深远，象征着这样一个观念，即在位的人如果没有能力治理天下，可以由有能力的人去代替，这是政道分离的开始。孔子把自己和周公紧紧联系在一起，他说：“甚矣吾衰也！久矣吾不复梦见周公。”[6]在关于周公的传说里，政统和道统确实没有明显的分离，因为作为王叔，周公在宗法上是有地位的。但是儒家后来的追随者在著名的英明统治者系列中把孔子列在周公之后，这样周公便成了政道分离的起点。

The separation of ethical and political lines was, according to the stories of the Confucian school, more clearly established by saying that this "king without a throne" was the descendant of an aristocratic family. Actually, his connection was rather remote. He was not at all comparable in this way to a Chou Kung. Confucius had no qualifications for attaining power through his kinship status. But myths which tried to find a source of authority for him in the feudal system persisted. According to the Shih-chi,[7] Confucius' origins were quite doubtful. He was said to be the child of an illegitimate union. His mother would not tell him where his father's tomb was, and only when his mother died did he learn from someone else where his father was buried so that he could bury his mother also in that spot. Here also is recorded the incident of a man called Chih, Baron of Lu, giving a feast to the shih, to which Confucius went also. But he met with a rebuff when a man called Yang Huo, a corrupt official, said, "The Baron invited shih (knights), not you." From this we may infer that his status as a shih was doubtful, although the shih were in the lowest rank in the feudal system. Yet such accounts are told not to demean Confucius but to raise him still higher, as when an account later on in the same book adds that Confucius was born after his mother had prayed on a hill—the implication being that Confucius was of divine, not merely mortal, origin.

根据儒家的传说，孔子这位“素王”乃贵族之后，由此道统和政统的分离才较为明确地建立起来。实际上，孔子与贵族的联系很远，在这一点上他完全无法与周公相比，他没有资格从血统的身份上得到任何权力。但是，试图为他找到在封建体制下的权威根源的传说经久不绝。《史记》[8]对孔子的出身非常怀疑，据说他是“野合”的产物。他的母亲不把父亲的墓地所在告诉他，直到母亲死后，他才从别人那里得知，使父母得以合葬。这里还记载了鲁国贵族季氏招待士的一件事：“季氏飨士，孔子与往。阳虎绌曰：‘季氏飨士，非敢飨子也。’”这表明当时人们对孔子“士”的身份也很怀疑，尽管“士”只位列封建制度的底层。但这些描写不是贬低而是提高了孔子。《史记》又有“祷于尼丘得孔子”，暗示孔子由神所授，不是凡人出身。

The importance of all these myths was not so much to establish the origins of Confucius as to set up divine authority for the ethical line which he represented. Thus, if Confucius derived his power not through his kinship with a feudal lord but from divine sources, his spiritual throne must be as high as the actual kingly throne. So from Confucius there derived a line of important and authoritative figures of those who followed the tao-t'ung. These people might lack political power, but in the society about them they were as important as the actual monarchs in that they ruled the people by ethical and social influence.

The separation of political power from ethical power is one of the fundamental ideas in Confucian philosophy and is also an important factor in the Chinese power structure. It may be compared to the separation of church and state in the West but is not exactly the same. Theoretically, when Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's," he recognized a duality of power. When the priests asked Jesus what authority he had in doing the things he did, he countered with, "The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or of men?" And the priests were in doubt what to reply and at last answered Jesus, "We cannot tell." And he said to them, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."[9]

We see clearly that to Christ there were two possible sources of power, worldly and divine. But these two powers were not on the same level. Rather, one was subordinate to the other. So in European medieval history worldly power submitted to divine power, monarchical power submitted to religious power. When, in a later period, these two powers became separate as the powers of church and state, the civil rights of the people came to be recognized. In Western political thinking it came to be accepted that the power which does not come from heaven could come only from the people, the common man. So long as the monarch derived his authority from his divine origin, he might slight the popular will. But once the throne was separated from the church, and it was recognized that the king's power was secular, it was quite natural that the people should be allowed to have their say and to share in government. It seems to me that in the Western political system power was never entirely independent and self-justified but was always based on an authority derived from either divine or popular sources. The situation in China was somewhat different.

In China, Confucius also recognized a duality of power, but for him the two systems were not in the same order. One was not necessarily subordinate to the other; rather they were seen to be parallel. In China political power was like Caesar's, but the other type of power, in contrast to the West, was not viewed as having a divine origin. Some people think that Confucianism is a system of religion, yet it recognizes no supernatural force. This is not the only way, however, in which it may be distinguished from Western religions. Another aspect of Confucianism in which it differs from the West is its relation to action. Jesus Christ was using his power in the same domain to control human affairs. As a result of this conflict, one power became subordinate to the other. But the Confucian tao-t'ung stands not for action but for the upholding of a standard or norm which defines the Way of a good emperor (and a good citizen). It is one thing whether the monarch acts according to the Way or not. It is another whether we have made clear the Way to be a good ruler. Christ made clear the good and wanted action toward that good. But Confucianism is divided into two parts: (1) the knowing what is good and (2) the doing what is good. Thus the man who knows what is good does not necessarily have an obligation to carry it out. In fact, he may not be able to do so, since what he is able to do depends upon his social position. So we have the differentiation into separate categories of the scholar who knows and the monarch who does. The following quotation explains the psychology of Confucius. Confucius said to his student: "Hui, the poem says that tigers and wild beasts are running wild in the fields. Is my Way wrong? Why should I become so poor?"

这些神话的作用不单是确立孔子的身世，更多的是为他代表的道统建立神话权威。这样，既然孔子不是从贵族血统中而是从神那里获得权力，那么他的地位就会和实际的王位一样高。因此，从孔子后出现了一系列重要和权威的人物追随道统，他们可能缺乏政治权力，但在他们所处的社会中，他们和实际的君王一样重要，因为他们用道德和社会的影响来统治人民。

政统和道统的分离是儒家理论的基础理念之一，也是中国权力结构中的一个重要事实，这和西方的政治和宗教的分离相似但又不完全相同。在理论上，当耶稣说“恺撒的归恺撒”时，他也是认识到了权力的双重系统。当牧师责问耶稣他仗着什么权柄做这些事时，耶稣反问他们：“约翰的洗礼是从天上来的，是从人间来的？”牧师很疑惑，不知如何回答，最后他们说：“我们不能告诉你。”耶稣对他们说：“我也不告诉你们我仗着什么权柄做这些事。”[10]

我们可以清楚地看到，在耶稣眼里有两个可能的权力来源：一个来自人间，一个来自上天。这两种权力并不在同一层次上，前者从属于后者。在欧洲中世纪的历史中，来自人间的权力降服在天上的权力之下，皇权降服在宗教权力之下。后来政教分离时，人民的权力开始抬头。西方政治思想中公认的是，权力不从天上来就得从人间来，人间即是民间。只要君王的权力来自上天，他就可能忽视民间的意愿。但是一旦政教分离，君王的权力被认定为世俗的，人们自然应该享有发言权和政治权利。在我看来，西方的政治体制权力从未完全独立和自我证成，而总是以来自上天或民间的权威为基础。这与中国的情况有所不同。

在中国，孔子也认识到了权力的双重系统，但是在他看来这两个系统并不在一个层次上，一个不必从属于另一个，而是互相平行。在中国，政治权力如同恺撒的权力，但另一种权力与西方不同，不被视为来自上天。有些人认为儒家思想是宗教体系，只是它没有认可超自然的力量，然而这不是与西方宗教区分的唯一途径。儒家思想与西方不同的另一方面是与人类行为的关系。耶稣用他在同一领域（即人间）的权力来控制人间的事。这种冲突的结果是一种权力降服另一种。但是儒家的道统不代表行为，而是提出一个好的君王（和好的平民）应当怎样做的规范。君王按不按“理”做是一回事，有没有弄清一个好的统治者的“理”是另一回事。耶稣明确了好的规范，希望人的行为朝着好的规范去做。但是儒家思想分成了两部分：（1）知道什么是善的以及（2）履行这种善。因此，一个知道如何是好的规范的人，并没有义务一定要遵照去做，实际上他也许不能去做，因为他的行为由他的社会地位来决定。所以我们要在概念范畴上作出区分：文人学者在知，而君主则是在行。下面的引述解释了儒家的心理学。孔子对他的学生说：“回，诗云‘匪兕匪虎，率彼旷野’。吾道非邪，吾何为于此？”

Then the student Yen Hui answered: "The Way of my master is very great—the world cannot accept it. But, my master, try to carry out your Way. If others don't accept you, it shows that you are a gentleman. If we don't work out the Way for doing things, that is our shame. If those who have the power don't follow the right Way, that is their shame."

Then Confucius smiled and said: "You are right. If you were rich, I should become your secretary."[11]

This quotation explains how even in a world in which brute beasts are running wild it is still possible for scholars to work out the Way. For the tao, or Way, is detached from worldly events. The Way can be perfected irrespective of actual happenings in the world. To make this Way effective, to practice it, is not the duty of a man who is not in a position to do so; in other words, of the man without political power. The man who has control of political power may administer his affairs according to the Way or may utterly disregard it. Those who are not in his position of authority may themselves maintain the Way, and they may "push it and try to make it work," so that the Way will be followed by the man who controls the country. But they must not try to usurp the position of the man in power. What Confucius means when he speaks of "push it and make it work" is simply the use of persuasion. Confucius never assumes the authority assumed by Christ. As a result, in the Chinese scheme, the political line is active, the ethical line passive. Those who follow the ethical line will behave according to the popular saying:

颜回回答说：“夫子之道至大，故天下莫能容。虽然，夫子推而行之，不容何病，不容然后见君子！夫道之不修也，是吾丑也。夫道既已大修而不用，是有国者之丑也。不容何病，不容然后见君子！”

孔子欣然而笑曰：“有是哉颜氏之子！使尔多财，吾为尔宰。”[12]

这一段引文说明，即使在“匪兕匪虎，率彼旷野”的乱世，道还是可以“既已大修”的，因为道与事是分开的，道是可以离事而修的。用道于事，并不是“不在其位”的人的责任，换言之，并不是没有政治权力的人的责任。有国者可以用道来管理事务，也可以彻底无视道。“不在其位”的人可能自行维持道，“推而行之”，以使有国者来遵守道。但是他们不能有篡夺有国者地位的企图。孔子所讲的“推而行之”只不过是游说。孔子从来也没有取得过基督耶稣所取得的权柄。结果，在中国的制度中，政统是积极主动的，而道统是消极被动的。那些追随道统的人则将：

When wanted, then go; When set aside; then hide.[13]

To employ and to discharge belongs to the man who has power; to work or to hide is the role of the man who has the Way. According to this system, there will be no conflict. From the point of view of the person who upholds the norms, practical politics may sometimes coincide with the norm and sometimes not. One may distinguish those nations which have tao and those which have not. Yao and Shun are examples of those who ruled the nation according to the tao.[14] Yü and T'ang are other examples. So also monarchical power may lose its Way, and, when this occurs, the man who knows it, and through this knowledge possesses it, should guard it and keep it safe from harm. Such a man must work hard to cultivate himself so that the norms will not disappear entirely. But he will have no idea of trying to correct the conduct of the monarch. This, then, is the Confucian view: the one who knows should be ready to present his views when asked but when not asked should keep them hidden. These scholar-masters do not desert the Way in time of difficulty, but only when the monarch in his behavior approaches the Way will they come forth and act as officials.

The Master said, "Be of unwavering good faith, love learning, if attacked be ready to die for the good Way. Do not enter a State that pursues dangerous courses, nor stay in one where the people have rebelled. When the Way prevails under Heaven, then show yourself; when it does not prevail, then hide. When the Way prevails in your own land, count it a disgrace to be needy and obscure; when the Way does not prevail in your land, then count it a disgrace to be rich and honoured."

"A gentleman indeed is Ch'u Po Yü. When the Way prevailed in his land, he served the State; but when the Way ceased to prevail, he knew how to 'wrap it up and hide it in the folds of his dress.'”[15]

The real problem, then, is the link between the political and the ethical lines. The ideal of the Confucian school was that of the kingly Way—wang-tao—in which both political and ethical lines coincided. But how could that ideal be realized? Here we find the conflict in Confucius' ideas. Since he had been brought up under a feudal system, he valued a social order of this sort, one in which a stable society was ruled according to well-established traditions. The feudal tradition prevented him from breaking the connection between the political line and kinship; the static ideal made him abhor social changes. This is the first point to be noted with regard to Confucius' attitude. He took for granted the political system and did not wish it to be changed. At the same time, he was living when the system was actually disintegrating; men in a certain position no longer behaved according to the norm set up for them. To meet this difficulty, Confucius detached the norms from actual practice and set them up as an ideal type of behavior which was not to be deviated from. In this he was very stubborn and persistent. The student Tzu-kung said to him: "The Master's teachings are too great for the people, and that is why the world cannot accept them. Why don't you come down a little from your heights?"

用之则行，

舍之则藏。[16]

用舍是有权者决定的，行藏是有道者采取的。依照这种体系，就不会有矛盾。在持执规范的人看来，实际的政治有时合于规范，有时则不合，于是可以分出“邦有道”和“邦无道”。尧舜是有道的例子[17]，禹汤亦同。皇权可以失道，此时明道、有道者可以维护道，使之不受侵害。这样的人必须勤于修身，以使道不会完全消失，但他们并不会有修正皇权的想法。因此，根据孔子的看法，明白规范的人可以在被用的时候把道摆出来，不被用的时候把道藏好。当皇权和道分离时，这些师儒退而守；皇权和道接近时，师儒出而仕。

孔子说：“笃信好学，守死善道。危邦不入，乱邦不居。天下有道则见，无道则隐。邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也；邦无道，富且贵，耻也。”

“君子哉蘧伯玉！邦有道，则仕，邦无道，则可卷而怀之。”[18]

因此，真正的问题是政统和道统的连接。师儒的理想是“王道”，王道是政统加道统。怎样实现这种理想呢？这里我们看到了孔子思想的矛盾。他在封建制度下长大，关注这种社会秩序，这是一个按照建立完好的传统来统治的静态社会。封建传统阻止他打破政统和血统的联系，静态的理想使他厌恶社会结构的改变。这是在考虑孔子的态度时首先要注意到的。他把政统看成是既成的，不希望有所改变。同时，他生活在道统正在分解的时代，人们不再遵循既成的规范来做事。为解决这一困难，孔子将规范和实际行为划分开来，把规范立为不可背离的理想的行为方式。在这一点上，孔子很固执并锲而不舍。他的学生子贡对他说：“夫子之道至大也，故天下莫能容夫子。夫子盖少贬焉？”

Confucius replied: "Ah Ssu, a good farmer plants the field but cannot guarantee the harvest, and a good artisan can do a skillful job, but he cannot guarantee to please his customers. Now you are not interested in cultivating yourselves, but are only interested in being accepted by the people. I am afraid you are not setting the highest standard for yourself."[19]

We may wonder how, in such a case, the norms are ever to be brought into close contact with reality. It seems that this must depend largely on chance, since, on the one hand, one is bound to wait with patience and, on the other, to retire and let others seek one out. But Confucius did express himself on this matter of chance. The student Tzu-kung said: "Suppose one has a lovely jewel, should one wrap it up, put it in a box and keep it, or try to get the best price one can for it?"

The Master said: "Sell it! Most certainly sell it! I myself am one who is waiting for an offer."[20]

Confucius actually did go about and offer his services to more than seventy lords. The following quotation makes this point even more clear. When Confucius was fifty years old, Kung-San Po-niu started a rebellion against Baron Huan in the city of Pi. Baron Huan sent for Confucius, and Confucius was eager to go. He said: "The kings Wen and Wu rose to power from the small cities of Feng and K'ao and finally established the empire of Chou. Pi, I know, is a small place, but perhaps I may try." But Confucius' student, Tzu-lu, was displeased and tried to dissuade him from going. Confucius said, "Since the Baron asks to see me, he must have a plan in his mind, and if he would put me in power, we might achieve something resembling the work of Emperor P'ing."[21] But after all he did not go. Confucius felt the urge to be employed, and, when he was, he endeavored to carry out good projects. At the age of fifty-six he was pleased when in a certain principality he was made chief minister. His disciples said to him, "I hear that a gentleman is not afraid at the sight of disaster and not delighted at success."

孔子曰：“赐，良农能稼而不能为穑；良工能巧而不能为顺；君子能修其道，纲而纪之，统而理之，而不能为容。今尔不修尔道而求为容。赐，而志不远矣！”[22]

在这种情况下，我们也许会问，规范如何与现实紧密连接呢？似乎很大程度上是要靠机会，一方面是耐心等待，另一方面是退出，让别人来寻求。不过，孔子在等待机会这一点上表达得很清楚——子贡曰：“有美玉于斯，韫椟而藏诸？求善贾而沽诸？”

子曰：“沽之哉，沽之哉，我待贾者也。”[23]

实际上，孔子的确周游列国，曾“干七十余君”，下面的引述表达得更清楚：“……孔子年五十。公山不狃以费畔季氏，使人召孔子。孔子循道弥久，温温无所试，莫能己用，曰：‘盖周文武起丰镐而王，今费虽小，傥庶几乎！’欲往。子路不说，止孔子。孔子曰：‘夫召我者岂徙哉？如用我，其为东周乎！’”[24]但最终他还是没有成行。孔子是很想做事的，而且当有人用他时，他努力施行善举：“孔子年五十六，由大司寇行摄相事，有喜色。门人曰：‘闻君子祸至不惧，福至不喜。’

"Is that so?" remarked Confucius. "Is it not said that one is happy because he rises to a position above the common people?" But he stayed in office only about three months, during which time he had executed a minister who opposed him. But it was said that during the time of his office there was no cheating in the markets, men and women did not walk together, people did not take things which belonged to others, and there was no litigation.

But, although Confucius waited patiently, he had little real chance to enter politics. Even when he did get his chance, there was no assurance that his way of merging ethics with politics would be continued. So at last Confucius left Lu and said, "How free I am. I can now spend my life in a leisurely way." Yet he still felt disheartened at times, saying, "The Way makes no progress. I shall get upon a raft and float out to sea."[25] Actually, as far as a practical career was concerned, he had accomplished nothing. But we may imagine that if he had had a chance to remain in office for three years, as he wished, he might have accomplished some of the great results he had hoped for. Yet, in such a case, Confucius' death might have been like those of Tu Ming-tu and Shun Hua, two officials who attained high office but were later killed by their lords. When this news came to Confucius, he sighed. He was standing at the time near a stream and said: "How beautiful is the water! Eternally it flows! Fate has decreed that I should not cross this river."

"What do you mean?" asked Tzu-kung, coming forward.

And Confucius replied, "Tu Ming-tu and Shun Hua were good ministers of Chin. Before Baron Chien Chao got into power, he said that he would insist on taking these two men, should he get into power, and now that he is in power, he has killed them. I have heard that when people disembowel embryos or kill the young, the unicorn refuses to appear in the countryside, and that when people dry up a pond in order to catch fish, the dragon refuses to bring the yin and yang principles into harmony (resulting in famine and flood),[26] and that when people snatch birds' nests and break birds' eggs, the phoenix refuses to come. Why? Because a gentleman avoids those who kill their own kind. If even the birds and beasts avoid the unrighteous, how much more should I do the same?"[27]

These remarks show Confucius' recognition of the difficulty of applying his Way in practical politics. Let me quote another passage from the Shih-chi. The lords of Lu had a hunting party and caught a strange animal which Confucius declared was a unicorn. Then Confucius said: "This is the end of it all. There is no one in this world who understands me."

“孔子曰：‘有是言也。不曰“乐其以贵下人乎”？’于是诛鲁大夫乱政者少正卯。与闻国政三月，粥羔豚者弗饰贾；男女行者别于涂；涂不拾遗；四方之客至乎邑者不求有司……”

但是尽管孔子耐心等待，他真正与闻政事的机会并不多，即使有机会，也不能确保他的政道结合能继续下去。最后他还是离开了鲁国，感慨“优哉游哉，维以卒岁”，然而他仍时感沮丧，说“道不行，乘桴浮于海”。[28]实际上，从现实业绩来讲，他什么也没有达成。但是我们设想，如果他真的像他希望的那样“三年有成”，他也许会如愿取得一些不错的成就。不过，如果这样，他的结局就如同窦鸣犊和舜华了——他们两人做到很高的官位，但最终还是被统治者所杀。孔子得知后怅然叹息：“美哉水，洋洋乎？丘之不济此，命也夫？”

“子贡趋而进曰：‘敢问何谓也!'

“孔子曰：‘窦鸣犊，舜华，晋国之贤大夫也。赵简子未得志之时，须此两人而后从政；及其已得志，杀之乃从政。丘闻之也，刳胎杀夭则麒麟不至郊，竭泽涸渔则蛟龙不合阴阳[29]，覆巢毁卵则凤凰不翔。何则？君子讳伤其类也。夫鸟兽之于不义也尚知辟之，而况乎丘哉！’”[30]

这番话表明孔子认识到将他的“理”用于实际政治的困难。我再引用《史记》中的一段：“及西狩见麟，曰：‘吾道穷矣。’喟然叹曰：‘莫知我夫?'

His disciple Tzu-kung said, "Why do you say that there is no one who understands you?"

And Confucius said, "I don't blame Heaven, and I don't blame mankind. All I try to do is my best to acquire knowledge and to aim for a higher ideal. Perhaps Heaven is the only one who understands me! Po-yi and Shu-ch'i were two sages who loved their ideals and their self-respect! (These persons and the following were famous scholars living as recluses.) Liu-hsia Hui and Shao-lien lowered their ideals and lost their self-respect. Yu-chung and Yi-yi remained active and outspoken, but their conduct was clean and they had good judgment. But I am different from all of them. I will insist on nothing." Then he added: "A gentleman will suffer pain to die without having lived up to his name. My Way will not be carried out. What can I do to explain myself to those who come after?"[31] He chose to compile the book of Spring and Autumn Annals from historical sources.

The Spring and Autumn Annals is a Chinese grammar of politics. It reveals the norms of good government but does not necessarily give any practical advice for realizing them. From this work one may learn the tao, or Way, which runs side by side but does not merge with practical politics. The title given to Confucius of a "king without a throne," that is, a king without any political position, makes clear this peculiarly Chinese concept.

If the ethical line cannot control the political line, though scholars may repeatedly criticize the government as not acting according to the tao, in actual everyday politics the emperor, or the man who possesses political power, will not feel shame and will disregard them. In a state which is misgoverned, in which the scholar folds up his norm and hides it in his bosom, what happens to the people? Scholars may say, as Confucius once did, "If Heaven will not destroy this work what harm can my enemy do to me?" But Confucius also said, "Heaven may destroy this work, and those who come later will never again have a chance to learn the Way." Scholars may die, for they are men of this world, not of another. How can they hide when the imperial power rules the entire land? The imperial power may burn the books and bury the scholars alive.[32] It may kill students because of some writing which injures the emperor. It may block the ethical line entirely for a time. Confucius was not able to solve this difficulty, namely, that, living together in the same world, the two lines, ethical and political, cannot let each other alone. Although the ethical line of the scholars may be willing not to struggle against the political line, the political line can, and often does, suppress the ethical.

“子贡曰：‘何为莫知子?'

“子曰：‘不怨天，不尤人，下学而上达，知我者其天乎！’‘不降其志，不辱其身，伯夷、叔齐乎！’谓‘柳下惠、少连降志辱身矣’。谓‘虞仲、夷逸隐居放言，行中清，废中权’。‘我则异于是，无可不无可。’子曰：‘弗乎，弗乎！君子病没世而名不称焉。吾道不行矣，吾何以自见于后世哉?'[33]，乃因史记作春秋……”

《春秋》是一部中国政治的典范。它揭示了好的统治的规范，但没有对其实施提出实际的建议。我们可从中学到“道”或“理”，与政平行，二者没有统一。孔子的尊号是“素王”，就是没有政治地位的王，这是中国政治概念中的特色。

如果道统不能控制政统，尽管推崇道统的人不停地斥责有国者失道，但在日常政治活动中，帝王或是掌握政治权力的人并不觉得可耻且置之不理。邦无道时，师儒们固然不妨把道卷而怀之，可是那些百姓怎么样呢？正像孔子曾经说过的那样，师儒们可以说：“天之未丧斯文也，匡人其如予何？”但是孔子还说：“天之将丧斯文也，后死者不得与于斯文也。”师儒们终将死去，因为他们是地球上的生命，不是其他星球上的。当皇权控制整个国土的时候，他们怎么能隐藏起来呢？皇权可以“焚书坑儒”[34]，可以兴文字狱，可以在一个时期内完全阻碍道统。孔子无法解决这一矛盾，即只要在同一个世界上，道统和政统实际上是无法各行其是的。尽管道统不与政统相争，但实际上，政统可以而且的确常常压迫道统。

When this happens, what can scholars do? The positive way to meet this dilemma is, as was done in the West, to conquer the imperial power and subordinate practical politics to the socially accepted norms. But positive measures of this sort are not in accordance with the feudal tradition, and we find very little in Chinese history of this sort of positive resistance. Another line was taken.

When Confucius appealed to Heaven, that Heaven was an indifferent abstraction which would not interfere with worldly events.[35] But when the ethical line of the scholars was suppressed by the emperors to such a degree that there was no possibility of their gaining any power in politics, they tried to convert Heaven into a really active force. Confucian tao has no inherent power. It cannot do things, for doing things is the emperor's task. In the Han dynasty, however, the conception of a realistic God who would interfere in human affairs gradually took shape. Tung Chung-shu (179?–104? B.C.), a scholar of the Han dynasty, interpreted the Spring and Autumn Annals in such a way as to threaten the royal power with heavenly anger. In a statement addressed to the emperor Wu he said: "Your servant, in reading the Spring and Autumn Annals, has come to see that, in this work done by previous generations, there is presented a relation between Heaven and Man. I realize the awfulness of this relation. When a nation loses its tao, Heaven will first warn the people by famines and disasters. If the emperor does not look back upon himself to criticize himself, then Heaven will warn him by portents. If he still does not change his way, then he will court real disaster. This shows the benevolence of Heaven, which wishes to stop disturbances in the world."

In Tung's formula Heaven comes first, the emperor second, the scholars third, and, at the bottom, the people. Following this formula, the emperor should no longer be repressive but should be awed and restrained by the behavior of Heaven. But the question is: Since Heaven expresses approval or disapproval through natural phenomena, who knows the meaning of the heavenly signs? Who is able to interpret these signs but the scholar? Thus Tung really emphasizes the importance of the scholar, in that he alone could interpret Heaven. The first part of this conception was different from the usual Confucian point of view and especially that developed by Mencius, according to which the will of Heaven is to be expressed in the will of the people. According to this new idea, scholars should interpret the will of Heaven as expressed in natural phenomena. It was not an attempt to control political power democratically but rather, indirectly, through religion. The role of the scholar was simply to help the monarch to meet Heaven's demands; and the punishment of the emperor, if it came, would be through natural disasters and not by the people. Theoretically, monarchical power was thus subordinated to religious power, and the scholar given a position of some independence. In other words, the scholar's ethical line was no longer to be held down by the political line of the emperor.

那么这时师儒们该怎么办呢？积极的出路是依照西方的做法，制约皇权，把政统压迫在社会公认的道统之下，但这与封建传统不合，在中国历史中很少有这种积极的反抗，他们采取的是另一种方式。

孔子呼天，这个天是空洞的，即使有知也不干涉人事。[36]可是当道统被帝王压迫得无法翻身、完全丧失政治权力的时候，他们试图请天来干涉人事，以发挥其实际的积极作用。孔子的道统没有权柄，不能做事，因为做事是帝王的任务。但在汉代，一个可以干涉人事的现实的“天”逐渐成型。汉代的师儒董仲舒（约公元前179—公元前104年）在对《春秋》的解释中用上天的愤怒来吓唬皇权。他对汉武帝说：“臣谨案春秋之中，视前世已行之事，以观天人相与之际，甚可畏也。国家将有失道之败，而天乃先出灾害以谴告之，不知自省，又出怪异以警惧之，尚不知变，而伤败乃至。以此见天心之仁爱人君而欲止其乱也。”

在董仲舒的公式里，上是天，中是皇，次是儒，末是民。根据他的公式，皇权不再处于压迫别人的地位而应敬畏上天，受上天的限制。但问题是，既然上天通过自然现象来表达赞赏或责备，那谁能明白这些天相符兆的意义呢？除了师儒，还有谁能解读这些符兆呢？董仲舒就这样实际强调了师儒的重要性，即只有师儒能解释天意。这个概念的前一部分与儒家通常的观点有所不同，特别是与孟子所发展的“天意表达于民意”的观点不同。根据这种新观点，师儒应该通过自然现象来解释天意，这不是试图通过民主的方式来限制政权，而是间接通过宗教。师儒不过是帮着皇权去应天。天要降刑罚于君主时，不经由民众而是通过自然灾害。理论上，皇权就这样屈服于宗教的力量，师儒被赋予了一定独立的地位。换句话说，师儒的道统不再为皇帝的政统所压制。

If Tung Chung-shu had advanced a step further, perhaps he might have gone so far as eventually to transform the scholar from an interpreter of Heaven into a priest. Then the scholar-priests might have formed an organized church, which, with divine sanction, might have been strong enough to check the unlimited monarchical power. If this had taken place, we might have had in China something similar to the relations between church and state in the West. But when this theory came to challenge the supremacy of the monarchical power, it was suppressed at once. Tung Chung-shu developed a theory of omens and could even predict natural disasters from the yin and the yang. "When you want rain," he said, "stop the yang and open the yin. If you want the rain to stop, reverse the process. Practice this throughout the nation, and it will not fail." Once in Liao-tung, a hall in the tomb of the emperor caught fire. Tung interpreted this to mean that the emperor had done something wrong. A friend of his called Yen Chu-fu, who knew of this and who was jealous of Tung, stole the writings which made clear this interpretation and showed them to the emperor. The emperor called together all the scholars and showed the writings to them. A student of Tung's called Lu, who did not know the writings were his master's, said it was all "nonsense." Then the emperor was relieved. He put Tung into prison and condemned him to death. Later Tung was pardoned but never again dared to interpret in this way.

The theory of heavenly anger expressed through portents did not succeed in controlling monarchical power. But it encouraged the people in that it destroyed the theory of imperial absolutism. If Heaven dislikes the ruler, then the ruler must be changed. During the Han dynasty, and afterward, whenever there were social disturbances, this theory was used to justify the rebellion of the people. But, although as a popularly accepted theory it might be a justification for revolt, it did not change the nature of the imperial power.

At the same period as Tung, under the Han emperor Wu, there was another scholar who had also studied the Spring and Autumn Annals, namely, Hung Kung-sun. This man, who took part in the persecution and exile of Tung, presents another form of adjustment to the imperial power. That is, to become an official and serve the emperor. Orthodox Confucianism scorned Hung Kung-sun because he sold out the spirit of Confucianism, the keeping of the tao. An old scholar, ninety years of age, Yuan Ku-sun, who had retired because he would not modify his opinions to please the emperor, looked askance at Kung-sun, and said: "You, Kung-sun, should say what you have learned. You should not bend your teaching to please the world." This meant that it was the duty of the scholar to hold to the ethical line and not to be an opportunist. Kung-sun had come of humble origins; he had been a jailer and at one time had even herded pigs. Yet he came to be prime minister, the first who had reached this position without being related to the emperor. He thus, very well, saw the advantage of selling out the ethical line to the emperor and of subordinating the Confucian norms to the monarchical power. Actually, unless one retired from the world entirely, there were, practically speaking, only two alternatives: either to subordinate ethical power to political power or to become unpopular. Yuan Ku-sun, the old scholar, and Tung Chung-shu did not submit and were exiled. But Hung Kung-sun submitted and became prime minister.

如果董仲舒再进一步，也许会最终把解释天意的师儒发展成宗教的牧师。然后这些牧师型的师儒可以组织成教会，获得上帝的认可，也许会发展到可以控制无限制的皇权。如果这样，中国就会有像西方那样的政教关系。但是当这种理论开始向皇权的至高无上发出挑战时，就立刻被镇压下去了。董仲舒发展了灾异论，甚至能通过阴阳来预言自然灾害。他说：“求雨，闭诸阳，纵诸阴，其止雨反是；行之一国，未尝不得所欲。”“先是辽东高庙、长陵高园殿灾，仲舒居家推说其意，草稿未上，主父偃候仲舒，私见，嫉之，窃其书而奏焉。上召视诸儒，仲舒弟子吕步舒不知其师书，以为大愚。于是下仲舒吏，当死，诏赦之。仲舒遂不敢复言灾异。”

通过自然征兆来表达上天之怒的灾异论，虽没有获得控制皇权的成功，但它鼓励了民间百姓，因为它打破了皇权的绝对性——如果上天厌恶皇帝，皇权就要改统。于是在汉代期间以及之后，每一次社会暴动，都用这种理论来正名。虽然这种被民间广泛接受的理论成了造反改统的根据，但它没有改变皇权的性质。

在汉武帝时代，与董仲舒同一时期的还有一个研究《春秋》的儒家公孙弘，他是参与迫害和流放董仲舒的阴谋家，提出了另一种适应皇权的方式，那就是做官侍奉皇帝。正统的儒林谴责公孙弘出卖了孔子卫道的传统。不肯修改自己的想法以迁就皇权的九旬老人辕固生，罢归的时候，公孙弘侧目而视固。固曰：“公孙子务正学以言，无曲学以阿世！”这表明师儒有着维持道统的责任，不能投机。公孙弘出身卑微，做过狱吏，甚至牧过猪，但却被封为宰相，成为第一个与皇帝没有关系而达到此地位的人。因此他非常清楚地看到出卖道统、牺牲儒家规范而屈服于皇权的好处。其实除非一个人完全脱离尘世，否则实际地说，只有两个选择：一是政统征服道统，一是失宠于上。老儒生辕固生、董仲舒不肯屈服，被放逐了；公孙弘屈服了，做到宰相。

As prime minister, Kung-sun advocated the principle that monarchy should rule the people through the scholars of his ilk. He said: "The leopard, the wild horse, the untamed ox, all wild beasts and birds are difficult to control. But, when they are domesticated, they may be used for human purposes. To bend wood takes less than a day. Gold and other metals can be melted in less than a month. A man who has a mind of his own and can judge the good from the bad, advantage from disadvantage, must be more difficult to handle than animals, birds, wood, or metal. But in a year's time he too may be molded." Kung-sun developed the technique of how to serve the emperor as a good official as follows: Each morning, when there is a conference, he will present the choices of action to the emperor and let him make his selection. He will not argue or insist upon anything. Then the emperor will see that he is discreet and understanding and that he knows administrative work and is an expert scholar. The emperor will be glad to have him near him. When the emperor grants him an audience, and he finds that they are not in agreement, he will not argue but will go back and find someone else to mediate. This man will present the case first to the emperor, Kung-sun following him. For this tactful approach the emperor will be very pleased with him. Moreover, even when a conference of ministers has decided a matter, the man who is wise will not speak according to the agreement but will fit in with the emperor's mood.

For following the latter precept, Kung-sun was attacked by other officials. They said: "This man is most treacherous and unfeeling. He turns his face against his friends. He suggests the idea himself first and then abandons it; he isn't loyal." The emperor asked Kung-sun if this were true. He replied: "Those who understand me will think that I am loyal. Those who do not understand me will think that I am not."

作为宰相，公孙弘主张由皇权利用他这类的师儒来统治人民。他说：“夫虎豹马牛，禽兽之不可制者也，及其教驯服习之，至可牵持驾服，唯人之从。臣闻揉曲木者不累日，销金石者不累月，夫人之于利害好恶，岂比禽兽木石之类哉？期年而变……”公孙弘总结了一套“做官”“事上”的技巧：“每朝会议，开陈其端，使人主自择，不肯面折庭争。于是上察其行慎厚，辩论有余，习文法吏事，缘饰以儒术，上说之……弘奏事有所不可，不肯庭辩。常与主爵都尉汲黯请间，黯先发之，弘推其后，上常说，所言皆听，以此日益亲贵。尝与公卿约议，至上前，皆背其约以顺上指。

“汲黯庭诘弘曰：‘齐人多诈而无情，始为与臣等建此议，今皆背之，不忠。’上问弘，弘谢曰：‘夫知臣者以臣为忠，不知臣者以臣为不忠。’……

Another critic of Kung-sun said: "Hung Kung-sun has a high position among the top men. His salary is very high, but still he affects cotton gowns. That is not honest. He gives the impression of being modest and frugal when he really is not. Kung-sun started from a lowly position but in only a few years has climbed so far that he has become a minister and a lord. Outwardly his personality seems that of a temperate and hospitable man. He has built a guest house and filled it with guests whom he invites to participate in his work. While he himself takes only one piece of meat, they are entertained lavishly, and even his family neglected on their account. But, in spite of all this outward good will, inwardly he is jealous of everyone. He makes up to those officials who are not on good terms with him and then finds some way to hurt them. He killed Yen Chu-fu and exiled Tung Chung-shu. These are his plots."

From these old quotations we can see that here was a man without principles, one who merely tried to follow the emperor's whims, did not keep his word, sold out his friends, and formed his own party to help maintain his high position in the government.[37] This is a type of official which has often been seen in China.

Following the example of Hung Kung-sun, the ethical line which had been maintained by Confucius and his followers no longer was the norm. Scholars took to supporting monarchical power. This transformation was completed in the person of one Han Yü who, though considering himself directly descended from the ethical line, converted his position not into that of a critic but into a way of showing the emperor's tolerance. Han Yü was a man without academic honors, a hermit, but the emperor liked his conduct so well that he took him out of obscurity and created for him the office of imperial censor, an official who should tell the emperor what was wrong throughout his domain. His role was to convince the world at large that in the court people were allowed to speak freely and honestly, to make it evident that the emperor did not confer rewards unjustly, and to show that the emperor had the great virtue of being willing to follow suggestions disagreeable to him.[38] This, it was thought, would make the "people in the caves," the common people, "put on their finery and come to court to tell their wants." And this would make the emperor approach in virtue Yao and Shun, and his name would go down in history for ever and aye.

Han Yü no longer asked whether the imperial power followed the tao or not. To him this was no longer a problem, for he believed that the political line must be the same as the ethical. The emperor could do no wrong. Moreover, the emperor had the obligation to use the scholars, and the scholars, in turn, had the obligation to present themselves in court. His reasoning went thus: "In ancient times scholars were sorry for one another if one or another of them went as long as three months without being in office. Such a one, leaving his own country, would go to bear gifts to the court of another lord. He would feel so anxious to find an opportunity to serve in government that, if he could not find a job in Lu, he would go to Ch'i, if not in Ch'i, he would go to Sung and Chien [Cheng?].... But now we have a centralized government. Within the four seas there is but one rule. If a man is to leave, he must go live with savage tribes, leaving behind the country of his father and mother. The scholar who wishes to practice his tao must do so at court or else go off to the wilds. In the mountains and forests he can do nothing but cultivate himself; this is a way out only for those who care very little for the world, not for those who care for people."

“汲黯曰：‘弘位在三公，奉禄甚多，然为布被，此诈也。’……弘自见为举首，起徒步，数年至宰相封侯，于是起客馆，开东阁以延贤人，与参谋议。弘身食一肉，脱粟饭，故人宾客仰衣食，奉禄皆以给之，家无所余。然其性意忌，外宽内深。诸常与弘有隙，无近远，虽阳与善，后竟报其过。杀主父偃，徙董仲舒胶西，皆弘力也。”

从以上引述中我们可以看出，这是一个没有原则、揣摩上意、不守信用、出卖朋友、沽名钓誉、阴结私党以维持高位的人。[39]这是中国常见的官僚类型。

从公孙弘所开创的官僚路线上，孔子及其追随者所维持的道统已不再是规范，而是支持皇权的工具。这个转变由韩愈最终完成。他虽自认是直承道统的人物，但他把诤谏的意义解释成为皇帝获取美誉的手段。他说：“夫阳子本以布衣隐于蓬蒿之下。主上嘉其行谊，擢在此位。官以谏为名，诚宜有以奉其职。使四方后世知朝廷有直言骨鲠之臣，天子有不僭赏从谏如流之美。[40]庶岩穴之士闻而慕之。束带结发，愿进于阙下而伸其辞说，致吾君于尧舜，熙鸿号于无穷也。”

韩愈不再问皇权是否合于道。对他来讲这已不再是问题，因为他相信政统即是道统，皇帝不会做错事。而且，皇帝有责任起用士人，士人也有责任自荐于朝廷。他的理由是这样的：“古之士，三月不仕则相吊。故出疆必载贽，然所以重于自进者，以其于周不可，则去之鲁。于鲁不可，则去之齐。于齐不可，则去之宋，之郑，之秦，之楚也。今天下一君，四海一国，舍乎此则彝狄矣。去父母之邦矣。故士之行道者，不得于朝，则山林而已矣。山林者，士之所独善自养，而不忧天下者之所能安也。如有忧天下之心，则不能矣。”

From Han Yü on, Chinese scholars ceased to bother themselves about whether the emperor was good or not. Their function as scholars they now saw was to uphold the emperor. As people who simply read the orders of the emperor, they became caricatures of the real scholar.

Thus the relation between the scholar and political power changed in the course of history. In the beginning they were separated from practical politics; they were regarded as maintainers of the ethical way but not as positively effective in government. In the process of concentration of monarchical power this same class was unable to protect its own interest; its members turned to religious sanctions in the hope that divine authority, in controlling the monarch, would at the same time offer them protection. But the divine sanctions were not effective, and thus the only alternatives came to be either to rebel or to surrender. Since the scholar class were never in any sense revolutionary, they chose the latter course, becoming officials. And they even degraded themselves by becoming utterly subservient to the emperor. This is the historical process which determined the later position of the gentry in the social structure. They did not themselves attempt to take over political power but found security by subordinating themselves to the mercy of the imperial court. In the power structure of traditional China the gentry were a distinctly noncombative element.

自韩愈起，中国之士不再议论皇帝的是非。在他们眼中，作为士，他们的作用是侍奉皇帝，他们成了只不过是诵读圣谕的所谓的师儒。

于是，师儒和政权的关系在历史过程中有所演变。最初他们从政统里分离出来，被看作是不能主动影响政事的卫道者。在皇权不断集中的过程中，这个阶层不能维护自己的利益，他们转向依靠宗教的约束力，希望神的力量可以制约皇权，并同时保护他们。但这并没有奏效，于是除了反抗只有屈服。士大夫阶层从来都不是一个革命的阶层，他们选择了后者，即成为官僚，他们甚至降为彻底臣服于皇帝之流。这段历史过程决定了士绅在政治结构中的地位。他们本身并不想夺取政权，只是屈服于政权来谋得安全。在传统中国的权力结构中，士绅显然是没有斗志的那部分。

---

[1] Tao-t'ung, literally "tao-series," "tao-succession," "tao-transmission," in usage something like "the orthodox transmission of the tao or Way." The Chung Yung, or Doctrine of the Mean, defines the Confucian tao as follows: " “ 'The Universal Way for all under Heaven is five-fold, and the (virtues) by means of which it is practiced, are three. There are the relations of ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brother, and of friend and friend: these five constitute the universal Way for all. Wisdom (chih), human-heartedness (jen) and fortitude (yung): these three are universal virtues for all. That whereby they are practiced is one. Some are born and know it; some study and so know it; some through painful difficulties come to know it. But the result of their knowing is one' " (quoted by Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, trans. Derk Bodde [Peiping: H. Vetch, 1937], I, 373).

Han Yu of the T'ang dynasty (768–824), in his essay On the Nature of the Tao, wrote: "What I will call the Tao is not what has hitherto been called the tao by the Taoists and the Buddhists. Yao transmitted the tao to Shun. Shun transmitted it to Yü. Yü transmitted it to Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Chou. Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Chou transmitted it to Confucius, and Confucius transmitted it to Mencius. After Mencius, it was no longer transmitted."

[2] “道统”这个词的字面意思是指“道的系列”、“道的接续”、“道的传递”，在用法上类似于“道的正统传递”。《中庸》把儒道界定如下：“天下之达道五，所以行之者三，曰，君臣也，父子也，夫妇也，昆弟也，朋友之交也。五者，天下之达道也。知仁勇三者，天下之达德也，所以行之者一也。或生而知之，或学而知之，或困而知之，及其知之一也。或安而行之，或利而行之，或勉强而行之，及其成功一也。子曰：‘好学近乎知，力行近乎仁，知耻近乎勇。’知斯三者，则知所以修身。知所以修身，则知所以治人。知所以治人，则知所以治天下国家矣。”引自《中国哲学史》英文版，冯友兰著，德克·卜德译，北平：亨利·维奇出版公司，1937年，第1卷，第373页。（中文版参见冯友兰《中国哲学史》，北京： 中华书局，1961年，第450—451页。——译者注）

唐朝的韩愈（768—824）在《原道》中这样写道：“尧以是传之舜，舜以是传之禹，禹以是传之汤，汤以是传之文、武、周公，文、武、周公传之孔子，孔子传之孟轲。轲之死，不得其传焉。”

[3] The three rulers, Yao, Shun, and Yü, the great models of virtue in Confucian tradition, are the first to be mentioned by the Shu Ching, or Book of History, most ancient of Chinese documents. There is some difference of opinion as to whether Yao and Shun, among these at least semi-historical figures, are to be included with the "Five Sovereigns," or whether they ruled later as Sheng or Divine Sages. Granet says: "The three first of the Five Sovereigns, Huang-ti, Chuan-hsü, and Kao-hsin, figure in the works connected with the Confucian traditions, but have a philosophic rather than an historical character. The Book of History, attributed to Confucius, only mentioned the two last, Yao and Shun…. In making the history of the Sovereigns and of the Three August Ones precede that of the royal dynasties, the learned men of China set out to paint a picture of an halcyon age when, with human characteristics, perfect virtue rules. The heroic figures of the early age in China preserve, however, a number of mythical features. In Yao and Shun... the effacement of these features is nearly completed" (Marcel Granet, Chinese Civilization [New York: Barnes & Noble, 1951], p. 9).

[4] Arthur Waley, The Analects of Confucius (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1938), Book VII, No. 5, p. 123.

[5] 尧、舜、禹这三位统治者是儒家传统伟大的道德典范，最初是在中国最古老的文献典籍《书经》中提到的。像尧和舜这样半虚构的历史人物是否包括在五帝之内，还有他们后来是否算圣人治世——这些问题都存在着观点上的分歧。葛兰言说：“五帝的前三位——黄帝、颛顼和高辛——都是出现在与儒家传统相关的著作中的人物，但是他们都有着一种哲学的而非历史的特征。据说为孔子所著的《书经》中只提到后面两个，即尧和舜……通过将“三皇五帝”的历史置于皇家王朝之前，中国的文人学者着手绘制出一幅太平年代的图景，其时富有人性特征的完美品德居统治地位。然而，中国早期的英雄人物都保留有许多神话的特征。在尧和舜身上……这些特征近乎完全地消失了。”引自《中华文明》，葛兰言著，纽约：巴恩斯与诺布尔公司，1951年，第9页。

[6] 引自《论语》英文版，阿瑟·韦利译，伦敦：乔治·艾伦与昂温出版公司，1938年，第7篇，第5章，第123页。（原文参见《论语正义》，刘宝楠著，中华书局，1990年，第256页。——译者注）

[7] Shih-chi, written by Ssu-ma Ch'ien, father of Chinese historians (145–85? B.C.). Book XLVII contains a life of Confucius. See The Wisdom of Confucius, edited and translated with notes by Lin Yutang (New York: Modern Library, 1943), pp. 48–91.

[8] 《史记》一书为中国的历史学家之父司马迁（约公元前145—前85?）所著。《史记》第47卷中包含有一篇孔子的生平。参见林语堂的编译注释本《孔子的智慧》英文版，纽约：“现代图书馆丛书”版，1943年，第48—91页。

[9] Matt. 21: 23–27.

[10] 《马太福音》21章23—27节。

[11] "Tzu-kung came out and Yen Hui went in, and Confucius said, 'Ah, Hui, it is said in the Book of Songs, "Neither buffaloes, nor tigers, they wander in the desert." Are my teachings wrong? How is it that I find myself now in this situation?' And Yen Hui replied, 'The Master's teachings are so great. That is why the world cannot accept them. However, you should just do your best to spread the ideas. What do you care if they are not accepted? The fact that your teachings are not accepted shows that you are a true gentleman. If the truth is not cultivated, the shame is ours; but if we have already strenuously cultivated the teachings of a moral order, and they are not accepted by the people, it is the shame of those in power. What do you care if you are not accepted? The very fact that you are not accepted shows that you are a true gentleman.' And Confucius was pleased and said smilingly, 'Is that so? Oh, son of Yen, if you were a rich man, I would be your butler!' " (Lin Yutang, op. cit., pp. 74–75). (This episode is apocryphal.)

[12] “子贡出去而颜回进来，孔子说：‘颜回，据《诗经》上说，不是犀牛也不是老虎，却疲于奔命在空旷的原野。这是我的教学有了什么错误之处吗？我为什么沦落到这个地步？’颜回接着回答说：‘老师的教育如此地伟大，这正是为什么这个世界不能接受这些的原因。然而，您应该继续尽全力来传播自己的观念。如果这些观念不被接受，您又何必管它呢？您的教育不被接受这样的事实不正表明您是一位真正的君子吗？如果真理没有得到培育，那么这就是我们的羞愧了。但是如果我们已经含辛茹苦地培育了一种道德秩序的教化，而它们并不为人民所接受，这便是那些掌握权力的人的羞辱了。假使人们不接受您，您又何必在乎呢？人们不接受您这一事实本身就表明了您是一位真正的君子。’孔夫子心里非常高兴，面带笑容地说：‘是这样的吗？颜家的孩子，如果你是一位富人，我愿是你的一位管家。’”参见《孔子的智慧》英文版，林语堂著，第74—75页。这一情节广为流传，但其真实性存疑。

[13] Waley, Analects, Book VII, No. 10, p. 124.

[14] See n. 1, p. 34.

[15] Waley, Analects, Book VIII, No. 13, p. 135, and Book XV, No. 6, p. 194.

[16] 《论语》英文版，韦利译，第7篇，第10章，第124页。

[17] 见注释1，第34页（本书注释18，第183页）。

[18] 《论语》英文版，韦利译，第8篇，第13章，第135页以及第15篇，第6章，第 194页。

[19] Lin Yutang, op. cit., p. 74.

[20] Waley, Analects, Book IX, No. 12, p. 141.

[21] Life of Confucius, from the Shih-chi (Lin Yutang, op. cit., p. 56).

[22] 林语堂，《孔子的智慧》，第74页。

[23] 《论语》英文版，韦利译，第9篇，第12章，第141页。

[24] “孔子世家”，载《史记》（见林语堂《孔子的智慧》，第56页）。

[25] Waley, Analects, Book V, No. 6, p. 108.

[26] "Yang, the positive principle, is associated with all that is bright, beneficent, active, masculine: symbolized by Heaven and the Sun. Yin, the negative principle, with darkness, passivity, the feminine in nature: symbolized by the Earth and Water.

"The Yang is said to transform, the Yin to unite. By these processes they brought into being the five essences, water, fire, wood, metal, and earth….

"In no sphere of Chinese life and thought can the Yang and Yin be lost sight of. Their nearest Western parallel is what we call 'the mysterious causes underlying the operations of Providence' " (G. Willoughby-Meade, Chinese Ghouls and Goblins [New York: Frederick A. Stokes, n.d.], p. 4).

"In Zoroastrianism, Darkness is essentially evil; the principle of Light, essentially good. The fundamental conception of yin and yang is quite different. They are two interdependent and complementary facets of existence and the aim of yin-yang philosophers was not the triumph of light, but the attainment in human life of perfect balance between the two principles" (Arthur Waley, The Way and Its Power [London: George Allen & Unwin, 1934], p. 112).

[27] Lin Yutang, op. cit., p. 68. (This is another apocryphal incident.)

[28] 《论语》英文版，韦利译，第5篇，第6章，第108页。

[29] “阳，指正向的特性，它是与所有明亮、仁慈、积极、阳性的东西相联系，并以天和太阳作为象征。阴，指负向的特性，具有黑暗、被动和阴性的本质，以土地和水作为象征。

“阴阳转换而成一体。通过这样的过程而产生出水、火、木、金和土这五行来……

“在中国人的生活和思想中，阴阳无处不在。与西方最为接近的看法是我们所谓的‘天道运行背后的神秘原因’（《中国的食尸鬼和小鬼》，杰拉德·威洛比–米德著，纽约：弗雷德里克·斯托克斯公司，无出版年月，第4页）。

“在拜火教中，黑暗实质上就是恶，对光明的信念实质上就是善。在阴和阳的基本概念上存在有相当的差异。它们是指存在的两个相互独立和互补的方面，而且阴阳哲学家的目标并非是获取光明，而是要在人的生活中达到这两种特性的完美平衡（《道及其力量》，阿瑟·韦利著，伦敦：乔治·艾伦与昂温出版公司，1934年，第112页）。

[30] 林语堂，《孔子的智慧》，第68页。（这是另一个广为流传但真实性存疑的情节。）

[31] Fei's translation. See Lin Yutang, op. cit., pp. 86–87. The significance of catching the unicorn was that, although this creature in itself symbolized the coming-to-power of a sage and of general peace and prosperity, the fact that in this case the unicorn had been hunted down was rather the sign of something unusually disastrous, in this case of the death of the great scholar Confucius. Fei's repetition of the tradition that Confucius composed the Spring and Autumn Annals would be repudiated by most scholars.

[32] These events took place under the harsh Ch'in empire, in 213–212 B.C., as a means of enforcing intellectual conformity. All books throughout the empire, with certain important exceptions, were collected by the government and burned, and over 460 scholars were allegedly buried alive.

[33] 费孝通的翻译。见林语堂《孔子的智慧》，第86—87页。捕获麒麟的意义在于，尽管这一动物本身象征了一位圣人即将拥有权力以及普遍的安定和繁荣，但在这个例子中这只麒麟被捕获的事实，更可能是某种极为不幸的象征，暗指大学问家孔子的逝世。费孝通这里所重复的孔子编《春秋》的传统，可能是为大多数学者所拒斥的。

[34] 这些事件发生在严酷的秦朝，公元前213年—公元前212年之间，作为一种强行统一思想的手段。除了特定重要的著作之外，整个国家的所有书籍都被政府收缴上来烧毁，据说有460多位儒生被活埋。

[35] The substance of this and the following paragraphs as set out here by Fei would be disputed by many scholars in certain respects. That Heaven to Confucius was an indifferent abstraction is not the view of others (cf. Fung Yu-lan, op. cit., I, 58: "For Confucius, Heaven was a purposeful supreme being"). Second, it is more widely thought that the theory of the Will of Heaven here attributed to Tung Chang-shu antedates him by almost a thousand years (see the chapter on this subject in Herrlee G. Creel, The Birth of China [New York: Reynall & Hitchcock, 1937]).

[36] 费孝通在这里和下面几段中陈述的要义，在某些方面而言，许多学者会有异议。有的学者并不认为对孔子来说，天是漠不关心的抽象概念（参见冯友兰《中国哲学史》英文版，第1卷，58页：“孔子之所谓天，乃一有意志之上帝”）。再者，更为广泛的看法是认为这里说成是董仲舒的有关天的意志的理论早于他的时代近千年（参见顾立雅《中国的诞生》一书中相关章节，纽约：雷纳尔与希契科克公司，1937年）。

[37] But Dubs says: "Kung-sun Hung proved to be admirable in personal conduct, able in disputation, capable in legal matters, and an ornament to scholarship" (Introduction to Pan Ku's The History of the Former Han Dynasty, trans. Homer H. Dubs [Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1938], II, 23). For discussion of the reign of the emperor Wu and his attitude toward Confucianists see also Herrlee G. Creel, Confucius, the Man and the Myth (New York: John Day Co., 1949), pp. 233–243.

[38] "Since the fourteenth century, there has existed a definite organization known as the Censorate, the members of which, who are called the 'ears' and 'eyes' of the sovereign, make it their business to report adversely upon any course adopted by the Government in the name of the Emperor, or by any individual statesman, which seems to call for disapproval. The reproving Censor is nominally entitled to complete immunity from punishment; but in practice, he knows that he cannot count too much upon either justice or mercy. If he concludes that his words will be unforgivable, he hands in his memorial, and draws public attention forthwith by committing suicide on the spot" (H. A. Giles, The Civilization of China [New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1911], pp. 158–159).

[39] 但是，德效骞说：“公孙弘在个人行为上是令人敬佩的，他善于辩论，长于法律事务，学问笃实”（引自班固《汉书》英文版“导论”，德效骞译，巴尔的摩：韦弗利出版社，1938年，第2卷，第23页）。关于汉武帝统治及其对儒家的态度的讨论亦可参见《孔子其人及其神话》，顾立雅著，纽约：约翰·戴出版公司，1949年，第233—243页。

[40] “自14世纪以来就存在有一个所谓监督审查的固定机构，这一机构的成员被称为是统治者的‘耳’‘目’。这些人的工作就是挑刺，不论是对本着皇帝之名的政府行为，还是对似乎会招致异议的个人政客之举。挑刺的巡查官名义上享有完全的豁免权；但实际上，他知道他不能够对公正和宽恕有太多的期望。如果他断定自己的言辞是不可宽恕的话，他会递上自己的请愿书，并立刻在众目睽睽之下当场自杀。”引自《中国的文明》，翟理思著，纽约：亨利·霍尔特公司，1911年，第158—159页。