It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abuse which has been permitted a temporary existence, cannot be corrected without wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, it ought, therefore, to claim perpetual duration.
[tr. McCord (1848)]

At all events, let no one pretend that because an abuse cannot be done away with, without inconvenience to those who profit by it, what has been suffered to exist for a time should be allowed to exist for ever.
[tr. Stirling (1873)]

Meekness is a thing unconquerable, if it be true and natural, and not affected or hypocritical. For how shall even the most fierce and malicious that thou shalt conceive, be able to hold on against thee, if thou shalt still continue meek and loving unto him; and that even at that time, when he is about to do thee wrong, thou shalt be well disposed, and in good temper, with all meekness to teach him, and to instruct him better? As for example; My son, we were not born for this, to hurt and annoy one another; it will be thy hurt not mine, my son.
[tr. Casaubon (1634)]

Gentleness and Good Humour are invincible, provided they are of the right Stamp, without any thing of Hypocrisy, or Grimace. This is the way to Disarm the most Barbarous, and Savage: A constancy in Obliging Behaviour, will make the most Outragious Person asham'd of his Malice : The worst Body imaginable can't find in his heart to do you any Mischief, if you continue kind and unmov'd under ill Usage, if you strike in with the right opportunity for Advice; If when he is going to do you an ill Turn, you endeavour to recover his Understanding, and retrieve his Temper in such gentle Language as this. Prethee Child be quiet, Men were never made to worry one another; In earnest if you go on, my dear Friend, you'l have the worst on't; As for my part, I'm proof against every Thing, but my own Folly.
[tr. Collier (1701)]

Meekness is invincible, where it is genuine, and sincere without hypocrisy. For, what can the most insolent do to you, if you steadfastly persist in kindness to him, and, upon occasion, mildly admonish and instruct him thus, at the very time he is attempting to do you an injury? “Don’t do so, my son! Nature formed us for a quite different conduct. You cannot hurt me; you hurt yourself, my son!”
[tr. Hutcheson/Moor (1742)]

Consider that benevolence is invincible, if it be genuine, without affectation or hypocrisy. For what can the most brutishly injurious person do to you, if you persevere in your kindness to them, and when an opportunity offers, tenderly admonish him, and at the very time when he is going to do you an injury, thus calmly instruct him: "Forbear, my son, we were formed by nature for quite a different purpose; you cannot injure me, but you hurt yourself my son."
[tr. Graves (1792)]

Consider that a good disposition is invincible if it be genuine, and not an affected smile and acting a part. For what will the most violent man do to thee, if thou continuest to be of a kind disposition towards him, and if, as opportunity offers, thou gently admonishest him and calmly correctest his errors at the very time when he is trying to do thee harm, saying, Not so, my child: we are constituted by nature for something else: I shall certainly not be injured, but thou art injuring thyself, my child.
[tr. Long (1862)]

Gentleness is invincible, provided it is of the right stamp, without anything of hypocrisy or malice. This is the way to disarm the most insolent, if you continue kind and unmoved under ill usage, if you strike in with the right opportunity for advice. If when he is going to do you an ill turn you endeavour to recover his undertsanding, and retrieve his temper by such language as this: I pray you, child, be quiet, men were never made to worry one another. I shall not be injured, but you are injuring yourself, child.
[tr. Collier/Zimmern (1887)]

Kindness is invincible if only it is honest, not fawning or insincere. What can the most aggressive do, if you keep persistently kind, and as ocasion offers gently remonstrate, and seize the moment when he is bent on mischief, for trying quietly to convert him to a better frame of mind. "Not so, my son, we are made for other ends; you cannot hurt me, you hurt yourself, my son."
[tr. Rendall (1898)]

Meekness is invincible if it be genuine, without simper or hypocrisy. For what can the most insolent of men do to you, if you persist in civility towards him; and, if occasion offers, admonish him gently and deliberately, shew him the better way at the very moment that he is endeavouring to harm you? “Nay, my son; we were born for something better. No hurt can come to me; it is yourself you hurt, my son.”
[tr. Hutcheson/Chrystal (1902)]

Kindness is irresistible, be it but sincere and no mock smile or a mask assumed. For what can the most unconscionable of men do to thee, if thou persist in being kindly to him, and when a chance is given exhort him mildly and, at the very time when he is trying to do thee harm, quietly teach him a better way thus: Nay, my child, we have been made for other things. I shall be in no wise harmed, but thou art harming thyself, my child.
[tr. Haines (Loeb) (1916)]

Gentleness is invincible, if it be genuine and not sneering or hypocritical. For what can the most insolent do to you, if you continue gentle to him, and, if opportunity allows, mildly admonish him and quietly show him a better way at the very moment when he attempts to do you injury: "No, my child; we came into the world for other ends. It is not I that am harmed, but you are harmed, my child."
[tr. Farquharson (1944)]

Kindness is irresistible, so long as it be genuine and without false smiles or duplicity. The most consummate impudence can do nothing, if you remain persistently kind to the offender, give him a gentle word of admonition when opportunity offers, and at the moment when he is about to vent his malice upon you bring him round quietly with "No, my son; it was not for this that we were made. I shall not be hurt; it is yourself you are hurting."
[tr. Staniforth (1964)]

Kindness is invincible, provided it’s sincere -- not ironic or an act. What can even the most vicious person do if you keep treating him with kindness and gently set him straight -- if you get the chance -- correcting him cheerfully at the exact moment that he’s trying to do you harm. "No, no, my friend. That isn’t what we’re here for. It isn’t me who’s harmed by that. It’s you."
[tr. Hays (2003)]

Kindness is invincible — if it is sincere, not fawning or pretense. What can the most aggressive man do to you if you continue to be kind to him? If, as opportunity arises, you gently admonish him and take your time to re-educate him at the very moment when he is trying to do you harm? "No, son, we were born for other purposes than this. There is no way that I can be harmed, but you are harming yourself, son."
[tr. Hammond (2006)]

Kindness is unconquerable, so long as it is without flattery or hypocrisy. For what can the most insolent man do to you, if you continue to be kind to him and, if you have the chance, gently advise and calmly show him what is right at the very moment he is trying to harm you, saying: "No, my son. We were born for something else. I am certainly not harmed, but you bring harm to yourself?"
[tr. Needleman/Piazza (2008)]

It isn't their [the sciences'] job to throw open the door to infinite wisdom but to put a limit to infinite error.
[tr. Willett (1980)]

It is not the aim of science to open a door to infinite wisdom -- but to put an end to infinite error.
[tr. Brenton (1980)]

What is necessary is to rectify names. [...] If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.
[tr. Legge (1861)]

One thing of necessity, the rectification of terms. [...] If terms be incorrect, language will be incongruous; and if language be incongruous, deeds will be imperfect. -- So, again, when deeds are imperfect, propriety and harmony cannot prevail, and when this is the case laws relating to crime will fail in their aim; and if these last so fail, the people will not know where to set hand or foot. -- Hence, a man of superior mind, certain first of his terms, is fitted to speak; and being certain of what he says can proceed upon it. In the language of such a person there is nothing heedlessly irregular, -- and that is the sum of the matter.
[tr. Jennings (1895)]

I would begin by defining the names of things. [...] Now, if names of things are not properly defined, words will not correspond to facts. When words do not correspond to facts, it is impossible to perfect anything. Where it is impossible to perfect anything, the arts and institutions of civilisation cannot flourish. When the arts and institutions of civilisation cannot flourish, law and justice cannot attain their ends; and when law and justice do not attain their ends, the people will be at a loss to know what to do. Therefore a wise and good man can always specify whatever he names; whatever he can specify, he can carry out. A wise and good man makes it a point always to be exact in the words he uses.
[tr. Ku Hung-Ming (1898)]

Settle the names (determine a precise terminology). [...] If words (terminology) are not (is not) precise, they cannot be followed out, or completed in action according to specifications. When the services (actions) are not brought to true focus, the ceremonies and music will not prosper; where rites and music do not flourish punishments will be misapplied, not make bullseye, and the people won’t know how to move hand or foot (what to lay hand on, or stand on). Therefore the proper man must have terms that can be spoken, and when uttered be carried into effect; the proper man’s words must cohere to things, correspond to them (exactly) and no more fuss about it.
[tr. Pound (1933)]

It would certainly be to correct language. [...] If language is incorrect, then what is said does not concord with what was meant; and if what is said does not concord with what was meant, what is to be done cannot be effected. If what is to be done cannot be effected, then rites and music will not flourish. If rites and music do not flourish, then mutilations and lesser punishments will go astray. And if mutilations and lesser punishments go astray, then the people have nowhere to put hand or foot. Therefore the gentleman uses only such language as is proper for speech, and only speaks of what it would be proper to carry into effect. The gentleman, in what he says, leaves nothing to mere chance.
[tr. Waley (1938)]

The indispensable is to render designations correct. [...] If the designations are not correct, language will not be clear. If language is not clear, duties will not be carried out. If duties arc not carried out, rites and music will not flourish. If rites and music do not flourish, then punishments will not be specific. If punishments arc not specific, then the people will do nothing without getting into trouble, lienee when the perfect gentleman has given something a name it may with all certainty be expressed in language; when he expresses it, it may with certainty be set in operation. In regard to his language the perfect gentleman is never careless in any respect.
[tr. Ware (1950)]

If something has to be put first, it is, perhaps, the rectification (cheng) of names. [...] When names are not correct, what is said will not sound reasonable; when what is said does not sound reasonable, affairs will not culminate in success; when affairs do not culminate in success, rites and music will not flourish; when rites and music do not flourish, punishments will not fit the crimes; when punishments do not fit the crimes, the common people will not know where to put hand or foot. Thus when the gentleman names something, the name is sure to be usable in speech, and when he says something this is sure to be practicable. The thing about the gentleman is that his is anything but casual where speech is concerned.
[tr. Lau (1979)]

What is necessary is to rectify names, is it not? [...] If names are not rectified, then words are not appropriate. If words are not appropriate, then deeds are not accomplished. If deeds are not accomplished, then the rites and music do not flourish. If the rites and music do not flourish, then punishments do not hit the mark. If punishments do not hit the mark, then the people have nowhere to put hand or foot. So when a gentleman names something, the name can definitely be used in speech; and when he says something, it can definitely be put into practice. In his utterances the gentleman is definitely not casual about anything.
[tr. Dawson (1993)]

It would certainly be to rectify the names. [...] If the names are not correct, language is without an object. When language is without an object, no affair can be effected. When no affair can be effected, rites and music wither. When rites and music wither, punishments and penalties miss their target. When punishments and penalties miss their target, the people do not know where they stand. Therefore whatever a gentleman conceives of, he must be able to say; and whatever he says, he must be able to do. In the matter of language, a gentleman leaves nothing to chance.
[tr. Leys (1997)]

It must be the rectification of character. [...] For if characters are not correct, speech will not be relevant; if speech is not relevant, affairs will not be accomplished; if affairs are not accomplished, the rituals and music will not prevail; if the rituals and music do not prevail, tortures and penalties will not be just right; if tortures and penalties are not just right, the people will not know where to put their hands and feet. Therefore, when the gentleman adopts a character, he surely can used it to say things; when he says something, it surely can be put into practice. The gentleman, in regard to his speech, is never negligent, that is all.
[tr. Huang (1997)]

I must define the intention of names! [...] If the intention of names is not defined, the word will not be exact; if the word is not exact, the thing will not be done; if the thing is not done, the rituals and music will not be practiced; if the rituals and music are not practiced, the penalty will not be appropriate; if the penalty is not appropriate, people will not know where to go and how to do. So a gentleman must can word out its intention when he names a thing, and must can practice it after he words out the intention. So a gentleman is never unserious to his words.
[tr. Cai/Yu (1998), #313]

Without question it would be to insure that names are used properly (zhengming). [...] When names are not used properly, language will not be used effectively; when language is not used effectively, matters will not be taken care of; when matters are not taken care of, the observance of ritual propriety (li) and the playing of music (yue) will not flourish; when the observance of ritual propriety and the playing of music do not flourish, the application of laws and punishments will not be on the mark. When the application of laws and punishments is not on the mark, the people will not know what to do with themselves. Thus, when the exemplary person puts a name to something, it can certainly be spoken, and when spoken it can certainly be acted upon. There is nothing careless in the attitude of the exemplary person toward what is said.
[tr. Ames/Rosemont (1998)]

It would certainly be to rectify names, would it not? [...] If names are not rectified, speech will not be representative. If speech is not representative, things will not get done. If things do not get done, rites and music will not flourish. If rites and music do not flourish, punishments and penalties will not be just. And if punishments and penalties are not just, the people will have nowhere to put hand or foot. Therefore, as to the gentleman: if he names something, it must be sayable, and if he says something, it must be doable. The gentleman's relation to words is to leave nothing whatever to chance.
[tr. Brooks/Brooks (1998)]

The rectification of names. Without a doubt. [...] Listen. If names aren't rectified, speech doesn't follow from reality. If speech doesn't follow from reality, endeavors never come to fruition. If endeavors never come to fruition, then Ritual and music cannot flourish. If Ritual and music cannot flourish, punishments don't fit the crime. If punishments don't fit the crime, people can't put their hands and feet anywhere without fear of losing them. Naming enables the noble-minded to speak, and speech enables the noble-minded to act. Therefore, the noble-minded are anything but careless in speech.
[tr. Hinton (1998)]

It would, of course, be the rectification of names. [...] If names are not rectified, speech will not accord with reality; when speech does not accord with reality, things will not be successfully accomplished. When things are not successfully accomplished, ritual practice and music will fail to flourish; when ritual and music fail to flourish, punishments and penalties will miss the mark. And when punishments and penalties miss the mark, the common people will be at a loss as to what to do with themselves. This is why the gentleman only applies names that can be properly spoken and assures that what he says can be properly put into action. The gentleman simply guards against arbitrariness in his speech. That is all there is to it.
[tr. Slingerland (2003)]

If I had to name my first action, I would rectify names. [...] If names are not rectified, then speech will not function properly, and if speech does not function properly, then undertakings will not succeed. If undertakings do not succeed, then rites and music will not flourish. If rites and music do not flourish, then punishments and penalties will not be justly administered. And if punishments and penalties are not justly administered, then the common people will not know where to place their hands and feet. Therefore, when the gentleman names a thing, that naming can be conveyed in speech, and if it is conveyed in speech, then it can surely be put into action. When the gentleman speaks, there is nothing arbitrary in the way he does so.
[tr. Watson (2007)]

It would have to be rectifying names. [...] If names are not rectified, what is said will not seem reasonable. When what is said does not seem reasonable, nothing will be accomplished. When nothing gets accomplished, rites and music will not flourish. When rites and music do not flourish, punishment and penalties [will take their place, and they] will fail to be just when put into use. And when punishments and penalties fail to be just in practice, people will not know where to put their hands and feet. Thus when a gentleman names something, the name can surely hold up in speech. When he says something, his words can surely be carried out in action. When a gentleman speaks, there is nothing casual or careless about what he says.
[tr. Chin (2014)]

People will allow their faults to be shown them; they will let themselves be punished for them; they will patiently endure many things because of them; they only become impatient when they have to lay them aside.
[Niles ed. (1872)]

Not to continue a Foppery. Some make an engagement of their mistakes: when they have once begun to fail, they think they are concerned in honour to continue.
[Flesher ed. (1685)]

Do not follow up a Folly. Many make an obligation out of a blunder, and because they have entered the wrong path thinks it proves their strength of character to go in it.
[tr. Jacobs (1892)]

Don’t persist in folly. Some people commit themselves to their errors. They act mistakenly and consider it constancy to go on that way.
[tr. Maurer (1992)]

• "It is better to examine one's own faults than those of others." [tr. Freeman (1948)]
• "It is better to examine your own mistakes than those of others." [tr. Barnes (1987)]
• "It is better to rebuke familiar faults than foreign ones." [tr. @sententiq (2018)]
• "Rather examine your own faults than those of others." [Source]

• "Nor is it, moreover, right to permit written laws always to remain without alteration; for as in all other sciences, so in politics, it is impossible to express everything in writing with perfect exactness; for when we commit anything to writing we must use general terms, but in every action there is something particular to itself, which these may not comprehend." [tr. Ellis (1912)]
• "Moreover even written codes of law may with advantage not be left unaltered. For just as in the other arts as well, so with the structure of the state it is impossible that it should have been framed aright in all its details; for it must of necessity be couched in general terms, but our actions deal with particular things." [tr. Rackham (1932)]
• "In addition t this, it is not best to leave written laws unchanged. For just as in the case of the other arts, so with respect to political arrangements it is impossible for everything to be written down precisely; for it is necessary to write them in universal fashion, while actions concern particulars." [tr. Lord (1984)]

• "Eating my words has never given me indigestion."
• "I have never developed indigestion from eating my words."

The best way I know to REPENT of anything is not to do it again and to do better next time.
[H. Montague, ed., Wit and Wisdom of Josh Billings (1913)]

We attempt to Vindicate, and value our selves upon those Faults we have no design to mend.
[tr. Stanhope (1694), ¶2.30; (1706 ed.), ¶442]

We endeavour to get reputation by those faults we determine not to amend.
[pub. Donaldson (1783), ¶138; ed. Carvill (1835), ¶122]

We endeavor to make a merit of faults that we are unwilling to correct.
[ed. Gowens (1851), ¶467]

We try to make a virtue of vices we are loth to correct.
[tr. Bund/Friswell (1871), ¶442]

We boast the faults we are unwilling to correct.
[tr. Heard (1917), ¶464]

We endeavour to take pride in faults that we would rather not correct.
[tr. Stevens (1939), ¶442]

We try to glory in those failings which we are unwilling to correct.
[tr. FitzGibbon (1957), ¶442]

We try to make virtues out of the faults we have no wish to correct.
[tr. Tancock (1959), ¶442]

We try to make a merit of those of our faults which we do not wish to correct.
[tr. Whichello (2016) ¶442]

Every man may err, but no man who is not a fool may persist in error.
[ed. Harbottle (1897)]

Any man is liable to a mistake; but no one but a downright fool will persist in error.
[tr. Yonge (1903)]

Every man is liable to err; it is the part only of a fool to persevere in error.
[tr. Ker (Loeb) (1926)]

Any man is liable to err, only a fool persists in error.
[ed. Guterman (1966)]

Of any man at all it is to err, to persist in error is of none except unthinking.
[tr. Wiseman]

Then take these things to heart, my son: for error
Is as the universal lot of man;
But whenso'er he errs, that man no longer
Is witless or unblessed, who, having fallen
Into misfortune, seeks to mend his ways
And is not obstinate: the stiffneckt temper
Must oft plead guilty to the charge of folly.
[tr. Donaldson (1848)]

Now, then, my son, take thought. A man may err;
But he is not insensate or foredoomed
To ruin, who, when he hath lapsed to evil,
Stands not inflexible, but heals the harm.
The obstinate man still earns the name of fool.
[tr. Campbell (1873)]

O ponder this, my son. To err is common
To all men, but the man who having erred
Hugs not his errors, but repents and seeks
The cure, is not a wastrel nor unwise.
No fool, the saw goes, like the obstinate fool.
[tr. Storr (1859)]

Think, therefore, on these things, my son. All men are liable to err. But when an error is made, that man is no longer unwise or unblessed who heals the evil into which he has fallen and does not remain stubborn. Self-will, we know, invites the charge of foolishness.
[tr. Jebb (1891)]

Consider this, my son! and, O remember,
To err is human; 'tis the common lot
Of frail mortality; and he alone
Is wise and happy, who, when ills are done,
Persists not, but would heal the wound he made.
[tr. Werner (1892)]

Think, then, on these things, my son. All men are liable to err; but when an error hath been made, that man is no longer witless or unblest who heals the ill into which he hath fallen, and remains not stubborn. Self-will, we know, incurs the charge of folly.
[tr. Jebb (1917)]

Mark this, my son: all men fall into sin.
But sinning, he is not forever lost
Hapless and helpless, who can make amends
And has not set his face against repentance.
Only a fool is governed by self-will.
[tr. Watling (1939)]

Think of these things, my son. All men may err
but error once committed, he's no fool
nor yet unfortunate, who gives up his stiffness
ad cures the trouble he has fallen in.
Stubbornness and stupidity are twins.
[tr. Wyckoff (1954)]

Be warned, my son, No man alive is free
From error, but the wise and prudent man
When he has fallen into evil courses
Does not persist, but tries to find amendment ....
[tr. Kitto (1962)]

Take these things to heart, my son, I warn you.
All men make mistakes, it is only human.
But once the wrong is done, a man
can turn his back on folly, misfortune too,
if he tries to make amends, however low he's fallen,
and stops his bullnecked ways. Stubbornness
brands you for stupidity -- pride is a crime
[tr. Fagles (1982), l. 1131ff]

Therefore, think about this, child. For men,
all of them, it is common to make mistakes.
Whenever he does make a mistake, that man is still not
foolish or unhappy who, fallen into evil,
applies a remedy and does not become immovable.
Stubborn self-will incurs a charge of stupidity.
[tr. Tyrell/Bennett (2002)]

Understand this: All men make mistakes. But when they do, it would be a wise and well acting man who corrected that mistake and moved on rather than stayed there stubbornly and unrepentant. The stubborn man is rewarded with more errors.
[tr. Theodoridis (2004)]

Consider this, my son.
All men make mistakes -- that's not uncommon.
But when they do, they’re no longer foolish
or subject to bad luck if they try to fix
the evil into which they’ve fallen,
once they give up their intransigence.
Men who put their stubbornness on show
invite accusations of stupidity.
[tr. Johnston (2005), l. 1138ff]

Therefore, think on these things, my child; for every human being makes mistakes, but when he has made a mistake, that man is no longer foolish and unhappy who remedies the evil into which he has fallen and is not stubborn. Obstinacy brings the charge of stupidity.
[tr. Thomas (2005)]