The Analects

by Confucius

  3.25 Of the shao music, the Master said, it was perfectly beautiful and perfectly good. Of the wu music, he said, it was perfectly beautiful but not perfectly good.

  Shao was the music of the sage emperor Shun. It tells the story of Emperor Yao’s decision not to cede his throne to his own son but to Shun, an uncultivated man “from the depths of the mountains,” because the emperor had learned from others that Shun’s love for virtue was unsurpassed. When this music was played in the court of Emperor Shun, the Book of Documents says, even gods and spirits, birds and beasts were drawn to it—they all came under its spell. Confucius first heard this music in the court of Qi, and “for the next three months, he did not notice the taste of meat.” “I never dreamt that the joys of music could reach such heights,” he says.

  Wu was associated with King Wu, the founder of the Zhou. The music reflected the heroic feat of King Wu, of his conquest of the Shang, and so it was “perfectly beautiful.” But unlike Emperor Shun, whose ascension to power was entirely due to the force of his character, King Wu took the world by violent means even though his intention was to set it in order. Thus the wu music was not perfectly good.

  3.26 The Master said, “To be without tolerance when in a high position, without respect when performing the rites, without sorrow when in mourning—what is the point of witnessing such things?’

  The Han thinker Dong Zhongshu offers this reading: “A gentleman is critical of his own faults but not the faults of others. . . . Thus if he uses the measures he applies to himself to check the conduct of other people, then he is someone who is ‘without tolerance when in a high position.’ If he uses the measures he applies to others to check his own conduct [which means that he would be lax about his transgressions], then he is someone who is ‘without respect when performing the rites.’ A person who is ‘without respect when performing the rites’ is wanting in personal conduct, and he will not have the esteem of his people. A person who is ‘without tolerance when in a high position’ is lacking in generosity, and he will not have the affection of his people.”

  BOOK FOUR

  4.1 The Master said, “A neighborhood suffused with a humane spirit [liren] is beautiful. How can a man be considered wise when he has a choice and does not settle on humaneness?”

  There are many ways of rendering the idea of ren ()—“humaneness,” “humanity,” “benevolence,” “moral goodness”—and, when paired with li (), it could mean a neighborhood where humane people live or a neighborhood suffused with a humane spirit, “an air of moral goodness” (renfeng). And li, “neighborhood,” could refer literally to the place where a person lives in or to the wider sphere he travels in, including his profession and his circle of friends. Mencius understands liren to mean the latter when he compares the work of an arrow maker against that of an armor maker: one is in the occupation of harming people and the other is in the occupation of protecting people. “Thus,” he says, citing Confucius’ remark in 4.1, “one cannot be too careful when choosing a profession.” I, however, feel that the rhetorical question Confucius asks here is worth exploring. It suggests that most people know that a benevolent neighborhood is morally beautiful, and yet they choose not to reside in it. 4.1, together with 4.6, is Confucius’ observation about the human lot regarding men’s relationship with the idea of the good: they resist choosing it even when they are drawn to it and know that it is good for them.

  4.2 The Master said, “A person who is not humane cannot remain for long either in hard or in easy circumstances. A humane person feels at home in humaneness. A wise person [practices it because he] sees benefits in humaneness.”

  A humane person, Confucius says in 1.15, is someone who “is poor but joyful, rich but loving the rites.” Because he “feels at home in humaneness,” he is content and keeps his integrity intact whether in privation or in comfort. But of such persons and of those who “love humaneness without selfish intent and despise the lack of humaneness without fear,” the Book of Rites says, “there are only a few.” And among Confucius’ disciples, only Yan Hui fits the description. Yet there are ways of encouraging those who have a lesser quotient of humanity to achieve the same end. The Book of Rites says, “The humane person feels at home in humaneness; the wise person [practices it because he] sees benefit in humaneness; the wise person forces himself to be humane because he is afraid of being punished [for doing something wrong]”: “The results are the same but the circumstances are different.” Liu Baonan believes that this expresses Confucius’ view: “He was looking for success, and so was not too demanding” of how one should reach that end.

  4.3 The Master said, “Only a humane person is able to like and dislike others.”

  Liu Baonan says that most people “are not able to like and dislike others” because “when feelings [of like and dislike] are involved, they rely solely on their private sense of love and hate, and so their assessment of good and bad leaves something to be desired.” A humane person is different, Liu explains. “[In judging others,] his feelings get it right. When he likes the goodness in men and dislikes the badness in them, his likes and dislikes tally with reason. Thus only a humane person is able to like and dislike others.”

  4.4 The Master said, “If you truly set your mind on being humane, you are not morally culpable [e].”

  The word e () could also mean “vile,” “villainous,” “unseemly,” “offensive,” “despicable,” “malicious,” or “malevolent.” It often appears as “evil” in English translation, which is problematic, because the concept of original sin and of a blemished inborn nature did not exist in early China. My translation here follows the explanation of the Han Confucian Dong Zhongshu, whose understanding of Confucius is a reflection of his work and his combined interests in history, moral philosophy, and legal theory. Dong believes that what Confucius says here is instructive for all, but even more so for the legal officers who are in the business of judging human character, since their decisions in a court of law often have grave consequences for a man’s fate. For Dong, the voice that asks us to give consideration to the intent of an action is a voice that speaks for fairness and compassion. This, Dong points out, was also the way that the historian of the Spring and Autumn Annals assigned praise and blame. Otherwise, he asks, how could a ruler like Duke Xuan of Song, who had created disorder in his state by letting his brother instead of his son succeed him, escape the judgment of this historian? He was spared because the historian recognized the intent of the ruler to be correct: Duke Xuan thought that his brother would make a better, a more responsible ruler, Dong explains, even though “the action he took to carry out his good intent did not fit the model of the established practice.”

  4.5 The Master said, “Wealth and eminence are what people desire. If you cannot acquire them by proper means, you should not accept them. Poverty and lowly position are what people despise. If you cannot avoid them by proper means, you should not reject them. If the gentleman forsakes humaneness, how can he be worthy of the name of gentleman? The gentleman does not abandon humaneness, not even for the duration of a meal. He holds on to it whether he is in a hurry or in a crisis.”

  One could read the first half of Confucius’ comment with 4.2. Because the gentleman feels at home in humaneness, he finds contentment in it, so he is able to reject wealth and high position if he cannot have them by proper means and he is willing to accept poverty and a lowly position if he cannot avoid them by proper means. And once a person is at home in humaneness, he will never abandon it, not for the amount of time it takes to eat a meal and not even when he is in a rush or in distress. The Tang–Song scholar Xing Bing says that “eating a meal” refers to “ordinary situations” while “in a hurry or in a crisis” refers to “unusual circumstances.”

  4.6 The Master said, “I have never seen a person who truly loved humaneness or a person who was truly repelled by the lack of humaneness. A person who truly loved humaneness would think that nothing could surpass humaneness. A person who was truly repelle
d by the lack of humaneness, while putting humaneness into practice, would not allow any inhumane person to influence his conduct.

  “Is it possible for a person, in the space of a day, to devote all his effort to the practice of humaneness? I have never seen a person who lacks the strength to do so. There may be one, but I have not seen such a person.”

  One could read these words as the conclusion of an interior dialogue Confucius has with himself on the subject of humaneness. The dialogue begins with 4.1, where he asks, Why not settle in a neighborhood imbued with humaneness—why not choose to be humane—when there is a choice? A humane man has acumen and is beyond reproach, Confucius says in 4.3 and 4.4. But such a person’s character carries a heavy burden, and while everyone else finds it impossible to bear, he is unaware of the weight because he “feels at home in humaneness” (4.2, 4.5). The fact that such a humane man is uncommon explains why Confucius says that he has “never seen a person who truly loved humaneness or a person who was truly repelled by the lack of humaneness.” Can it be that neither of them exists? he asks, But that cannot be so, he tells himself, because he has “never seen a person who lacks the strength” “to devote all his effort to the practice of benevolence.” Such is the paradox in the human quest for the good: a person can choose to live a moral life if he wants it, and he has the capacity to do so, yet he resists putting effort into it. The paradox is reinforced in 6.12, 7.30, and 8.7.

  The second sentence in most of the English translations reads: “A person who truly loved humaneness could not be surpassed.” Yet according to the Han, the Song, and the Qing commentaries, what Confucius is trying to say is that humaneness is unsurpassable for the person who loves humaneness and so he devotes all his effort to its practice. Liu Baonan suggests using what Confucius describes in 4.2 as the difference between a humane man and a wise man to help us understand the difference between a man “who truly loved humaneness” and a man “who was truly repelled by the lack of humaneness.”

  4.7 The Master said, “The mistakes people make reflect the type [dang] of person each one is. Observe their mistakes, and you will know their character [ren].”

  The Han scholar Kong Anguo believes that Confucius’ remark was directed toward the ruler, asking him to be “more understanding” toward those who lacked cultivation and not to judge them against the standard that a gentleman was expected to meet. Kong’s reading of the first sentence is, therefore: “The mistakes people make should be looked on separately, each according to the category [dang] he belongs to.” The Six Dynasties scholar Huang Kan offers this example: “If a farmer does not know how to till the field, then it is his fault, but if he does not know how to write, then it cannot be any fault of his.” My translation, however, follows the reading of the Song Confucian Cheng Yi, who says, “The mistakes people make reflect their propensities—the gentleman tends to err on the side of being overly generous, and the petty man tends to err on the side of being overly mean.” The Qing scholar Liu Baonan offers yet another way of considering 4.7. He thinks that Confucius’ comment here could be a further disquisition on the subject of humaneness (ren). In the earlier entries of Book Four, he explains, we learn that there are different kinds of humane men, “those who feel at home in humaneness, those who see benefits in humaneness, and those who are forced to be humane because they are afraid of being punished [for doing something wrong].” Thus from observing the mistakes people make, we are able to see the various degrees of their humaneness. Liu feels that this reading, which is found in the Biaoji (“Records of Exemplary Conduct”) chapter of the Book of Rites, “expresses most fully the meaning of this entry.”

  4.8 The Master said, “If I should hear the Way in the morning, I would feel all right to die in the evening.”

  To hear the Way—the way of the sage kings from ancient times—is only the beginning of a person’s quest for the morally good. And should that person be “so unfortunate as to die in the evening,” “it would be all right,” Liu Baonan writes, “even though his journey is far from being complete,” because “his worth is far greater than that of those who have never heard of the Way.”

  4.9 The Master said, “There is no point in talking to a man with professional aspirations [shi] who sets his heart on the Way but who is ashamed of poor clothing and poor food.”

  Most shi (士) study with an eye to an official career because their livelihood and their social station are dependent on it. But here, Confucius is referring to a person who “sets his heart on the Way,” someone who wishes to serve in government because he aspires to a higher goal. To such a man, poor clothing or poor food should not matter, Confucius says, unless, of course, he is a fake.

  Liu Baonan says that most of the young men who studied with Confucius would not have had any experience in government, and so they were aspiring professionals (shi) with the hope of having a political career. For this reason, Confucius “spoke repeatedly” about the life and goal “of a shi.” “It was his way of rectifying names”—his attempt to tell his disciples that “it is important for a shi to know what he intends to do with his career before he sets out.”

  4.10 The Master said, “A gentleman, in his dealings with the world, is not predisposed to what he is for or against. He sides only with what is right.”

  Scholars from the Qing and the Republican period agree that it is possible to understand “dealings with the world” as referring to either human affairs or human relationships. Still, their commentaries offer us several ways of considering the remark Confucius makes here. The examples Liu Baonan cites from the Han sources are particularly illuminating. One says: “There are cases where the person who swims against the current gets it right while the person who swims with the current is far from being right. There are also cases where what one likes turns out to be harmful and what one despises turns out to be beautiful. How do we explain this? The difference between getting it right and missing it altogether is the difference between seeing something with clear eyes and seeing something with an opaque mind. Thus in his handling of any thing, any matter, the gentleman ‘is not predisposed to what he is for or against.’ He looks into it by way of what is right.”

  4.11 The Master said, “The gentleman [junzi] worries about the condition of his moral character, while the common man [xiaoren] worries about [whether he can hold on to] his land. The gentleman is conscious of [not breaking] the law, while the common man is conscious of what benefits he might reap [from the state].”

  Xiaoren here has a broader meaning—not just the small-minded, the petty, man, but the common man, the man whose livelihood depends on the land and whose circumstances do not allow him to brood for any extended period about the condition of his moral life. Of such a man, Confucius seems to say that it is natural for him to worry about the possibility of losing his land because having to move to somewhere else is not an easy matter. Yet this does not stop Confucius from reflecting further on the difference between such a man and a gentleman, whose aspirations are higher and nobler. The gentleman, Liu Baonan explains, “aims at putting himself in order so that he can put other people in order,” while the common people “await being governed”: they do not brood about the greater good but put the safety of their abode and any extra benefit they might collect from the state above the public interest.

  Several scholars point out that junzi could also refer to the ruler. If that is the case, then Confucius is making a different statement. Which says: “If the ruler worries about the condition of his moral character, then the common people will need to worry only about their land. But if the ruler thinks endlessly about how to govern his people by means of penal law, then the common people will think constantly about how to reap benefits [from a governing system based on reward and punishment].”

  4.12 The Master said, “If in your action you think only of profit, then you will incur much unhappiness [with yourself and with the world].”

  Qian Mu says that the object of duoyuan, “to incur much blame or unhappin
ess,” could be the self or other people; I feel that it could be both if profit becomes the point of a man’s action. Liu Baonan, however, believes that the subject of Confucius’ remark is the ruler, and, for support, he cites chapter 27 of the Book of Xunzi, which says, “Thus the person who lets the love for rightness overtake the drive for profit will bring order to the world, whereas the person who lets the drive for profit overpower the love for rightness will create disorder in the world.” Following Liu’s interpretation, the translation thus reads: “If your approach [in government] is driven by the idea of profit, this will create a lot of hostility [among your people].”

  4.13 The Master said, “If a person is able to govern a state by means of the rites and with fostering a deferential attitude [among his people] as his goal, what difficulty will he have? If he is unable to govern the state in this way, what good are the rites to him?”