The Analects

by Confucius

  13.7 The Master said, “The political institutions of Lu and Wei are like brothers.”

  It is helpful, I think, to consider 13.7, 13.8, and 13.9 together. The remarks Confucius makes in these records are all concerned with the state of Wei: Why does the state of Lu have a special affinity with the state of Wei? Who from the state of Wei is an exemplary figure? And what should the government do for its people?

  What Confucius says here in 13.7 could refer to the historical antecedents of Lu and Wei: The two states are close like brothers because their royal ancestors, the Duke of Zhou and Kangshu, were brothers. The Song dynasty scholars take the statement in a different direction. Zhu Xi says, “The two states were originally like brothers. But during Confucius’ time, the situation in both places had declined to the point of being disorderly. Thus the state of their governments resembled one another. This was the reason why Confucius voiced his lament.” I, however, feel that there is yet another way of understanding Confucius’ remark. The political institutions of Lu and Wei were alike because both states had excellent counselors even though their rulers were morally depraved and politically inept—this, I believe, is what Confucius was trying to say. His statement here is, therefore, an expression of his optimism about these two governments, and this optimism can also be found elsewhere in the Analects. He says in 6.24, for instance, “With one great change, [the government] of Lu could embody the moral way.” And when he is asked in 14.19 why a ruler like Duke Ling of Wei, a man of no scruples, was able to hold on to his state, Confucius says that this was because Wei had a fine counselor “in charge of foreign guests,” an honest priest “looking after the ancestral temple,” and a competent general “responsible for military affairs.” (And in 13.8 he names another man of merit from the state of Wei, someone of princely descent.) Such views about Lu and Wei seem to have been widespread during Confucius’ time. The Zuo Commentary tells us that when a family retainer from Qi considered fleeing to either Lu or Wei during a political crisis in his own state, he made sure that he did not commit anything that could be thought of as a transgression, because, he said, “[If I did,] then I wouldn’t be able to face the gentlemen of Lu and Wei.”

  13.8 The Master said of Prince Jing of Wei, “He showed a sensible attitude toward running a household. When he first began to have some possessions, he said, ‘That is about right.’ When he accumulated some more, he said, ‘That is about perfect.’ When he had a wealth of assets, he said, ‘That is opulent enough.’”

  Confucius preferred frugality in most things, even when it came to the rites. But this does not mean that he was suspicious of wealth and looked down on the wealthy or that he believed it was more virtuous to live the life of a poor man. What he says in 1.15, “poor but joyful, rich but loving the rites,” is a more accurate reflection of what he thought about this question and whom he felt were the virtuous among the poor and the rich. Prince Jing of Wei fit the idea of the virtuous rich, for he had restraint—he understood ritual propriety—even after his wealth had swelled. A remark attributed to Prince Zha of Wu, a man known for his astute judgment of human character, supports Confucius’ appraisal of Prince Jing. Prince Zha called Prince Jing of Wei a “gentleman.”

  13.9 The Master went to the state of Wei. Ran You [Ran Qiu] drove the carriage for him. The Master said, “What a lot of people here!”

  Ran You said, “When you already have a lot of people, what else should you do?’

  “Make them rich.”

  “Once they are rich, what comes next?”

  “Instruct them.”

  Central to the Confucian vision of a good government is one that is able to attract people from far and near. Mencius advised the rulers of his time to stop making war and to start looking after their people’s livelihood when they complained that their populations were declining. But here Confucius simply states what he sees when he arrives at Wei—that there are a lot of people living there. Since that is the case, Ran You asks, what should the government of Wei do for them? Make them rich, Confucius says. And after that? Teach them to live a moral life, Confucius replies. But why must a ruler ensure his people a stable livelihood first before instructing them about ritual propriety? Mencius explains that to fail to act in that order would be a form of entrapment, because the common people, unlike the educated men, “would not be able to have a constant heart if they were without a constant means of support.” “Lacking a constant heart, they will abandon all sense of measure and do as they please, stopping at nothing. And to punish them after they have committed misdeeds is to entrap them.” “Thus,” Mencius says, “a clear-sighted ruler will institute for his people a means of support that will allow them to have enough to care for their parents and to look after their wife and children, and a means of support that will allow them to eat their fill in good years, and to be spared from starvation in bad years. Only then will the ruler guide them toward goodness.” Xunzi addresses the question more tersely. “If you do not make the people rich,” he says, “you will have no means to help them cultivate [an appropriate expression of] their feelings. If you do not instruct them, you will have no means to help them manage their [messy and unruly] inborn nature.”

  13.10 The Master said, “If someone were to employ me [in government], it would take me only a year to bring things to an acceptable condition. After three years, I would have real accomplishments to show.”

  The Han historian Sima Qian thinks that Confucius made this remark after he had reached the state of Wei, and that he uttered it with the hope that the ruler of Wei might offer him a job. And to get a clearer sense of what Confucius meant by “an acceptable condition” (ke) and “real accomplishments” (youcheng), Liu Baonan suggests that we put 13.10 in the context of 13.9. Reading it this way, we can say that “an acceptable condition” refers to a comfortable livelihood for the people, and “real accomplishments” to their moral education.

  13.11 The Master said, “How true is the saying that only after good men [shanren] have been in government for a hundred years is there the possibility of winning the war against cruelty and doing away with capital punishment.”

  About these “good men,” Confucius observes in 11.20 that they may be good, but if they do not follow the cultural vestiges of the past, they will not be able “to reach the inner recesses” of moral knowledge. And because “they have not reached the inner recesses,” the Han scholar Zheng Xuan says, “when they are in government, they are unable to have success in their early tenure.” In fact, Confucius thought that it would take them a hundred years just to manage the problem of cruelty and to do away with the worst form of punishment. But things would be different if a true king were in charge. And this, Zheng points out, is the topic in the next entry.

  13.12 The Master said, “Even if we were to have a true king, it would have to take a whole generation before humaneness could prevail.”

  Most of the discussion in the commentaries is about why it would take even a true king a whole generation, or thirty years, to realize his vision of moral rule and of a moral transformation of his people. The Qing dynasty scholar Bao Shenyan writes, “When hunger and cold both arrive at the same time, even if the the sage ruler Yao or Shun were in command, he still would not be able to stop men from becoming robbers and bandits. When wealth and poverty exist side by side, even if the supreme judge Gao Yao were in charge of the law, he still would not be able to stop the strong from bullying the weak.” Besides, when a true king has just taken the reins, “he must first look after the people’s livelihood, and then proceed to guide them with teachings of rightness and ritual propriety,” Bao Shenyan goes on to say, “and the reason why [Confucius thought] ‘it would have to take a whole generation’ is that the ruler has to gauge the abilities of his people. He must not rush things.”

  13.13 The Master said, “If you know to correct yourself, what difficulty will you have should you decide to serve in government? If you do not know to correct yourself, how can you hope to correct
others?”

  This is similar to what Confucius says in 12.17 and 13.6. One could refer to those entries and their commentaries.

  13.14 Master Ran [Ran Qiu] returned from court. The Master said, “Why so late?”

  Ran Qiu replied, “There were government matters [zheng] [to discuss].”

  The Master said, “They must have been the private business [shi] [of the Jisun family]. If they were government matters, though I am no longer employed, I would have heard about them.”

  From the history in the Zuo Commentary, we know that Ran Qiu was the chief retainer in the Jisun family even before Confucius came home. We know also that Confucius did not have a position in government after his return—he was a retired statesman, the “elder statesman.” From the Analects, we learn that Ran Qiu’s unwillingness to confront the Jisuns about their transgressions had enraged Confucius on several occasions. This is the probable background of the conversation here, an assumption the Han scholar Zheng Xuan made when he decided to focus his reading on two words: zheng () and shi (). “Zheng are the ruler’s instructions [for his people],” he says, “and shi are [the private] instructions of a counselor.” And when the record says “Master Ran returned from court,” the word “court” (chao), Zheng Xuan explains, refers to “the private court of the Jisun family.” Most of the scholars since Zheng Xuan agree with his reading, and therefore much of the discussion in their commentaries is about the term “private court” (sichao): whether such a thing existed and, if so, where it took place—on the grounds of the hereditary families, or somewhere else. Several early records say that sichao could refer to the offices next to the ruler’s official court. A late Warring States source, the Kaogongji (Records for Examining the Artisans), for instance, informs us that on both sides of the building where the ruler held court there were “nine offices where the nine counselors held their private court.” The other question scholars ask is whether Ran Qiu, a family retainer, could have gained entrance to the ruler’s court. Here the Zuo Commentary says that when Ran Qiu accompanied his employer to an audience with the ruler in the spring of 484, he actually had to wait for the latter somewhere else on the ruler’s estate. This meant that Ran Qiu, being in the private service of the Jisuns, was not allowed to be present at the ruler’s court and so could not have been in any of the discussions regarding state affairs. This gives support to Confucius’ reproof of Ran Qiu for being evasive, if not dishonest, about where he had been and the talks he had been privy to.

  13.15 Duke Ding asked, “Is there a saying that can bring prosperity to a state?”

  Confucius replied, “No saying can do that, but there is something that comes close to it. People have a saying, ‘It’s difficult to be a ruler, and it’s not easy to be ministers and officials.’ But if the ruler knows that it is difficult being a ruler, would it not come close to having a saying that can bring prosperity to a state?”

  Duke Ding asked, “Is there a saying that can bring a state to its demise?”

  Confucius replied, “No saying can do that, but there is something that comes close to it. People have a saying, ‘I get no pleasure from being a ruler except for the fact that no one goes against my words.’ If what the ruler says is good and no one goes against him, is this not good? But if what the ruler says is not good and no one goes against him, would it not come close to having a saying that can bring a state to its demise?”

  Liu Baonan mentions several early sources that he thinks might throw light on this conversation between Confucius and Duke Ding, the ruler who was partly responsible for forcing Confucius out of Lu in 497 BC. The first one is Ode 236 from the Book of Poetry. This poem is about King Wen after he received Heaven’s mandate to “assail the great Shang” and to found a new dynasty. Two lines at the beginning of this poem warn the future king, “It’s hard to trust heaven, / it is not easy being a king.” The sentiments expressed in these words are elaborated elsewhere, in the Duke of Zhou’s speech to the Duke of Shao in the Junshi chapter of the Book of Documents, for instance, where the Duke of Zhou says, “Heaven is not to be trusted. Our course of action is to continue upholding the virtue of our former kings so that Heaven will not abandon the mandate King Wen had received,” and also in a Han dynasty commentary to the Book of Poetry, where there is an account of three counselors urging the new ruler not to be complacent and not to neglect his work because “he should always take his government as his worry and never consider his position as an entitlement to pleasure.”

  The second part of this conversation is about remonstrance—whether the ruler is entitled not to have his words contradicted, and if this is the case, why should he bother to have counselors? Liu Baonan uses several examples to illustrate Confucius’ point of view, and the finest, I feel, comes from the Sayings of the State (Guoyu). In this scene, a minister says to a ruler who has turned a deaf ear to any sensible advice: “In the past, our former kings had counselors to help them put an end to mistrust and misconduct, and to avert any serious crisis. But now you have abandoned the old [and wise in your government] and have decided to do your scheming with children. And you say, ‘No one is to go against my command.’ But [the decree] ‘not to go against you’ is in itself a transgression. And [to expect your counselors] not to go against you is to descend the steps to destruction.”

  13.16 The Governor of She asked Confucius about the way of government. The Master replied, “See to it that those who are near are pleased, and those who are far away are drawn to it.”

  I would put Confucius’ remark in the context of the history of She around the time of his visit—a subject I have discussed in The Authentic Confucius. In that work, I wrote:

  The district of She had originally been a part of Cai. In 493, the ruler of Cai decided to move his capital east to be nearer to [the state of Wu], which was his ally at the time. The area around She, was, therefore, left to its own devices. Two years later, the government of Chu took control of She, and its representatives encouraged the people of Cai, who had decided not to move east with their ruler, to come and settle in She and to recognize Chu as their new overlord. When Confucius arrived in She, the governor had just been assigned there, his subjects were essentially a foreign people, and he was a long way from his own political base in Chu.

  Given these circumstances, it made sense for Confucius to tell the governor to make sure that people who were already under his jurisdiction were pleased with his policies and that people who were far away wanted to come to live in She. The governor remained in his position for twelve years, according to the records in the Zuo Commentary. He returned to the capital of Chu in 479 to help deal with a crisis at the Chu court but returned to She as soon as it was resolved. He spent the remaining part of his life in She.

  13.17 When Zixia was appointed the steward of Jufu, he asked about the way of government. The Master said, “Don’t try to rush things. Don’t look to small gains. If you rush things, you won’t reach your goal. If you look to small gains, you won’t be able to accomplish the important tasks.”

  Xunzi, in his essay “On Attracting Men of Administrative Talents” (Zhishi), says that it would take at least three years for the ruler to put his government in order: one year to establish his character as someone who is flexible, magnanimous, and respectful; another year to find the right balance in his attempt to weigh all matters concerning his people and the state; and a third year to implement a fair system of rewards and punishments. “Do not reverse the order of beginning and end,” Xunzi warns the ruler; if you think you can hurry things by establishing a system of rewards and punishments first, “you will have trouble enforcing your policies, and the ruler and the ruled will resent each other.” Even though the plan Xunzi lays out here (for those who have just taken charge of administering a state or a district) varies slightly from what Confucius says in 13.10, both stress that to ensure success in governance, the ruler and his stewards need to take the long view and cultivate trust first: quick solutions, such as threats of punishme
nt, will not have any moral effect on the people, and, in fact, they will often breed hostility and set the stage for insurrection.

  Mr. Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals gives a wonderful example of the folly of thinking small and worrying about petty advantages. The army of Chu had suffered a major defeat but had to face the enemy once more in a final test. Their commander asked the ruler to hand out some gold from his treasury chest to the remaining troops to boost their morale. The ruler refused, his army lost, and the enemy stormed into the capital and rifled all his gold. This goes to show, the text says, “If you cannot give up small gains, you will not have any big gains.”

  13.18 The Governor of She said to Confucius, “Right here, in our place, there is a man called Upright Gong. When his father stole a sheep, he bore witness against him.”

  Confucius responded, “Where I came from, those who are considered upright are different from this man. Fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. Being upright lies therein.”

  Upright Gong, the son of a common thief, has been a problem for the Chinese for at least twenty-five hundred years. It is a most satisfying sort of problem, however, because this man’s conduct fueled a debate about family and state, and it raised a most relevant question about the two contending institutions: Which should have our loyalty if we were forced to choose between them? And Confucius’ response to the Governor of She drew even more attention from moral philosophers and legal historians in the centuries that followed. The Song dynasty thinkers (whose reading is reflected in most of the English translations) understand Confucius to say that fathers and sons should cover up for each other and that uprightness is found in such behavior. The Qing scholar Cheng Yaotian has a different point of view. This scholar is deeply suspicious of men like Upright Gong, who seemed to have acted solely for the public good. In an essay called “Talking about the Public Spirit,” he writes: