The Analects

by Confucius

  14.15 The Master said, “[As lord protector,] Duke Wen of Jin was politically expedient [jue] but not principled [zheng]. Duke Huan of Qi was principled but not politically expedient.”

  The Zhou dynasty was on the brink of collapse around 771 BC, after an invading army executed her king. The king’s heir and his supporters, however, managed to avoid an endgame when they decided to move the capital from its base in the west to a city in the east. Still, the dynasty never fully recovered from this blow, and from the start of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, it was evident that the Zhou kings had neither the will nor the power to handle threats of foreign invasion and conflicts among their own kind. This gave rise to a series of lord protectors (ba) in the next century. There were five altogether. Duke Huan of Qi was the first of the five, and Duke Wen of Jin was the second. All five lord protectors were regional rulers, and they all had to earn the title of ba through military prowess and the force of their character. Duke Huan held on to the title for forty-two years, from 685 to 643, and Duke Jin for eight years, from 636 until his death in 628. Here Confucius gives his assessment of the two men. He says that Duke Jin was jue but not zheng, and Duke Huan was zheng but not jue. Nearly all the scholars agree on the meaning of zheng as “morally correct” “or principled,” but jue has proved to be a tougher but also more interesting question. The Han scholar Zheng Xuan said that jue meant “deceitful” or “duplicitous” (zha), and most commentators and translators followed him. But a handful of scholars had doubts. And so they attempted an exhaustive search for the meaning of jue in the early sources, gathering numerous examples of how the word was used in different contexts, and concluded that it conveyed the more neutral meaning of “expediency.” They argued that expediency, specifically political expediency, did not always lead to duplicity. The Qing scholar Song Xiangfeng says, “When one carries out the principle of expediency properly, then it becomes [a question of] finding a point of balance [quan]. When one does not carry out the principle of expediency properly, it becomes a duplicitous act [zha].” And since Duke Wen always put expediency ahead of principle, it was more likely that he was duplicitous. Thus, Liu Baonan points out, when Confucius said that this man was “politically expedient but not always principled,” he “was commending him for being expedient but was regretting the fact that he could not always be principled.” But putting principle ahead of expediency also has its problems. For one thing, it can make a man inflexible, which is what the records of history showed about Duke Huan of Qi. The Ming dynasty scholar Yang Shen puts it this way: “Duke Wen accomplished more than Duke Huan, but he was also guilty of more wrongdoing. The state of affairs urged Duke Huan to act faster, but his concern for the moral principle of things often did him more harm than good.”

  14.16 Zilu said, “Duke Huan had [his older brother] Prince Jiu killed. Shao Hu died on account of what had happened [to his lord], but Guan Zhong did not.” Then he added, “Did his conduct fall short of being humane?”

  The Master said, “It was due to Guan Zhong’s strength that Duke Huan was able to assemble the regional rulers nine times for their joint meetings without flexing his muscles. Such was his humaneness. Such was his humaneness.”

  Here we learn more about Duke Huan—that he had his older brother killed, which was not exactly what a man of principle would have done. But the point of this discussion is not about him but about his chief counselor, Guan Zhong—whether this man was humane. And to get at this question, one needs to know something about the history of these two men and how they ended up working together. Duke Huan (Prince Xiaobai before he became the ruler of Qi) and Prince Jiu were half brothers and sons of Duke Xi. Their older brother, Duke Xiang, succeeded their father, but his behavior was abominable—he committed incest with his sister and murdered her husband, who also happened to be the ruler of Lu. This man also died violently, at the hands of his own subjects, but before this took place, his two younger brothers managed to find refuge elsewhere, Prince Xiaobai (later Duke Huan) in Ju and Prince Jiu in Lu. And as soon as he died, Prince Xiaobai returned home and declared himself Duke Huan, ruler of Qi, and he sent word to the ruler of Lu, asking him to have his brother Prince Jiu done away with and Prince Jiu’s two attendants, Shao Hu and Guan Zhong, sent back to Qi. Lu had just suffered a defeat by the Qi army at this point, and out of the fear of further retaliation, the men of Lu fulfilled Duke Huan’s wish. Shao Hu committed suicide right after his lord was killed, but Guan Zhong did not. He was escorted back to Qi, where he accepted Duke Huan’s offer of a position as his chief counselor. It was this fact that troubled Zilu, but Confucius gave a different view: It was through Guan Zhong’s skills and vision that Duke Huan was able to call together the regional rulers nine times to have a conference without the use of force, thus ensuring peace in the Zhou empire for many years. Was this not an achievement of the highest order? Such was Guan Zhong’s humaneness, Confucius said; such was his humaneness.

  14.17 Zigong said, “Guan Zhong was not humane. When Duke Huan had Prince Jiu killed, he chose not to die, and instead he decided to serve Duke Huan as his counselor.”

  The Master said, “When Guan Zhong served as the counselor of Duke Huan, he saw to it that Duke Huan would stand as the lord protector among the regional rulers, drawing all the states together under one empire. To this day, people [of all the Chinese states] still benefit from what he accomplished. If not for Guan Zhong, we would be [like the barbarian tribes,] wearing our hair loose and fastening our robes to the left. How could he have acted on the petty loyalty of a common man or a common woman and committed suicide in a ditch without anyone taking notice?”

  The discussion about Guan Zhong continued. Here Zigong voices his objection: Why did Guan Zhong choose to live and then to offer his service to the man who instigated the death of his lord? In response, Confucius again focuses on Guan Zhong’s contributions in the larger scheme of things: that he was the one who helped the Chinese states to define a new kind of leader, a ba, a lord protector. This leader was not perfect—he was not like the former kings and would not have dreamt of usurping the place of the present king—but through the force of his character and strengths that had been tested, he could hold the empire together in times of peace and war. During the forty years when Duke Huan was the lord protector, with Guan Zhong at his side, the non-Chinese states were effectively checked from further expansion, and the Chinese states were able to coexist and to agree in principle, and often in practice, on the guidelines for trade, irrigation, selection of heirs, and family relationships. But did Guan Zhong know, when he accepted the job from Duke Huan, that he was going to help this ruler accomplish great things? Confucius says that Guan Zhong had bigger ambitions than any common man or woman. But did he feel that Guan Zhong had a plan for the prince from the start? A number of the early writers said that Guan Zhong thought only of Qi when he returned home. He wished only to look after the people of Qi and their altars of soil and grain, and in so doing, he reorganized the government’s civil and military structures, introduced social reforms, and bolstered morale. As Qi grew stronger and more confident, it became the state others turned to when they were in a crisis or needed military assistance. And so it was not in Guang Zhong’s original design that he was going to help Duke Huan “draw all the states under one empire.” But it happened, and it is to Confucius’ credit that, in spite of the inimical feelings between Lu and Qi and the objections his disciples raised on moral grounds, he took a nonpartisan position and a position that was difficult to defend when he acknowledged Guan Zhong’s achievement, saying that “to this day, people [of all the Chinese states] still benefit from his accomplishments.”

  14.18 Gongshu Wenzi had his family retainer Zhuan promoted along with him to positions within the court. When he heard about this, the Master said, “He deserved the posthumous name ‘the refined one [wen].’”

  Confucius had never met Gongshu Wenzi, but he was interested in hearing about what he was like from people who had known him. In 14.
13, he asks why Gongshu “did not speak, did not laugh, and did not take anything.” Here, after he has learned that this man was so generous in spirit that he recommended a retainer on his staff for a position in the court of Wei, thus letting the retainer serve side by side with him, Confucius comments that Gongshu Wenzi deserved the posthumous title of “the refined one.”

  14.19 When the Master talked about the moral depravity of Duke Ling of Wei, Ji Kangzi said, “If that was the case, how did this ruler not lose his state?”

  Confucius replied, “It was because he had Zhongshu Yu in charge of foreign guests, Priest Tuo looking after the ancestral temple, and Wangsun Jia responsible for military affairs. When it was like this, how could he have lost his state?”

  I have already made the argument in my commentary on 13.7 that what Confucius expresses here and in 13.8 is optimism for the state of Wei because it had competent counselors. And so even if the rulers were inept and depraved—and Duke Ling was such a ruler—the counselors could hold the state up and keep things running smoothly.

  14.20 The Master said, “If a person speaks immodestly [buzuo], he will have a difficult time carrying out his words in action.”

  The Han scholar Ma Rong offers a different perspective. He thinks that when Confucius spoke about the man whose words were buzuo, he meant to praise him. Ma Rong writes, “A person who had real integrity would be able to speak without shame [buzuo], but then it must have been difficult for him to accumulate the stuff [that made him the genuine article].” Following his reading, one could translate Confucius’ remark in this way: “If a person is able to speak without shame, [he is the genuine article, but] it must have been difficult for him to acquire the integrity [he possesses].”

  14.21 Chen Chengzi killed Duke Jian [of Qi]. Confucius [fasted for three days and] had a ritual bath, and he went to court. He reported to Duke Ai, saying, “Chen Heng [Chen Chengzi] murdered his ruler. I ask that you take punitive action against him.”

  Duke Ai said, “Go and tell the three counselors.”

  Confucius, afterward, said [to someone else], “I take my position after the three counselors [and so should have reported to them], but [since this was a matter of great urgency,] I simply had to speak to my lord [right away]. Yet my lord said to me, ‘Go and tell the three counselors.’”

  He went to see the three counselors, and they did not approve of his proposal. Confucius said, “I take my position after the three counselors [and so should have reported to them], but [since this was a matter of great urgency,] I simply had to speak to my lord [right away].”

  In the spring of 481 BC, Chen Chengzi, the head of a hereditary family in Qi and a counselor to the ruler, in a violent showdown with another counselor at court, managed to have both his rival and his ruler killed. The news of these events must have come as a shock to Confucius because a similar scenario could play out in Lu, and so he took the matter directly to his ruler even though, he said, it was not his place to do this because his position was below the three counselors. Thus he must have been disappointed when, after he had spoken his mind, Duke Ai said to him, “Go and tell the three counselors”—in other words, Go and tell the heads of the Three Families. And, of course, the three families were not interested in what Confucius had proposed. Why should they be if they were pursuing the same ends as their Qi counterparts? The record in the Zuo Commentary offers a similar version with some variants. It says:

  On the sixth day of the sixth month, Chen Heng from the state of Qi slew his ruler Ren. Confucius fasted for three days [before going to see Duke Ai]. Three times he implored the ruler to initiate a punitive action against the state of Qi. Duke Ai said, “Qi has sapped our strength for so long now. If I were to follow your advice and attack them, what do you think might be the outcome?” Confucius replied, “Chen Heng murdered his ruler. At least half of the people from Qi oppose him. Our men plus at least half of theirs can certainly quash their army.” Duke Ai said, “Why don’t you tell the Jisuns what you propose to do?” Confucius declined. After he withdrew, he told others, “I take my position after the three counselors [and so should have reported to them], but [since this was a matter of great urgency,] I simply had to speak to my lord [right away].”

  Duke Ai is evasive in both versions. But even if he had agreed with Confucius that he should send a punitive expedition against Qi, he still could not have carried it out, because the Lu army was under the authority of the Three Families. And Duke Ai’s response to Confucius—“Go and tell the three counselors”—sounds a sad note about the hopelessness of his own situation. But Confucius remained respectful—he gave himself a thorough ritual cleansing before he went to see Duke Ai, the man who remained in his mind the ruler of Lu.

  14.22 Zilu asked about how to serve one’s ruler. The Master said, “Do not deceive him, and only then will you able to confront him directly [and deliver your admonishment].”

  The Han scholar Kong Anguo says, “In serving your ruler, you should never deceive yourself [and him] about what is right. Only then are you able to risk offending his dignity and delivering your admonishment.” My translation follows Kong Anguo’s gloss.

  14.23 The Master said, “The gentleman reaches the higher things. The petty man understands the lower things.”

  One could put Confucius’ comment here together with that in 4.16 and say that the higher things pertain to “what is morally right” and the lower things pertain to “what is profitable.” But another reading is also possible. Confucius in 14.35 describes his spiritual journey as a traveling upward that began with learning at a low level. The term “higher things” in that context refers to the integrity that heaven possesses, which is what a gentleman hopes to achieve, and “lower things” refers either to practical learning or to the skills and education that give him his footing. Thus Confucius could be saying: “The gentleman reaches for higher things. The ordinary man is content with understanding things at a low level.”

  14.24 The Master said, “People of antiquity engaged in learning to cultivate themselves. People today engage in learning with an eye toward others.”

  Xunzi, in his essay “Encouraging Learning,” offers a smart and succinct explanation of what Confucius says here. He writes, “The learning of the gentleman enters his ear and is impressed on his mind; it spreads through his four limbs and is visible whether he is active or still. His smallest word, his slightest movement can serve as a model. The learning of the petty man enters his ear and comes out of his mouth. With only four inches between ear and mouth, how can he have possession of it long enough to refine a seven-foot body? [Confucius put it in this way:] ‘People of antiquity engaged in learning to cultivate themselves. People today engage in learning with an eye toward others.’”

  14.25 Qu Boyu sent a messenger to Confucius. Confucius sat down with him and asked, “What has your master been doing?”

  The messenger replied, “My master wishes to make fewer mistakes but has not been able to do so.”

  After the messenger left, the Master said, “A fine messenger! A fine messenger!”

  Qu Boyu was a highly respected counselor in the state of Wei. The Han historian Sima Qian says that Confucius stayed with Qu when he first arrived in Wei. This is highly unlikely, given the fact that by the time Confucius reached Wei, Qu Boyu was already in his nineties. From the record here, it seems that Confucius would have gotten his news about Qu from a messenger the latter sent. And though this man was only a messenger, Confucius received him as if he were an equal—he “sat down with him.” And the comment at the end is also about the messenger. His honest answer clearly impressed Confucius.

  The philosopher Zhuangzi had his own ideas about Qu Boyu, which were comparable to the messenger’s description of this man, only more radical. He writes, “Qu Boyu has been going along for sixty years and has changed sixty times. There is not a single instance in which what he called right in the beginning he did not in the end reject. So now there is no telling whether what he calls ri
ght at the moment is not in fact what he called wrong during the past fifty-nine years.” One could say that by questioning everything he knew and believed in, Qu Boyu was trying to make few mistakes, but this Qu Boyu has nothing to do with the historical Qu Boyu. Like many characters in the Zhuangzi, he is merely a vehicle for the author.

  14.26 The Master said, “If you don’t have a particular position, then don’t meddle with any of its business.”

  Master Zeng [Zengzi] commented, “The gentleman does not allow his thoughts to go beyond what his position calls for.”

  This is a repeat of 8.14, and so one can refer to the commentary there. Master Zeng is Confucius’ disciple Zeng Can (Zengzi).

  14.27 The Master said, “The gentleman would be ashamed to let his words run ahead of his action.”

  Confucius made this point many times. One can refer to 2.13, 4.22, 4.24, 14.20 and their commentaries.

  14.28 The Master said, “The way of the gentleman consists of three things, none of which I have been able to realize: the humane never suffer from vexation; the wise are never perplexed; the brave are never afraid.”