Many passages in this book discuss the righteousness of certain actions; we see Mengzi trying to explain the mean between sanctimonious purity and moral laxity. This book also contains Mengzi’s most elaborate account of his view of history. Among the most interesting and often-discussed passages in the book are 3B8 and 3B9.
[1.1] Mengzi’s disciple Chen Dai said, “Your not seeing the various lords seems petty. Supposing you were to see one, a great one would thereby become King, and a petty one would thereby become Hegemon. Furthermore, the Record says, ‘Bend the foot to straighten the yard.’ This seems like something you could do.” [Mengzi refused to meet with a ruler who did not approach him in accordance with the rituals appropriate to greeting a learned noble. This frustrated disciples like Chen Dai, who asked Mengzi to compromise his principles in order to get the opportunity to meet and influence rulers who demanded that Mengzi defer to them.]
[1.2] Mengzi said, “Formerly, Duke Jing of Qi was hunting and he summoned a gamekeeper with a plumed staff. The gamekeeper did not come, so the duke was about to have him killed. Kongzi commented, ‘An intent noble does not forget he may end up in a ditch; a courageous noble does not forget he may lose his head.’ What did Kongzi find commendable in the gamekeeper? He found commendable the fact that he did not respond to what was not his summons. What if he [1.3] had come without awaiting any summons?1 Furthermore, ‘Bending the foot to straighten the yard’ is to talk in terms of profit. If we approach it in terms of profit, then can we also bend the yard to straighten the foot for profit? [Zhu Xi comments, “As soon as one has a heart that calculates profit, then even if it is a matter of profiting by bending a lot to reach a little, will one not do it?”]
{77} [1.4] “Formerly, Viscount Jian of Zhao sent Wang Liang to drive the chariot for his favorite, Xi. At the end of the day, they had not caught a single bird. Xi reported back that Wang Liang was the worst at his craft in the world. Someone told this to Wang Liang. Liang asked, ‘May I try again?’ Only after some pressing was he allowed to do so. In one day, they caught ten birds. Xi reported back, ‘He is the best at his craft in the world.’ Viscount Jian said, ‘I will have him take charge of driving for you.’ When he told Wang Liang, Liang disapproved, saying, ‘I drove my horses in the prescribed manner for him, and by the end of the day we did not catch one thing. I violated the rules for him, and in one day we caught ten. The Odes say,
They did not err in racing them
They let loose their arrows on the mark.2
I am not accustomed to driving for a petty person. I ask to decline.’ [Hunting was a pastime but also a ritual activity with rules governing how one should drive the chariot. To violate these rules was comparable to cheating at a sport.]
[1.5] “Even the charioteer was ashamed to collude with the archer. Colluding with him to get game, although it be piled as high as a hill, is something he would not do. So how would it be if I were to bend the Way to follow those others? Besides, you are quite wrong: those who bend themselves have never been able to make others upright.” [Mengzi offers three justifications for his insistence on being treated with respect by rulers. First, it is intrinsically wrong to allow oneself to be treated in a demeaning manner. (This is what Western philosophers would call a “deontological” constraint.) Second, compromising righteousness in the name of profit is intrinsically corrupting of one’s character (cf. Analects 4.16). (Western philosophers would classify this as a “virtue ethics” consideration.) Third, a minister who is not treated with respect will not have the standing to influence his ruler for good anyway. (This is, paradoxically, a “consequentialist” argument against thinking in consequentialist terms, similar to those Mengzi gives in 1A1 and 6B4.)3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with 2B2, 3B7, and especially 5B7.]
{78} [2.1] A certain Jing Chun said, “Were not Gongsun Yan and Zhang Yi, the ministers of Qin, genuinely great men? As soon as they were angry, the various lords were afraid. When they were at peace the world rested.”
[2.2] Mengzi said, “How does this make them great men? Have you not studied ritual? Just as a father instructs a man when he comes of age, so does a mother instruct a daughter when she gets married. Sending her off at the threshold, she warns her, ‘When you join your new family, you must be respectful and circumspect. Do not disobey your husband.’ Making obedience one’s standard is merely the Way of a wife or concubine. [Zhu Xi comments, “This means that the two men mentioned earlier were flatterers who covertly assumed power. This is the submissive Way of concubines and wives. It is not the action of a man.”]
[2.3] “In contrast, to dwell in the broadest place on earth; to stand in one’s proper place in the world; to put into effect the great Way of the world; to follow it with the people when one obtains one’s goal; to practice the Way by oneself when one does not obtain one’s goal; wealth and prestige are incapable of seducing him; poverty and low status are incapable of moving him; awe and military might cannot bend him—it is this that is called being a great man.” [The sexist assumptions of this passage are evident and should not be ignored: submissiveness is assumed to be fitting for a woman but inappropriate for a man. But while acknowledging the sexism of Mengzi’s rhetoric, we should not lose sight of the ethical point that he aims to make: genuinely great people do not stoop to gaining power by submissive flattery. Rather, they maintain their integrity even if it costs them office and political influence.]
[3.1] Zhou Xiao, a man from Liang, asked, “Did ancient gentlemen take office?”
Mengzi replied, “They did. The Commentary says, ‘When Kongzi had no ruler to serve for three months he became wistful. Leaving a state, he would always carry with him a gift for introductions to prospective rulers. Gongming Yi said, ‘If the ancients went three months without a ruler to serve, they mourned.’ ”4
[3.2] Zhong Xiao said, “Isn’t it overly anxious to mourn after only three months without serving a ruler?”
[3.3] Mengzi said, “For a noble to lose his position is like one of the various lords losing his state. The Rites says, ‘The various lords assist in plowing to supply the grain for the rituals. Their wives cultivate the silk {79} to make the garments for the rituals.’ If the sacrificial animals are not ready, if the grain is not clean, if the garments are not prepared, they dare not sacrifice. Similarly, ‘If a noble lacks a field, he does not sacrifice. If the sacrificial animals, utensils, and garments are not ready so that he does not dare to sacrifice, then neither does he dare to feel at ease.’ Is this not sufficient to mourn?” [When employed, a noble is given a “pure field” for sacrificial purposes as part of his salary (3A3.16). So when he is out of office, he cannot perform the required ritual sacrifices to his ancestors.]
[3.4] Zhong Xiao said, “Why is it that Kongzi would always carry a gift for introductions when he left a state?”
[3.5] Mengzi said, “A noble being in office is like a farmer plowing. How could a farmer leave a state and leave behind his plow?”
Zhong Xiao said, “Liang is a state where one could serve. I had never heard of such anxiousness to take office. But if that is so, what difficulty will a gentleman have in taking office?”
Mengzi said, “When a man is born, his parents hope he will find a wife; when a woman is born, her parents hope she will find a husband. All parents feel like this. But those who do not wait for the command of their parents or the words of a matchmaker and instead bore holes through walls to peep at one another and jump over fences to run off together are despised by parents and everyone else in their state. The ancients always desired to take office. But they also disdained failing to follow the Way. To advance through not following the Way is in the same category as boring peepholes.” [Zhu Xi comments, “It is not that parents do not wish for their children to get married, but they disdain their not doing it in accordance with the Way. Likewise, a gentleman will not sully himself with improper relationships, but he also will not forget about righteousness through chasing after profit.” (Cf. 7B31.)]
[4.1] Mengzi’s disciple Peng Geng asked, “To have dozens of carts behind us, several hundred attendants, and be provided with provisions on our stops by the various lords—is this not excessive?”
Mengzi said, “If it is contrary to the Way, one may not accept even a single bowl of food. If it is in accordance with the Way, then Shun accepting the world from Yao cannot be considered excessive.”
[4.2] Peng Geng said, “That’s not what I mean. What is unacceptable is a noble eating food provided by others without performing a service.”
[4.3] Mengzi said, “If you do not exchange goods for raw materials so as to make up for what people lack with what people have a surplus of, {80} then the farmer will have an excess of grain, and the women will have an excess of cloth. If you do exchange them, then the wheelwright and carpenter will all get food from you. So suppose there is a person who is ‘filial when at home and respectful of his elders when in public,’ and maintains the Way of the Former Kings, to await the instruction of those who come later.5 Yet he does not receive food from you. How is it that you respect carpenters and wheelwrights, yet regard lightly those who practice benevolence and righteousness?”
[4.4] Peng Geng said, “The intention of carpenters and wheelwrights is to get food. Is the intention of the gentleman in practicing the Way also to get food?”
Mengzi said, “Why bring up their intentions? If they benefit you, and you can feed them, then you do. Furthermore, do you feed them for their intentions or for their benefits?”
Peng Geng, “One feeds them for their intentions.”
[4.5] Mengzi said, “Suppose there is a worker who breaks your roofing tiles or tears your tapestries, but his intention was to obtain food. Will you feed him?”
Peng Geng said, “No.”
Mengzi said, “In that case, you do not feed them for their intentions, you feed them for the benefits they give.”
[5.1] Mengzi’s disciple Wan Zhang asked, “Song is a small state. Suppose it were to put into effect Kingly government, and Qi and Chu were to attack it. How should it deal with this?” [Zhu Xi comments, “Desiring to become Hegemon of the world, the king of Song tried to destroy Teng, invade Xue, and defeat the soldiers of Qi, Chu, and Wei. I suspect that this passage is from this period.”]
[5.2] Mengzi said, “Before he founded the Shang dynasty, Tang dwelled in Bo, and his neighbors were the Ge. The Count of Ge was heedless and did not perform the ritual sacrifices to his ancestors, so Tang sent people to inquire, ‘Why do you not perform the ritual sacrifices?’ He replied, ‘We cannot supply the sacrificial animals.’ Tang sent him oxen and sheep. The Count of Ge ate them but still did not sacrifice. Tang again sent people to inquire, ‘Why do you not perform the ritual sacrifices?’ He replied, ‘We cannot supply the sacrificial millet.’ Tang ordered the people of Bo to go and farm for him, while the young and weak offered the sacrificial food. The Count of Ge led his people to seize those who had {81} food, ale, and millet and take them from them. Those who refused he killed. Among them were children with offerings of millet and meat whom he killed and stole from. The Documents is referring to this when it says, ‘The Count of Ge took vengeance on those with offerings.’6 [5.3] When Tang attacked him for killing the children, all within the Four Seas said, ‘This was not because he wanted the wealth of the world. This [5.4] was to avenge the common people.’ When Tang began his invasions, he started with Ge, and after eleven invasions he had no enemies left in the world. When he invaded in the east, the uncivilized people of the west complained; when he invaded in the south, the uncivilized people of the north complained. They said, ‘Why does he leave us for last?’The people looked for him like people looking for rain in a great drought. The traders in the cities did not stop, and the farmers did not cease. He punished their rulers but consoled the people. He came like timely rain. The people were very pleased.
“Likewise, the Documents say of King Wu,
‘We await our lord. When our lord comes, there will be no cruel [5.5] punishments.’ There were some who did not submit. So he invaded toward the east. He brought peace to their men and women. They presented him with silks of black and yellow, saying, ‘We shall serve our Zhou King and accept his protection, submitting to the great city of Zhou.’7
The gentlemen presented black and yellow silks in order to welcome the gentlemen of Zhou. The commoners presented food and broth in order to welcome their commoners. They had rescued their people from the midst of water and fire and executed the one who was cruel to them. [Zhu Xi suggests that the phrase “’There were some who did not submit’ refers to those who assisted Tyrant Zhou in wrongdoing and [5.6] therefore did not submit to the Zhou” (cf. 3B9.6).] The ‘Great Announcement’ says, ‘I, King Wu, have raised my military might and shall enter his borders, to execute the cruel one, so that my achievement in punishment shall be more glorious than that of King Tang.’8
{82} [5.7] “So the ruler of Song has not been putting into effect benevolent government. If he would merely put into effect benevolent government, everyone within the Four Seas would lift their heads and watch for him hopefully, desiring for him to become their ruler. Although Qi and Chu are large, what would be intimidating about them?” [Song was later destroyed by Qi and its king was killed. Recent history has demonstrated the wisdom of Mengzi’s general doctrine: the use of military force in other states will be effective only if the people of those states uniformly regard the army as liberators rather than invaders.]
[6.1] Mengzi was speaking to Dai Busheng, a minister in Song, and said, “Do you wish for your king to become good? Let me explain how. Suppose there were a Chief Counselor of Chu who wished for his son to learn to speak the dialect of Qi. Would he direct people from Qi to teach him, or would he direct people from Chu to teach him?”
Dai Busheng said, “He would direct people from Qi to teach him.”
Mengzi said, “If one person from Qi teaches him, but a multitude of people from Chu distract him, even if he strives every day to understand the Qi dialect, he cannot succeed. But if you pick him up and plant him in the midst of a neighborhood in Qi, after a few years, even if he strives every day to understand the Chu dialect, he cannot succeed.
[6.2] “Now, you say that your fellow minister Xue Juzhou is a good noble. Suppose you direct him to live in the king’s residence. If those in the king’s residence, old and young, common and distinguished, are all like Xue Juzhou, with whom will the king do what is not good? If those in the king’s residence, old and young, common and distinguished, all oppose Xue Juzhou, with whom will the king do what is good? What can one Xue Juzhou alone do with the king of Song?” [Zhu Xi comments, “This means that when petty people are numerous, a gentleman lacks the wherewithal, by himself, to succeed in the task of correcting a ruler.”(Cf. 6A9.)]
[7.1] Mengzi’s disciple Gongsun Chou asked, “How is it righteous for you to not meet with the various lords?”
Mengzi said, “The ancients, if they were not ministers, would not [7.2] meet with the rulers. When they were not ministers, Duangan Mu jumped over a wall to avoid Marquis Wen of Wei, and Xie Liu barred his door and would not let Duke Mu of Lu in. These two had to be [7.3] pressed very hard before the rulers could meet them. Yang Huo, who was Counselor in Lu, wanted to invite Kongzi to have an audience with {83} him, but he disliked seeming to violate ritual. Now, when a Counselor presented a gift to a noble, if the noble was unable to accept it at his own home, then he had to go and pay his respects at the Counselor’s door. So Yang Huo checked to see when Kongzi was not home and sent him a gift of a cooked pig. But Kongzi also checked to see when Yang Huo was not home and only then went to pay his respects. At that time, if Yang Huo had ritually deferred to Kongzi first, how could he have failed to meet with him? [As Zhu Xi suggests, Yang Huo is not really concerned with ritual itself, but only with whether others think he has violated ritual. So rather than defer to Kongzi’s Virtue, he manipulates the rituals to try to force Kongzi to come see him first. (On Yang Huo, see 3A3.5; Analects 17.1.)]
[7.4] “Kongzi’s disciple Zengzi said, ‘Those with cringing postures and flattering smiles work harder than those who till the fields in summer.’ Kongzi’s disciple Zilu said, ‘When I see people who talk with someone, pretending they are on his side, with their faces red with humiliation—I simply don’t understand them!’ If we look at this, we can understand what a gentleman cultivates.”9
[8.1] Dai Yingzhi, a Counselor of Song, said, “To tax at the rate of one-tenth and abolish the customs and market taxes is something I currently cannot do. May I lessen them and wait until next year to stop the current practice? How would that be?” [Taxing at one-tenth is the well-field system (3A3.6).]
[8.2] Mengzi said, “Suppose there is a person who every day appropriates one of his neighbor’s chickens. Someone tells him, ‘This is not the Way of a gentleman.’ He says, ‘May I reduce it to appropriating one chicken every month and wait until next year to stop?’ If one knows that it is [8.3] not righteous, then one should quickly stop. Why wait until next year?” [Here, Mengzi tells us that we must simply start doing (or not doing) certain things right away. But in 2A2.16 he warns us not to force ourselves to do what we are not yet ready to do.]
[9.1] Mengzi’s disciple Gongduzi said, “Outsiders all describe you as ‘fond of disputation,’ Master. May I ask why?”
[9.2] Mengzi said, “How could I be fond of disputation? I simply cannot do otherwise. People have long lived in the world, sometimes with [9.3] order, sometimes in chaos. During the time of Yao, the waters overflowed {84} and flooded the Central States. Snakes and dragons dwelled there. The people had nowhere to settle. On lower ground, they made nests in the trees; on higher ground, they made dwellings in caves. The Documents say, ‘The overflowing waters warned us.’10 The ‘overflowing waters’ were the [9.4] flooding waters. Yu was directed to bring order to it. He dredged the earth from the rivers and guided the water to the sea. He drove the snakes and dragons away and banished them to the marshes. The water flowed between the channels, making the Yangtze, Huai, Yellow, and Han rivers. When the flooding had receded, and attacks by animals had been eliminated, only then did the people live on the plains.11 But after Yao and [9.5] Shun passed away, the Way of the sages decayed. Cruel rulers arose one after another, destroying homes to make ponds, so that the people had nowhere they could rest. They made people abandon the fields so that they could be made into parks, so that the people could not get clothes and food. Evil doctrines and cruel practices also arose. As parks, ponds, marshes, and swamps became more numerous, the animals returned. By the time of Tyrant Zhou, the world was again in complete chaos.
[9.6] “Then the Duke of Zhou assisted King Wu in punishing Tyrant Zhou. They also attacked the state of Yan, which had supported Tyrant Zhou, and after three years executed its ruler; they drove Tyrant Zhou’s minister Feilian to a corner by the sea and executed him; they eliminated fifty states that had supported Tyrant Zhou; they drove tigers, leopards, rhinoceroses, and elephants far off, and the whole world rejoiced. The Documents say, ‘Greatly enlightened indeed were the plans of King Wen! A great inheritance indeed was the glory of King Wu! They assist and instruct us descendants. In all things they are correct, and have no defect.’12
[9.7] “But eventually decadent successors, the weakening of the Way, evil doctrines, and cruel actions again arose. Ministers murdered their rulers. [9.8] Sons murdered their fathers. Kongzi was afraid and composed the Spring and Autumn Annals. Composing a work like the Spring and Autumn Annals is the activity of the Son of Heaven. Hence, Kongzi said, ‘Those who appreciate me, will it not be because of the Spring and Autumn Annals? Those who blame me, will it not be because of the Spring and {85} Autumn Annals?’ [The Spring and Autumn Annals is a history that passes ethical judgments on the rulers, ministers, and other figures of 722–481 B.C.E. Writing history is the prerogative of the Son of Heaven, so Kongzi worried that he would be thought presumptuous for doing it. However, Kongzi felt that he had to speak out against wrongdoing. Mengzi is drawing an implicit comparison between Kongzi’s actions in composing the Spring and Autumn Annals and his own practice of “disputation.” (The contemporary version of the Spring and Autumn Annals is a cryptically terse historical chronicle, seemingly lacking in moral content, so it is possible that it is not the same as the work Mengzi attributes to Kongzi. However, there is a long tradition that Kongzi encoded his ethical judgments in this work by subtle choice of wording.)]
[9.9] “Since then, a sage-king has not arisen; the various lords are dissipated; pundits engage in contrary wrangling; the doctrines of Yang Zhu and Mozi fill the world. If a doctrine does not lean toward Yang Zhu, then it leans toward Mozi. Yang Zhu is ‘for oneself.’ This is to not have a ruler. Mozi is ‘impartial caring.’ This is to not have a father. To not have a father and to not have a ruler is to be an animal. Gongming Yi said, ‘In your kitchens there is fat meat, and in your stables there are fat horses. Your people look gaunt, and in the wilds are the bodies of those dead of starvation. This is to lead animals to devour people.’
“If the Ways of Yang Zhu and Mozi do not cease, and the Way of Kongzi is not made evident, then evil doctrines will dupe the people and obstruct benevolence and righteousness. If benevolence and righteousness are obstructed, that leads animals to devour people, and then people will begin to devour one another. [Yang Zhu and Mozi represent two extreme positions that Mengzi rejects. Yang Zhu held that benevolence and righteousness are unnatural, the products of artificial social conditioning. A human who follows his nature will act only in his own self-interest. Thus, in modern terms, Yang Zhu may be classified as an “ethical egoist.” Mozi was at the opposite extreme, advocating impartial concern for everyone. He thus rejected “differentiated love,” as well as the ritual practices that Confucians saw as cultivating virtue. (For more on Yang Zhu, see 2A6; on Mozi, see 3A5; on both, see 7A26, 7B26, and the Introduction, “Mengzi’s Philosophy.” Gongming Yi was a disciple of Kongzi’s disciple, who is also cited in 3A1, 3B3, and 4B24. His [9.10] saying is explained in 1A4.4.)] Because I fear this, I preserve the Way of the former sages, fend off Yang Zhu and Mozi, and get rid of specious words, so that evil doctrines will be unable to arise. If they arise in one’s heart, they are harmful in one’s activities. If they arise in one’s {86} activities, they are harmful in governing. When sages arise again, they will certainly not differ with what I have said. [Cheng Yi suggests that Yang Zhu’s doctrine primarily calls into question righteousness, while Mozi’s Way raises doubts about benevolence. (I would have said that it was the other way around.) Cheng Yi adds that the Buddhist teachings of his own era are not as mistaken as those of Yang Zhu and Mozi, but paradoxically this makes them even more dangerous, since they may mislead those close to understanding “the Pattern.”]
[9.11] “Formerly, Yu suppressed the flood, and the world was settled. The Duke of Zhou incorporated the uncivilized peoples, drove away ferocious animals, and the common people were at peace. Kongzi completed the Spring and Autumn Annals, and disorderly ministers and brutal [9.12] sons were afraid. The Odes say,
The uncivilized west and north, he chastised.
Chu and nearby Shu, he punished.
Thus no one dared to take us on.13
Those who acted as if they have no father and no ruler were those [9.13] whom the Duke of Zhou chastised. I, too, desire to rectify people’s hearts, to bring to an end evil doctrines, to fend off bad conduct, to get rid of specious words, so as to carry on the work of these three sages. How could I be fond of disputation? I simply cannot do otherwise. [9.14] Anyone who can with words fend off Yang Zhu and Mozi is a disciple of the sages.” [Zhu Xi comments, “If one merely has the ability to oppose the teachings of Yang Zhu and Mozi, then one is headed in the correct direction. Although one may not necessarily understand the Way yet, one is still a disciple of the sages.”
As a whole, this chapter gives us a synopsis of Mengzi’s view of history and his role in it.]
[10.1] Kuang Zhang, a man from Qi, said, “Chen Zhongzi is genuinely a pure noble, isn’t he? While living in Wuling, in order to avoid eating anything obtained illicitly, he did not eat for three days, until his ears did not hear, and his eyes did not see. Above a well there was a plum tree whose fruit had been half-eaten by worms. Crawling, he went over to eat from it, and only after three bites could his ears hear and his eyes see.”
[10.2] Mengzi said, “Among the nobles of the state of Qi, Zhongzi is outstanding—like a thumb among fingers! Nonetheless, how could Zhongzi {87} be pure? To fill out what Zhongzi is trying to maintain, one would have [10.3] to be an earthworm. Now, an earthworm eats only dry earth above and drinks only muddy water below. But was the house in which Zhongzi lives built by the sage Bo Yi, or was it in fact built by Robber Zhi? Was the millet that he eats planted by the sage Bo Yi, or was it in fact planted by Robber Zhi? This cannot be known.” [Zhu Xi explains, “An earthworm is self-sufficient and does not seek anything from people. But Zhongzi cannot evade living in a house and eating grain. But as for where those came from, perhaps it was something that was not righteous. In this case, he is incapable of being as pure as an earthworm.” (On Bo Yi, see 5B1. On the notorious Robber Zhi, see 7A25.)]
[10.4] Kuang Zhang said, “Why is that a problem? His wife spins hemp that he himself weaves into sandals, which he then exchanges for these other things.”
[10.5] Mengzi said, “Zhongzi comes from an influential family of Qi. His elder brother Dai received a salary of ten thousand bushels of grain from estates at Ge. He regarded his brother’s salary as an unrighteous salary and would not live off of it. He regarded his brother’s dwelling as an unrighteous dwelling and would not live in it. He shunned his elder brother, distancing himself from his mother, and lived in Wuling. On a later day, he visited home, and someone had given a live goose to his elder brother as a gift. He furrowed his brow and said, ‘What will you use this cackling thing for?!’After that, his mother killed the goose and gave it to him to eat. His elder brother came home and said, ‘This is the [10.6] meat of that cackling thing.’ Zhongzi went out and threw it up. If it comes from his mother, he doesn’t eat it, but if it comes from his wife, then he eats it. If it’s his elder brother’s dwelling, then he won’t live in it; if it’s in Wuling, then he lives in it. Is this really being able to fill out the category? To fill out what Zhongzi is trying to maintain, one would have to be an earthworm.” [Zhongzi prides himself on his “purity,” because he supposedly avoids benefiting from any ill-gotten gains. However, it is impossible to consistently follow this standard while living in human society, because one cannot verify the righteousness of everything one accepts. Fan Zuyu suggested that Zhongzi is also unfilial, because he shunned his elder brother and mother. (On Zhongzi, see also 7A34.)]
_____________________________
1 See the commentary on 5B7.5–6.
2 Mao no. 179.
3 On the distinctions between deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism, see Van Norden, Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism in Early Chinese Philosophy, 29–37.
4 Gongming Yi was a disciple of Kongzi’s disciple who is also cited in 3A1, 3B9, and 4B24.
5 Analects 1.6.
6 “The Announcement of Zhong Hui,” from the Documents of Shang in the Documents (Legge, The Shoo King, vol. 3 of The Chinese Classics, 180).
7 Cf. “Completion of the War,” from the Documents of Zhou in the Documents (Legge, The Shoo King, vol. 3 of The Chinese Classics, 313–14).
8 “The Great Announcement,” Part 2, from the Documents of Zhou in the Documents (Legge, The Shoo King, vol. 3 of The Chinese Classics, 293).
9 See also 3B1 and 5B7 on the issues raised in this chapter.
10 “The Plan of Great Yu,” from the Documents of Tang in the Documents (Legge, The Shoo King, vol. 3 of The Chinese Classics, 60).
11 Cf. 3A4.7–8.
12 “Jun Ya,” from the Documents of Zhou in the Documents (Legge, The Shoo King, vol. 3 of The Chinese Classics, 581).
13 Mao no. 300.