Most of this book deals with the ethical dilemmas faced by nobles in dealing with rulers who may be corrupt. Among the most interesting and often-discussed passages in this book are 5B1, 5B7, 5B8, and 5B9.
[1.1] Mengzi said, “Bo Yi’s eyes would not look upon evil sights, and his ears would not listen to evil sounds. He would not serve someone who was not his ruler; he would not command those who were not his people. When it was well governed, he would take office. When it was chaotic, he would leave office. He could not bear to dwell in situations produced by unruly governments, or where unruly people lived. He regarded being with some rustic like wearing his court cap and gown and sitting down in filth. At the time of Tyrant Zhou, he dwelled on the shores of the Northern Sea, waiting for the world to become pure again. Hence, when they hear of the style of Bo Yi, the unperceptive develop discretion, and the weak develop resolution. [Bo Yi’s father was the ruler of a state near the end of the Shang dynasty. When his father died, Bo Yi abdicated in favor of his brother, because he believed this was his father’s wish. Bo Yi admired King Wen, but when King Wu attacked Tyrant Zhou, he refused to accept any salary from the Zhou dynasty, because Tyrant Zhou, while a vicious king, had been his ruler. Bo Yi thus died in poverty of starvation.]
[1.2] “Yi Yin said, ‘Whom do I serve who is not my ruler? Whom do I command who are not my people?’ He would take office when it was well governed, and he would take office when it was chaotic. He said, ‘Heaven, in producing the people, directs those who first come to understanding to awaken those who will later come to understanding, and directs those who first become aware to awaken those who will later become aware. I am one of Heaven’s people who has awakened first. I shall awaken the people with the Way.’ He cared for the people of the world, the common men and women, such that if there were those who did not receive the kindness of Yao and Shun, it was as if he himself {132} had pushed them into a ditch. Such was the weight of the personal responsibility he took for the world. [Yi Yin lived at the end of the Xia dynasty. Tang, future founder of the Shang dynasty, gave him a position and sent him to serve Tyrant Jie. But Jie had no use for a virtuous minister, so Yi Yin returned to Tang. This happened five more times, and then Yi Yin became Tang’s Prime Minister and helped him to overthrow Jie. For more on Yi Yin, see 5A6.5, 5A7, and 7A31.]
[1.3] “Liuxia Hui was not ashamed of a corrupt lord and did not consider unworthy a petty office. In taking office, he did not conceal what was worthy and would necessarily act in accordance with the Way. When he was discharged, he was not bitter. In difficult and impoverished circumstances, he was not anxious. If he was in the company of some rustic, he was content and unwilling to leave. He said, ‘You are you, and I am I. Even if you are stark naked beside me, how can you defile me?’ Hence, when they hear of the style of Liuxia Hui, the narrow become tolerant, and the stingy become generous. [Liuxia Hui was an official in the corrupt government of Kongzi’s home state of Lu. Kongzi said, “Although he lowered his aspirations and brought disgrace upon his person, at least his speech was in accord with his status and his actions were in accord with his thoughts” (Analects 18.8; cf. 15.14 and 18.2).]
[1.4] “When Kongzi left the state of Qi, he just scooped up the rice he was about to cook and went. When he left the state of Lu, he said, ‘I’m in no hurry.’ This is the Way to leave the state of one’s parents. When one should go quickly, he went quickly; when one should delay, he delayed; when one should stay, he stayed; when one should remain, he remained; when one should take office, he took office—such was Kongzi.
[1.5] “Bo Yi was a sage of purity; Yi Yin was a sage of responsibility; Liuxia Hui was a sage of harmony; Kongzi was a sage of timeliness. [Mengzi frequently cites Bo Yi, Yi Yin, and Liuxia Hui as examples of three individuals who each attained one aspect of sagehood but failed to achieve the complete sageliness of Kongzi. (For more on Bo Yi and Yi Yin, see 2A2.22; on Bo Yi and Liuxia Hui, see 2A9 and 7B15; on all three, see [1.6] 6B6.)] Kongzi is what is called a complete symphony. In a complete symphony, the bells announce the beginning, and then the jade chimes bring it to a close. The bells sounding is to begin the harmonious patterns. The jade chimes being struck is to close the harmonious patterns. To begin the harmonious patterns is the task of wisdom. To end the harmonious patterns is the task of sagacity. [Zhu Xi comments, “Wisdom is the goal of understanding, and sagacity is the goal of Virtue. When one plays a single instrument, it is a small performance with its own {133} beginning and end; so is the understanding of the other three masters partial, and their goal is also partial. Likewise, just as the small performances are harmonized into one great symphony, so does Kongzi’s understanding extend everywhere and his Virtue lacks nothing.”]
[1.7] “Wisdom may be compared to skillfulness. Sagacity may be compared to strength. It is like shooting an arrow from beyond a hundred paces: its making it there is due to your strength, but its hitting the bull’s-eye is not due to your strength.” [Zhu Xi comments, “One sees that Kongzi’s skillfulness and strength are both complete, and his sagacity and wisdom are complete. The other three masters have more than enough strength, but their skillfulness was insufficient to match Kongzi. Therefore, although they achieved sagehood in one respect, their wisdom was insufficient to perfectly achieve timeliness…. The three other masters were like Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter, each of which has its own time. Kongzi was the harmonizing, original qi that flows throughout all four seasons.”]
[2.1] A certain Bogong Qi asked, “What were the levels of rank and salary [2.2] in the early Zhou dynasty?” Mengzi replied, “We cannot know the details. The various lords do not like anything to interfere with their actions, so they got rid of all exact records of them. However, I have heard the [2.3] outline of them. There were five ranks that applied throughout the whole world: Son of Heaven, duke, marquis, count, and the viscount or baron. There were six ranks that applied within each state: Ruler, High Minister, Chief Counselor, higher nobles, middle nobles, and [2.4] lower nobles. There were four administrative levels. The land that the Son of Heaven administrated was one thousand leagues square. Dukes and marquises each administrated one hundred leagues square, counts seventy leagues, and viscounts or barons fifty leagues. States of less than fifty leagues could not directly communicate with the Son of Heaven but were annexed to one of the various lords. These were called [2.5] ‘protectorates.’ For his salary, a High Minister of the Son of Heaven received land equivalent to that of a marquis. A Chief Counselor received land equivalent to that of a baron. A high noble received land equivalent to [2.6] that of a viscount or baron. For the largest states, those of a hundred leagues square, the ruler’s salary was ten times that of a High Minister. A High Minister’s salary was four times that of a Chief Counselor. A Chief Counselor’s salary was double that of a high noble. A high noble’s salary was double that of a middle noble. A middle noble’s salary was twice that of a lower noble. A commoner who was in office or a {134} lower noble had the same salary, which replaced what they would have [2.7] earned by farming themselves. For the next largest states, those of seventy leagues square, the ruler had a salary ten times that of a High Minister, the High Minister three times that of a Chief Counselor, a Chief Counselor double that of a high noble, a high noble double that of a middle noble, and a middle noble double that of a lower noble. Commoners in office and lower nobles had the same salary, which replaced [2.8] what they would have earned by farming themselves. For the smallest states, those of fifty leagues square, a ruler’s salary was ten times that of a High Minister, a High Minister’s salary was twice that of a Chief Counselor, a Chief Counselor’s salary was twice that of a high noble, a high noble’s salary was twice that of a middle noble, a middle noble’s salary was twice that of a lower noble, and a commoner in office or a lower noble had the same salary, which replaced what they would have [2.9] earned farming. The income from a farmer with a hundred acres that have been fertilized will feed eight or nine people, if he is a first-rate farmer. The middle grade of farmer can feed six or seven people. The lowest grade of farmer can feed five people. Consequently, the salary of commoners in office will have these variations.” [All right, I admit it: not every chapter of the Mengzi is interesting.]
[3.1] Mengzi’s disciple Wan Zhang said, “May I ask about friendship?”
Mengzi replied, “One does not become someone’s friend by presuming upon one’s age or social status or family relationship. One befriends the Virtue of another person. There may not be anything else [3.2] one presumes upon. Meng Xizi, a worthy official of Lu, had a household that could field a hundred chariots. He had five friends: Yuecheng Qiu, Mu Zhong, and three others whose names I have forgotten. That Xizi was friends with these five men had nothing to do with his household. If these five people had any concern for (the wealth and status of) [3.3] Xizi’s household, he would not have been friends with them. This is not only the case with a household of a hundred chariots. Even the ruler of a small state is like this. Duke Hui of Fei said, ‘Kongzi’s grandson Zisi is my teacher, Yan Ban is my friend, and Wang Shun and Zhang [3.4] Xi are my servants.’ This is not only the case with a small state. Even the ruler of a large state is like this. Hai Tang was a worthy of the state of Duke Ping of Jin. When he said ‘Enter,’ the duke entered. When he said ‘Sit,’ the duke sat. When he said ‘Eat,’ the duke ate. Even if it were a meal of gruel and vegetable soup, the duke would never fail to eat his {135} fill. How would he dare to not eat his fill? However, this was as far as it went. The duke did not share with him the official position given to him by Heaven. He did not govern with him the responsibility given to him by Heaven. He did not eat with him the salary given to him by Heaven. This is only how a noble honors a worthy, not how a King or duke should honor a worthy. [Fan Zuyu commented, “The text calls the duke’s position ‘the position from Heaven’; it calls his responsibility ‘the responsibility from Heaven’; it calls his salary ‘the salary from Heaven.’ This means that Heaven directs the worthy to govern the people of Heaven. This is not something that the ruler of people may arrogate to [3.5] themselves” (cf. 5A5).] Shun was raised up to see the sovereign Yao. Yao made him his son-in-law and installed him in the secondary palace. He first dined as Shun’s guest, and then they alternated as guest and host. This was a case of the Son of Heaven befriending a commoner. [3.6] When those below revere those above, it is called ‘esteeming the prestigious.’ When those above revere those below, it is called ‘respecting the worthy.’ Esteeming the prestigious and respecting the worthy—their righteousness is one.” [Mengzi has a thoughtful philosophy of friendship. As Aristotle also said, genuine friendship is based on shared Virtue. Friendship can obtain between those of differing social status, but only if neither friend seeks to presume upon these differences. Otherwise, the friendship cannot manifest the virtue of “faithfulness” (3A4.8). As Zhu Xi explains, “Friendship is one of the human relationships by means of which one supports benevolence. Hence, the Son of Heaven need not debase himself in order to befriend a commoner. A commoner need not have an ulterior motive to befriend the Son of Heaven.” (For more on friendship, see especially 5B7.4 and 5B8; also see 3A4.8 and 4A12.1.)]
[4.1] Mengzi’s disciple Wan Zhang said, “May I ask what attitude is appropriate when exchanging gifts?”
Mengzi replied, “Respectfulness.”
[4.2] Wan Zhang then asked, “When is it disrespectful to repeatedly refuse a gift?”
Mengzi replied, “When those who are showing respect give one a gift and one asks oneself whether they obtained this gift righteously or unrighteously, and only then accepts it—this is disrespectful. Hence, one does not refuse it in that manner.”
[4.3] Wan Zhang asked, “What about not refusing it directly, but refusing it in one’s heart? Suppose one says to oneself that the gift was obtained {136} unrighteously from the people, so one does not accept it oneself by consigning it to someone else. Is this not acceptable?”
Mengzi said, “If the giving is in accordance with the Way, and the acceptance is in accordance with ritual, even Kongzi would accept it.”
[4.4] Wan Zhang asked, “Suppose there were a highway robber, a man answerable to no state, yet his giving was in accordance with the Way, and his presentation was in accordance with ritual. Could one then accept it from the robber?”
Mengzi replied, “That would not be acceptable. The ‘Announcement of Kang’ says, ‘They kill people, making them flee and stealing their goods. They are wild and fear not death. Among all the people, none do not despise them.’1 People like these should be executed without any effort to instruct them. This teaching, which the Shang accepted from the Xia and the Zhou accepted from the Shang, is something that may not be rejected. It is a standard down to the present. So how could a gift from a robber be accepted?”
[4.5] Wan Zhang said, “What the various lords of today obtained from the people is like what a robber obtains. Yet a gentleman will accept it if he approves of the ritual of giving. May I ask what the explanation for this is?”
Mengzi said, “If a King were to arise, do you think that he would line up the various lords of today and execute them? Or would he instruct them, and only execute them if they did not reform? To say that anyone who takes what is not theirs is a simple thief is to go too far in filling out the category of righteousness. When Kongzi took office in Lu, the people of Lu had a custom of contending over the spoils of the hunt. So Kongzi too contended over the spoils of the hunt. If contending over the spoils of the hunt is acceptable, how much more so is accepting gifts!” [Mengzi thinks that ethical growth involves recognizing paradigmatic instances of righteousness (or benevolence) and then “extending” to “fill out the category” of similar cases (e.g., 2A6, 3B3.5, 6A10). But as this passage makes clear, one can err through both overextension and underextension (cf. 3B10).]
[4.6] Wan Zhang said, “In that case, when Kongzi took office was it not in the service of the Way?”
Mengzi replied, “Of course it was in the service of the Way.”
{137} Wan Zhang asked, “How was contending over the spoils of the hunt in the service of the Way?”
Mengzi replied, “(Before trying to reform other practices) Kongzi first made the ritual vessels correct, in accordance with the written standards, and saw to it that the vessels were not filled with rare foods but only with standard ones.”
Wan Zhang asked, “Why did he not leave?”
Mengzi replied, “He was testing his Way. If the test showed that it was effective, but people did not put it into effect, only then would he leave. This is why he never stayed more than three years in any one place [4.7] during his travels. Sometimes Kongzi took office to see whether his Way could be put into effect. Sometimes he took office because he was invited in accordance with ritual. Sometimes he took office for a stipend to live. With Ji Huanzi, Prime Minister of Lu, he took office to see whether his Way could be put into effect. With Duke Ling of Wei, he took office because he was invited in accordance with ritual. With Duke Xiao of Wei, he took office for a stipend to live.”2
[5.1] Mengzi said, “Taking office is not for the sake of escaping poverty, but there are times when it is done to escape poverty; taking a wife is not for the sake of running a household, but there are times when it is done to run a household. [Zhu Xi’s comment is even more pragmatic than Mengzi’s: “Taking a wife is fundamentally to carry on the family line, but sometimes one cannot maintain the household oneself, and one desires to rely on the services of someone else.” However, Chinese literature from the Odes through Dream of the Red Chamber shows that [5.2] romantic love was not unknown in the Chinese tradition.] When it is done to escape poverty, one declines honors and occupies a humble [5.3] post, one declines riches and occupies a poor post. What sort of post is appropriate when one declines honors to occupy a humble post, or declines riches to occupy a poor post? An appropriate post is one like guarding the gates or keeping the night watch. [Zhu Xi comments, “When it is done to escape poverty, although it is not focused on putting the Way into effect, one nonetheless cannot do just anything for a [5.4] salary.”] Even Kongzi was once a granary scribe. He said, ‘Let the accounts simply be accurate.’ He was once a keeper of livestock. He [5.5] said, ‘Let them simply be big and strong.’ It is a crime for those with a {138} humble post to discuss high affairs. But it is a shame to take one’s place at court yet not put the Way into effect.” [Yin Tun commented, “This means that those who do something out of poverty may not occupy an honored post, while those who occupy an honored post must desire to put the Way into effect.”]
[6.1] Mengzi’s disciple Wan Zhang asked, “Why is it that nobles without official positions do not accept regular stipends from the various lords?”
Mengzi replied, “They would not dare to. It is according to ritual that, when one of the various lords is deposed, he receives a stipend from the other lords. But it is not in accordance with ritual that nobles receive stipends from the various lords.”
[6.2] Wan Zhang then asked, “Do they accept supplies of food from a ruler?”
Mengzi replied, “They do.”
Wan Zhang asked, “How is it righteous for them to accept it?”
Mengzi replied, “A ruler will certainly aid refugees.”
[6.3] Wan Zhang asked, “If it is aid, they accept it, but if it is a gift, then they do not accept it. Why?”
Mengzi replied, “They would not dare to accept the latter.”
Wan Zhang asked, “May I ask why they would not dare to?”
Mengzi replied, “Guarding a gate or being night watchman is a regular post for which one is paid by those above. But for a noble to lack a regular post yet accept salary from those above is considered disrespectful to the noble.”
[6.4] Wan Zhang asked, “If a ruler aids them, then they accept it. I wonder why this aid cannot simply be continued?”
Mengzi replied, “Duke Mu repeatedly made inquiries of Kongzi’s grandson, Zisi, and repeatedly gave him cooked meat as ‘aid.’ But Zisi was not pleased. Eventually, he gestured for the duke’s messenger to go outside, and then, bowing his head twice to the ground, he refused the gift, saying, ‘Now I understand that the ruler feeds me like a dog or horse.’ There was no ‘aid’ from that point on. If one is supposedly pleased with the worthy but is unable to raise them to positions of authority, and is also unable to look after them, can one genuinely be said to be pleased with the worthy?”
[6.5] Wan Zhang asked, “May I ask then how the ruler of a state should ‘look after’ gentlemen?”
Mengzi replied, “When it was sent by the direct command of the ruler, he bowed his head twice to the ground and accepted it. But {139} afterwards, when it was no longer sent by the direct command of the ruler, but those in charge of the granaries still sent grain, and the butcher still sent meat, Zisi regarded it as demeaning to repeatedly give thanks for it. This is not the Way of looking after a gentleman.
“In contrast, Yao had his nine sons serve Shun and gave his two daughters to him as wives. The hundred officials, oxen and sheep, storehouses and granaries were all ready to care for Shun when he still worked in the plowed fields. Afterwards, he raised him up and conferred high office upon him. Hence it was said, ‘Kings and dukes revere the worthy.’”
Mengzi’s disciple Wan Zhang said, “May I ask why it is righteous for [7.1] you to not meet the various lords?”
Mengzi replied, “Unemployed nobles living in the city are called ‘ministers of the markets and wells,’ while those living in the countryside are called ‘ministers of the plants and grasses.’ But they are both just commoners. According to ritual, commoners dare not meet with any of the various lords before they have exchanged the tokens appropriate to becoming genuine ministers.”3
Wan Zhang asked, “When a commoner is summoned to perform a [7.2] service, he goes and does it. If a ruler wants to meet with him and summons him, how could he not go to meet with him?”
Mengzi replied, “It is right to go and perform a service, but it is not right to go and meet with him.
[7.3] “Moreover, why does the ruler want to meet with him?”
Wang Zhang answered, “Because of his great knowledge or his worthiness.”
Mengzi said, “If it is because of his great knowledge, even the Son of Heaven may not summon a teacher. How much less so the various lords! If it is because of his worthiness, I have never heard of someone [7.4] summoning a worthy to meet with him. During one of his frequent meetings with Kongzi’s grandson, Zisi, Duke Mu asked, ‘Among the ancients, how would the rulers of states that could field a thousand chariots befriend the nobles?’ Zisi was not pleased and said, ‘When the ancients discussed it, they called it serving the nobles. How could they have called it befriending the nobles?’ Since he was thus displeased, he would have gone on to say, ‘In terms of official position, you are my {140} ruler and I am your minister. How dare I be friends with my ruler? In terms of Virtue, then it is you who should serve me. How could you befriend me?’
“So the ruler of a state that could field a thousand chariots could not even befriend him. How much less could he summon him!
[7.5] “Once, Duke Jing of Qi was hunting, and he summoned a gamekeeper with a plumed staff. The gamekeeper did not come, so the duke was going to have him killed. Kongzi commented, ‘An intent noble does not forget that he may end up in a ditch. A courageous noble does not forget that he may lose his head.’ What did Kongzi find commendable in the gamekeeper’s action? It was that he would not come when it was not the right kind of summons.”
[7.6] Wang Zhang said, “May I ask how a gamekeeper should be summoned?”
Mengzi replied, “With a leather cap. Commoners are summoned with a plain flag, nobles with a dragon-flag, and only Chief Counselors with a plumed staff. When he was summoned with the means appropriate to a Chief Counselor, the gamekeeper dared not go, even if it meant death. Likewise, if a commoner were summoned with the means appropriate to a noble, how could the commoner dare to go? How much less so if a worthy were summoned with the means appropriate to the unworthy! [When the gamekeeper explained why he did not answer the summons, the duke let him go.4 Nonetheless, from our contemporary perspective, the gamekeeper’s risk of his life over such a small principle seems puzzling, and Kongzi’s praise seems exaggerated. There are at least two ways to understand this incident, though. (1) The gamekeeper’s refusal to answer an improper summons may be immensely significant in his own cultural context, because it symbolized, for all concerned, the more general obligations and prerogatives of ruler and subjects (cf. Analects 3.19). Perhaps the gamekeeper was taking a stand (both literally and figuratively) against the unlimited authority of the duke. (2) Kongzi’s praise may be intentional hyperbole. Perhaps Kongzi does not think that the gamekeeper’s refusal was ethically obligatory but merely holds up this humble official’s quixotic fastidiousness as an inspiration to nobles who are tempted to violate more serious principles. (This incident is also mentioned in 3B1.2.)]
{141} [7.8] “To want to meet the worthy without according with the Way is like wanting someone to enter while shutting the door. Righteousness is the path and propriety is the door. Only a gentleman can follow this path and go in and out through this door. The Odes say,
The Way of Zhou is smooth like a whetstone,
Straight like an arrow.
The gentlemen tread upon it;
The petty people keep their eyes upon it.”5
[7.9] Wan Zhang continued, “When Kongzi’s ruler summoned him, he set off without even waiting to hitch horses to his carriage.6 Was Kongzi wrong then?”
Mengzi replied, “This refers to when Kongzi held office and had official responsibilities, so he was being summoned in connection with his office.”
[8.1] Mengzi said to his disciple Wan Zhang, “If you are one of the finest nobles in a village, [8.2] then befriend the other fine nobles of that village. If you are one of the finest nobles in a state, then befriend the other fine nobles of that state. If you are one of the finest nobles in the world, then befriend the other fine nobles of the world. If befriending the other fine nobles of the world is still not enough, then ascend to examine the ancients. Recite their Odes and read their Documents. But can you do this without understanding what sort of people they were? Because of this, you must examine their era. This is how friendship ascends.” [For Mengzi, friendship, Virtue, and textual understanding are intimately related. Genuine friendship is based on shared Virtue (5B3 and 5B7.4), so the friendship of the Virtuous extends outward to more and more people, including the Virtuous of ancient times. We can only befriend them through the texts that they have left behind, but these have to be interpreted in terms of the contexts in which they were composed (cf. 5A4.2).]
[9.1] King Xuan of Qi asked about High Ministers. Mengzi replied, “What sort of High Ministers is Your Majesty asking about?”
The king said, “Are High Ministers not the same?”
{142} Mengzi said, “They are not. There are High Ministers who are the ruler’s distinguished relatives, and then there are High Ministers of other families.”
The king continued, “May I ask about High Ministers who are the ruler’s distinguished relatives?”
Mengzi replied, “If the ruler makes some great mistake, then they remonstrate with him. If he does it repeatedly and does not listen to them, they remove him from office.”
[9.2] The king blanched, looking shocked.
Mengzi continued, “Let Your Majesty not be surprised. If Your Majesty asks me, your servant, a question, I dare not answer other than directly.”
When the color returned to the king’s face, he asked about High Ministers of other families.
Mengzi replied, “If the ruler makes some mistake, great or small, then they remonstrate with him. If he does it repeatedly and does not listen to them, they resign.” [Zhu Xi comments, “What is righteous for great ministers is different for relatives and nonrelatives. Following a standard rule and using one’s discretion each have their own place.” (In this case, the “standard” would be to simply resign if a ruler errs and does not listen to good advice, while replacing a bad ruler to whom one is related is using “discretion” [4A17] in a special case.)]
_____________________________
1 “Announcement of Kang,” from the Documents of Zhou in the Documents (Legge, The Shoo King, vol. 3 of The Chinese Classics, 392).
2 Cf. 6B14.
3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with 3B1. Regarding the tokens exchanged when someone becomes a minister, see 3B3.1.
4 See Zuozhuan, Duke Zhao 20 (Legge, The Ch’un Ts’ew with the Tso Chuen, vol. 5 of The Chinese Classics, 684).
5 Mao no. 203.
6 Analects 10.20.