Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn

However, if a ruler is able to practice goodness and win the support of the common people, the Spring and Autumn will not [consider this] perilous. Marquis Jin of Wey assumed the throne, and when he died, [the Spring and Autumn] recorded his burial [with the term zang reserved for a ruler]; he is a case in point.⁵ In all three cases, it was improper for [these men] to succeed to the throne, but Duke Mu of Song received the throne from the former ruler and [the Spring and Autumn] designated it perilous, while Duke Xuan of Wey [the former marquis Jin of Wey] did not receive the throne from the former ruler, and it did not designate it perilous. From these examples, we can see that winning the hearts of the multitudes is considered the greatest security.

Now Duke Huan of Qi not only assumed the throne without receiving it from the former ruler, but he also helped another set himself up as ruler when it was not proper to do so. His crimes were weighty indeed. Nevertheless, having taken stock of his fearful anxieties, he respectfully promoted worthy men to compensate for [his crimes]. He knew that he must not defy the oaths he had sworn under compulsion to absolve himself [of his crimes]. Consequently, he became a worthy ruler and was recognized as a hegemon among the Lords of the Land. If Duke Huan of Qi had committed those bad deeds but had not carried out those good deeds, he would have been lucky to avoid being murdered. How could he have become a hegemon? Duke Huan of Lu forgot his troubles, and calamity befell him. Duke Huan of Qi worried about his troubles and established a meritorious reputation. From this, we can deduce that those who confront troubles but do not worry are unlucky but that those who confront troubles and worry deeply are lucky. The Changes states: “If you return to the Way, how could you go wrong?”6 This expresses my meaning. Although it is difficult for most people to return to the Way to eradicate wrongdoing, it is quite easy for the true ruler to do so. An Ode declares: “Virtue is light as a feather.”⁷ This describes how easy it is to do so. [4/9/21–4/10/5]

[The answer is:] As a general rule, it is the nature of human beings to praise righteousness without exception. When people are unable to practice righteousness, however, it is because they are overcome by [the desire for] profit. Thus to the end of his days, the Noble Man [Confucius] did not speak of profit. He hoped that by not speaking of profit, he would shame those who did. By shaming them, he would obstruct its source. If [Confucius] expresses disdain for one who occupies the throne and arouses the great winds of moral transformation when that person even mentions the term “profit,” how much more is this the case of those who seek profit. Therefore when the Heavenly King sent others to seek funds and gold, in every case [Confucius] considered them to be weighty transgressions and recorded them as such.⁹ Now if one does not simply send envoys [to seek profit] but personally seeks it oneself, this is considered an even graver crime. In censoring such actions, why the expression “to view the fish?” It is analogous to the expression “to view the altar of the earth.” They both are expressions that conceal grave transgressions.¹⁰ [4/10/7–10]

For this reason, the Spring and Autumn does not refer to the host [i.e., bridegroom] when it records marriage ceremonies in accordance with immutable rites. But when no other wording is possible [because there is no male to whom the Spring and Autumn can refer], it refers to the bridegroom in accordance with mutable rites.¹²

[The Spring and Autumn] designates the Son of Heaven as king only after three years have passed [since the death of the former ruler], in accordance with immutable rites. But when the circumstances warrant, [the Spring and Autumn] designates him as king before three years have passed, in accordance with mutable rites.

The wife, having no duties beyond the border [of her state], accords with immutable rites. When a mother [crosses the border of her state] to choose a wife on behalf of her son or when a woman hastens [to cross the border] to bury her parents, this accords with mutable rites.

Only after you have clarified which affairs exemplify immutable rites and which exemplify mutable rites will you understand the distinction between the insignificant and the significant and know [how to] weigh [and evaluate changing circumstances].

In the mind of Duke Huan [of Lu], there was no king;13 therefore [the Spring and Autumn] did not record the term wang, “king.”¹⁴ In his mind, he desired the throne, therefore [the Spring and Autumn] recorded the expression ji wei, “to assume the throne.”¹⁵ It recorded that “he assumed the throne” to indicate that he assassinated the ruler who was his brother. It did not record the term “king” to indicate that he defied the Son of Heaven. This is why in the case of Duke Yin, [the Spring and Autumn] does not mention the term li, to be established as ruler.¹⁶ In the case of Duke Huan, [the Spring and Autumn] does not mention the term wang, “king.” It follows the intentions of Dukes Yin and Huan to reveal their undertakings. It follows the intentions of worthies to describe their righteousness; it follows the intentions of fools to manifest their wrongdoing. From this perspective, we see that what the Spring and Autumn praises is good and that what it does not praise is bad. You must not fail to examine both. [4/10/22–25]

The answer is: It is not the case that it does not appear in the Classic. Its appearance is subtle, and it is not sufficient to rely on other events that belong to the same category to grasp it. Consequently it is difficult to comprehend. The Commentary states: “Cang Sunxu and Xi Ke of Jin paid a courtesy visit to Qi on the same occasion.”19 But if you examine the Classic, there is no such record. This is subtle indeed! The Spring and Autumn does not record their expedition to conceal it. Similarly, the Commentary records Ping, Duke Zhuang of Song, but the Classic does not. By not recording the courtesy visit to Qi, [Confucius] concealed what caused him shame. By not recording that Duke Zhuang assassinated Yu Yi, [Confucius] concealed what he praised. Therefore, those who yield the throne are those who are praised by the Spring and Autumn. Duke Xuan of Song did not transmit the authority to rule to his son but gave it to his younger brother. Likewise, his younger brother did not give it to his son but returned it to his older brother’s son. Although they did not hit the mark of this standard, in each case they yielded to the lofty; therefore [Confucius] could not reject them. The Noble Man [Confucius] concealed later instances of rebellion because of this. Thus when Duke Zhuang was assassinated, he implicated Du of Song, to preserve the praiseworthy intentions [of Duke Xuan and Duke Mu]. Here the Spring and Autumn also praised the good without exception.²⁰ If the Spring and Autumn had recorded simply that Duke Zhuang of Song usurped the position of rulership, then the loftiness of Duke Xuan and Duke Mu would have been destroyed, and no one would see their goodness.

Someone raising an objection stated: Why is it that when the Spring and Autumn conceals [bad deeds] committed by worthies, the Commentary discusses it, but when it conceals the deeds of Duke Xuan and Duke Mu, the Commentary does not discuss it?

The answer is: Duke Xuan and Duke Mu cannot be considered worthies. They accomplished good deeds, but they did not comply with the standard. Therefore they cannot be emulated, yet they cannot be rejected, either. If you reject them, then you have rejected their good intentions. If you emulate them, then you will harm the standards set down by the king. Therefore the Spring and Autumn neither rejects them nor records them. It reveals them through their intentions. Confucius said: If you set your will on humaneness, you will be free from wrong.” This expresses my meaning. [4/10/27–4/11/6]

Now although expediency runs contrary to the constant norms, it necessarily falls within the realm of acceptability. If it did not fall within the realm of acceptability, then if one were about to die or ultimately perish, he would not act. The duke’s son Muyi exemplifies this principle. Therefore, when fathers, sons, older brothers, or younger brothers among the Lords of the Land assumed rulership when it was not proper to do so, the Spring and Autumn treated their states as if they were no different from states led by legitimate rulers.22 Such states existed within the realm of acceptability. When, however, the ruler of Zheng took a wife from Ying and held that her grandson was to inherit the throne,²³ [the Spring and Autumn] stated: “A man from Ying annihilated Zheng.”²⁴ For this did not fall within the realm of acceptability. Therefore when the Lords of the Land operated within the realm of unacceptability, [Confucius] referred to this as [a matter involving] “great virtue.” Those possessing great virtue who did not overstep the bounds, [Confucius] designated “upright and normative.” When the Lords of the Land operated within the realm of acceptability, [Confucius] referred to this as [a matter of] “small virtue.” “Small virtue” means it is permissible to “come and go” [i.e., be less meticulous].²⁵ [The principle of] expedient adjustment to circumstance involves deception, but ultimately it supports the great norms. Therefore, the principles of the Spring and Autumn are extensive yet synoptic; they are detailed yet they revert back to a unified [ethical path].

Prince Mu Yi [of Song] submitted to his ruler’s commands but ultimately did not turn over the state of Song [to Chu].26 Zhai Zhong [of Zheng] already had turned his state over to [Du] but later transferred it [to Hu].²⁷ To his death, Xun Xi of Jin would not heed the advice of [Li Ke].²⁸ Man Gu of Wey resisted [Kuai Kui] and would not allow him to return to [the state of Wey].²⁹ The actions of these four ministers differed, but their intentions were identical. Their righteousness was one. Mu Yi did not give away the state in order to preserve the ancestral temples, but Zhai Zhong gave away the state, likewise to preserve the ancestral temples. Xun Xi died to honor the commands of his former lord, and likewise Man Gu resisted [Kuai Kui] to honor the commands of his former lord. Although their actions opposed each other, what they accomplished was identical. Both Mu Yi and Zhai Zhong preserved the ancestral temples of their states, and both Xun Xi and Man Gu honored the commands of their former lords.

Someone raising an objection said: The actions of Prince Mu Yi and Zhai Zhong preserved [the state] and served the ruler. It therefore is permissible to praise them. Xun Xi and Man Gu, however, did not act in this way. Moreover, both those whom they wanted to support were men who should not have assumed the position of rulership. Why were they recorded as being righteous?

[The answer is:] It is a method of the Spring and Autumn not to record the accession of those who assume rulership when it is not proper for them to do so. When the great officers of a state supported them to become ruler, it recorded their accession. The Spring and Autumn recorded the accession because it did not approve of those great officers who supported illegitimate rulers; it did not record the accession because it approved of those who were able to become rulers. Those who became rulers when it was not appropriate to do so were not correct. But if they became rulers and were embraced by the great officers, then the Spring and Autumn considered them to be correct. This is why the actions of Xun Xi and Man Gu were considered righteous. [4/11/8–21]

Someone raised an objection concerning Ji of Ji, saying: “The standards of the Spring and Autumn dictate that great officers are not permitted to distribute land without the authorization of their lords.”30 He also said: “There is the righteous principle that the sons of lords do not flee their states.”³¹ He also said: “A noble man does not avoid difficulties that come from abroad.”³² Ji of Ji defied all three of these standards. How can he be considered worthy? A worthy minister would certainly not steal land and hand it over to the enemy; nor would he abandon his lord to avoid difficulties!

[The answer is:] A worthy would not do such things. For this reason, the Spring and Autumn makes a pretext of praising Ji of Ji to reveal that he would not act in such a way. Because Ji of Ji would not act in such a way, it is possible to discover that the marquis of Ji ordered him to take such actions. When the Spring and Autumn records events, it sometimes distorts the facts to avoid mentioning certain events. When the Spring and Autumn records people, it sometimes alters their names to conceal their identities. Therefore it distorted the fact that Duke Wen of Jin realized his ambitions [when he summoned the Son of Heaven to a meeting with the other Lords of the Land] by recording “[The Son of Heaven went on] a hunt [north of the river]” to conceal this fact and to avoid mentioning that the king was summoned by his subject Duke Wen.33 It distorted the rank of the viscount of Ying and referred to him as a commoner to avoid mentioning Duke Yin. It altered the name of Jing Fu and referred to him as Zhong Sun. It changed the name of the state called Sheng to [the city of] Cheng to avoid mentioning a great wrong.³⁴ Thus those who discuss the Spring and Autumn must master these terms that distort the facts and follow their twists and turns. Only then will they comprehend the events that it records. Now Ji of Ji received a command from his lord, but the Classic records that he “usurped the authority of his ruler” [and returned lands to Qi]. He lacked a reputation, but the words of the Spring and Autumn, [by not referring to him by name,] reveal him to be a worthy. These are examples of records that distort the facts. They must be examined. The Spring and Autumn invariably follows the intentions of those it wants to praise as worthy and unifies the terminology describing them to reveal their righteousness and praise their inner beauty. The marquis of Ji was a ruler whom the Spring and Autumn admired and respected. Thus when the Spring and Autumn judged his intentions to enter the state of Ji, it concealed the expressions indicating that he admitted his guilt and transferred them to Ji of Ji. Therefore, the one who sought to buy grain from the state of Qi was Duke Zhuang of Lu, but the Spring and Autumn uses terms to conceal this fact and states that it was Cang Sun Chen. The one who returned the city of Xi to the state of Qi was the marquis of Ji, but the Spring and Autumn uses terms to conceal this fact and states that it was Ji of Ji. Although the means by which it distorts the facts differ, the method of concealment is the same.

Someone raising an objection stated: If there is someone in a state whom the people wish to install [as ruler], he should strenuously decline and not listen to them. But if the state is perishing and the ruler dies [trying to save it], the Spring and Autumn considers this to be upright. Why, then, was the marquis of Ji considered worthy?

[The answer is:] The ruler of Qi was about to avenge a [long-standing] grievance [between the two states of Qi and Ji]. The marquis of Ji knew that he could not match the strength of Qi, but it was his intention to resist Qi. Thus he said to his younger brother [Ji of Ji]: “I preside over the ceremonies in the ancestral temple. If I am unable to avoid death, you must go to the city of Xi, admit your guilt to the ruler of Qi, and request that you be allowed to perpetuate the five halls of the ancestral temple so that our ancestors will be sure to receive their yearly offerings.” Thereupon he led the people of his state into battle to defend the nine generations of Ji rulers [that had preceded him]. Duke Xiang of Qi tried to drive him out of the state of Ji, but the marquis of Ji would not flee. He implored him to return the city of Xi, but the marquis of Ji would not give up the city. Superior and inferior were of the same mind, and they died together. This is why the Spring and Autumn refers to “a grand exodus.”35 The Spring and Autumn deems worthy those who die for righteous causes and those who win the hearts of the populace. Therefore, by avoiding mention of it, it conceals the fact that the state of Ji was extinguished. Because it conceals this fact, it is possible to discover that it deemed the marquis of Ji worthy.³⁶ Because it deems the marquis of Ji worthy, it is possible to discover that his conduct hit the mark of humaneness and righteousness. [4/11/23–4/12/9]

The title of this chapter may have drawn its inspiration from an event that was initially interpreted as an auspicious omen. “The Annals of Emperor Wen the Filial” of the Shiji (SJ 10/430) reports the following: “A man of Zhao named Xinyuan Ping, appearing before the emperor to report an unusual cloud formation he had seen, advised the emperor to set up temples to the Five Thearchs north of the Wei River. He requested that they excavate the [lost] cauldrons of Zhou which could be found where a ‘jade-like brilliance’ appeared” (modified from Burton Watson, trans., Records of the Grand Historian, rev. ed. [New York: Columbia University Press, 1993], 1:303).

Only a sage is able to link the myriad things to the One and to bind them to the Origin. If ultimately you do not reach and acknowledge the root from which [the myriad things] proceed, you cannot succeed in your endeavors. This is why the Spring and Autumn alters the first [year of each reign] and designates it the Origin [yuan 元] year. The word yuan is homophonous with the word yuan 原, [which means “source”]. It signifies that [the Spring and Autumn] follows the cycles [literally, ends and beginnings] of Heaven and Earth. Thus people are the only [creatures] whose lives have beginnings and ends but do not necessarily respond to the alterations of the four seasons. Therefore the Origin is the root of the myriad things, and the Origin of humans [likewise] lies therein. Where is [the Origin]? It existed before Heaven and Earth. This is why, although people are born of Heaven’s vital energy and are endowed with Heaven’s vital energy, it cannot [be said that] their vital energy is coextensive with the Heavenly Origin. The Heavenly Origin decrees, but people often defy Heaven’s workings. Thus [an entry such as] “Spring. The [royal] first month” is meant to acknowledge the actions of Heaven and Earth and to continue the actions of Heaven and bring them to completion. The Way [of designating the Origin year] is to pair up [Heaven’s decrees and human works] in mutual accomplishments and supportive enterprises. How is it that the Origin of Heaven and Earth is to be found here, and how does it operate in the human realm? [The Spring and Autumn] attaches much importance to those who can connect and acknowledge the inherent patterns of[Heaven’s] will. (CQFL 13/22/13–18)

Therefore the sage alone is able to focus his attention on what is hidden and cause it to be manifest. This is why the Way of the Spring and Autumn is to rely on the profundity of the Origin to rectify the starting point of Heaven [i.e., the first month of the civil calendar]; to rely on the starting point of Heaven to rectify the government of the king; to rely on the government of the king to rectify the authority of the Lords of the Land; to rely on the authority of the Lords of the Land to rectify the administration within the borders [of the various states]. When these five are rectified, then [the sage-king’s] transformative influence will greatly issue forth. (CQFL 15/23/23–25)

For the relevant commentaries, see Su Yu, CQFLYZ 67–71.

When a burial takes place at the proper time and the day is given, this indicates that the performance of the burial was endangered. What danger was there? Duke Xuan spoke to [his younger brother who later became] Duke Mu saying: “My love for my son Yu Yi cannot match [my love for] you. Why should you not eventually become ruler?” Duke Xuan died, and Duke Mu succeeded the title. Duke Mu expelled his two sons, Bing [who later became] Duke Zhuang and Bo, who held the office of zuo shi 佐師. Eventually Duke Mu of Song handed over the state to Yu Yi.

Helü said: “That the late ruler did not hand the state to his son but instead handed it to you, his younger brother, was entirely on account of you, Ji Zi. Shall we follow the instructions given by the late lord? If so, the state should properly belong to Ji Zi. Or shall we disobey the instructions of our former lord? If so, I am the one who should properly be set up as ruler.” And so he sent Zhuan Zhu to kill Liao and then handed over the state to Ji Zi. Ji Zi declined the offer saying: “You assassinated my lord. If I were to receive the state as a gift from you, then I would become an accomplice in your rebellion. You killed my elder brothers. If I in turn were to kill you, then fathers and sons, elder brothers and younger brothers, would continue to kill one another in an endless sequence.” Ji Zi then left Wu and went to Yanling. For the rest of his life he did not enter the state of Wu.

9. Duke Yin 1.3.4: “Autumn. The son of the Wu clan came to request funds.” The Gongyang Commentary cites this case along with the very similar case of the earl of Mao (Duke Wen 6.9.1: “The ninth year. Spring. The earl of Mao came to request gold”), both of whom violated ritual propriety in two ways. First, each assumed his throne before a year had elapsed since the death of his father, and second, each traveled to Lu to request financial assistance (presumably to help defray expenses of the late rulers’ funerals).

Who was this Lie Xiu of Ji? He was a great officer of Ji. Why is he not referred to as an envoy? In the marriage ritual [the Spring and Autumn] does not refer to the host [i.e., the bridegroom]. To whom, then are references made? [The Spring and Autumn] refers to the paternal uncles, elder brothers, teachers, and friends. Why, then, is reference made to the bridegroom in the entry “The duke of Song sent Duke Xun Shou to come and present marriage gifts?” No other wording [of this entry] would have been possible. What does this imply? [The duke of Song] had no mother. [The marquis of] Ji, did he have a mother? The answer is: “he did.” Since this is so, why does [the Spring and Autumn] not refer to his mother? The mother could not communicate [directly with the envoy]. The [Spring and Autumn] does not record the meeting of brides of [the Lords of the Land] of the Exterior. Why is this instance recorded? It is in order to reprimand. What was there to reprimand? [The Spring and Autumn] reprimands [the marquis of Ji] with unusual severity for this first recorded instance of a groom failing to meet his bride in person, on the grounds that Confucius particularly condemned those who instituted evil practices.

15. According to the Gongyang Commentary, when a ruler was assassinated and a new ruler assumed the throne, it did not employ the phrase ji wei 卽位 (to assume the throne). This terminological practice derives perhaps from the desire to express the sentiments of an heir apparent who would be reluctant to assume the throne of an assassinated father. But since Duke Huan intended to become ruler after assassinating his brother, the Spring and Autumn complies with his intentions and employs this phrase. Duke Huan 2.1.1: “Spring. The king’s first month. Our lord assumed the throne.” Gongyang: “The succession to the title [vacated by] an assassinated prince is not normally indicated by the phrase ‘assumed the throne’ [ji wei]. Why does [the Spring and Autumn] use this phrase here? [It is in order to indicate that the proceedings] were in accordance with Huan’s desires.” Note that the inclusion of the word “king” in this quotation from Duke Huan 2.1.1. seems to contradict without explanation the principle mentioned here in notes 13 and 14, that under some circumstances the word “king” is not used.

What is meant by the term “Origin year”? It is the first year of the ruler. What is meant by the term “spring”? It is the beginning of the year. To whom does the term “king” refer? It refers to King Wen. Why does [the Spring and Autumn] first mention the term “king” and then mention the term “first month”? It is the king’s first month. Why does [the Spring and Autumn] use the expression “the king’s first month?” It is in order to glorify the unity. Why does [the Spring and Autumn] not state that the duke “assumed the throne” (jiwei)? It is to give full expression to the duke’s intention. Why so? The duke intended to pacify the state and restore it to Huan. Why restore it to Huan? Huan was the younger brother, but of nobler birth. Yin was the older, but of lower birth. The difference in their relative status was slight: of the people in the state, none knew [whom the late duke had elected as his successor.] Yin was grown up and also a worthy man. The great officers brought Yin forward and established him as ruler. If under these circumstances, Yin had rejected [their decision to] establish him as ruler, then he would have had no reassurance that Huan would be certain to be established as ruler. Furthermore, supposing that Huan were established as ruler, the great officers might have feared that they would be unable to assist so young a ruler. Therefore, that Yin allowed himself to be established as ruler was, for all intents and purposes, for the sake of Huan. Since Yin was grown up and a worthy man besides, why was it not proper for him to be established as ruler? The establishment of sons of the principal wife is based on seniority and not on considerations of worth; the establishment of sons [other than the sons of the principal wife] is based on nobility and not on seniority. In what respect was Huan nobler [than Yin]? His mother was nobler [than the mother of Yin]. Why should the fact that the mother was nobler make the son nobler? A son shares the nobility of his mother and a mother shares the nobility of her son. (Adapted from Göran Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 43 [1971]: 69)

What is implied by the term ji (meaning “and”)? [It signifies that Kongfu] was implicated [and died for his lord]. [The Spring and Autumn records] many instances of regicide. Apart from this [Kongfu] were there no others who died for their lord? The answer is: there were [others]. If so, why was an entry made [only] in this case? [Kongfu] was worthy. In what respect was Kongfu worthy? Of Kongfu, it may be said that his righteousness was manifested in his outward appearance. Under what circumstances did his righteousness manifest itself in his appearance? Du was about to assassinate duke Shang (Yu Yi). As long as Kongfu remained alive, there would be no opportunity to assassinate Duke Shang. Therefore [Du] consequently first attacked Kongfu’s residence. Duke Shang knew that once Kongfu were dead, he himself would have to die and therefore hurried to his rescue. Both died there. When Kongfu adjusted his appearance and took up his position in the court, no one dared to commit any fault or cause distress to his lord. Of Kongfu, it may be said that his righteousness manifested itself in his outward appearance. (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 96)

Why does [the Spring and Autumn] sometimes give and sometimes omit the day of the burial? In the case of a premature burial [i.e., a burial before the ritually correct amount of time had elapsed], the day is given to indicate that it was a hasty burial, while the omission of the day indicates that it was a negligent burial. In the case of burials that took place too late, the day is given to commiserate with him [i.e., the deceased], while the omission of the day indicates that it was impossible to perform the burial [within the stipulated period]. When a burial took place at the stipulated time, the omission of the day is the correct norm. When in such cases the day is given, this indicates that the performance of the burial was endangered. This [burial] took place at the stipulated time. What danger was there? Duke Xian [on one occasion] spoke to [his younger brother, who later became] Duke Mu, saying: “My love for [my son] Yu Yi is not as great as my love for you. Considering [the selection of my successor] head of the state and the ancestral temple, Yu Yi cannot match you. Why should you not eventually become ruler?” Duke Xian died, and Duke Mu succeeded to the title. Duke Mu expelled his two sons, Ping [who later became] Duke Zhuang, and Bo, who held the office of historian on the left, saying: “You are my sons, [but] we shall not meet again in life, nor shall we cry over each other in death.” Yu Yi reported and said: “The reason why the late lord did not give the state to me but handed it to you, sir, was that he considered you more suited to be the head of the state and of the ancestral temple. Now you expel your two sons and intend to hand over the state to me, Yu Yi. This was not the intention of the late lord. If sons may indeed be expelled, then the late lord would have expelled me!” Duke Mu said: “It is indeed obvious that the late lord did not [intend to] expel you. My position here is that of a deputy.” Eventually he handed over the state to Yu Yi. Ping [who later became] Duke Zhuang assassinated Yu Yi. Therefore, the Noble Man considered it [of] great [importance] that one conforms to the correct norm. It was Duke Xuan who caused the calamity in Song. (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 77)

On the day jiyou, they made a covenant with Guo Zuo at Yuanlou. Why did they not make a covenant with the army present, but at Yuanlou? On an earlier occasion Xi Ke and Zangsun Xu of Jin simultaneously had paid courtesy visits to Qi. Xiao Tong Zhizi (the daughter of Tongshu, lord of the state of Xiao), and the mother of the marquis of Qi [Lord Qing of Qi], climbed a ladder to spy on the guests, and found that one was lame and the other shortsighted. Then she made a lame man receive the lame guest and a shortsighted man receive the shortsighted guest. When the two great officers emerged from the court, they stood leaning on the gate and talked together. A long time passed before they finally took leave of each other. The people of Qi all said: “When the trouble starts, it is bound to be due to this!”

The two great officers returned to Jin. Together they led their armies and fought at the Battle of An, where the Qi army suffered a heavy defeat. When the marquis of Qi sent Guo Zuo to enter the army of the allied troops as an envoy, Xi Ke demanded: “Give us the Yan Vessel which formerly belonged to the marquis of Ji. Return the land that Qi has taken from Lu and Wey. Order the farmers to draw the field divisions from east to west! We must take the daughter of Tongshu of Xiao as hostage. Grant these demands and I shall let you go!”

Guo Zuo replied: “As to your request for the Xian Vessel, which formerly belonged to the marquis of Ji, I will agree. As to your request for the return of the land which we have taken from Lu and Wey, I also beg to agree. But to order our farmers to make the field divisions run east to west, that amounts to giving you the land of Qi. This daughter of Tongshu, lord of Xiao, is the mother of the lord of Qi! The mother of the lord of Qi is equal to the mother of the lord of Jin. I cannot agree to these two requests. I request leave to fight. If we are not victorious in the first battle, I request permission to fight a second battle. If we are not victorious in the second battle, I request permission to fight a third battle. If we are not victorious in the third battle, then the entire state of Qi shall belong to you. Why is it necessary to take the daughter of Tongshu of Xiao as your hostage?” [Guo Zuo] saluted twice and left him.

Xi Ke winked at the envoys from Lu and Wey. The envoys made a request on behalf of Guo Zuo, basing themselves on his statement. Thereafter Xi Ke agreed to this proposal. He caught up with Guo Zuo at Yuanlou and made a covenant with him there. (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 192)

Here [it is stated that] he took it from Song. Why, then, is it referred to as “the tripod of Gao”? [In referring to] vessels [one] follows the name [of the original owner]. [In referring to] land [one] follows the [name of the current] owner. [Why is this so?] Song first took possession of this tripod of Gao through an unrighteous deed. Therefore it was referred to as “the tripod of Gao.” When it comes to land being given to someone, then it is not so. Ownership of land can be established in a single instant [by the act of taking the land in possession]. If so, may then the [act of] taking possession [of the land] be regarded as [equivalent to the establishment of full] ownership [of the land]? The answer is no. And why? [This is] like the king of Chu marrying his younger sister: at no time can such an act be allowed. (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 97)

24. Duke Xiang 9.6.5: “A man from Ying annihilated Zheng.” The Gongyang Commentary does not comment. As the story goes, the ruler of Zheng selected a woman from the state of Ying to be his wife. He loved her dearly, but she bore him only a daughter. The daughter returned to the state of Ying when she married and subsequently bore a son. When the ruler of Zheng established his daughter’s son on the throne, his legitimate heir fled to the state of Jin. Establishing as an heir the son of a daughter who has a different surname is the same as if the state had been destroyed, so the Spring and Autumn recorded that “a man from Ying annihilated Zheng.”

26. The Gongyang Commentary at Duke Xi 5.21.6 explains that the duke of Song and the viscount of Chu had agreed on an unarmed meeting. Prince Mu Yi, however, urged the duke of Song to prepare himself for an armed meeting because the ruler of Chu could not be trusted. Having already agreed to an unarmed meeting, the duke of Song vowed to take ultimate responsibility for what followed. When the duke went to the meeting, he was taken captive by Chu and held hostage. Consequently, the duke recognized Mu Yi as the de facto ruler and urged him to return and guard the state of Song. Seeing that the Song state already had a new ruler, even though the duke of Song was being held hostage, Chu released the duke of Song. The duke of Song proceeded to the state of Wey. Prince Mu Yi sought him out and reported that he had guarded the state for the sake of Duke Xiang. Thereafter he escorted him back to Song to reinstall him as the ruler.

28. Duke Xi 5.10.4: “Li Ke of Jin assassinated his ruler Zhaozi and his great officer Xun Xi.” The Gongyang explains that Lord Xian of Jin, infatuated with his favorite consort Li Ji, murdered Shen Sheng, the son of his senior consort and therefore the legitimate heir, in order to secure the succession for Li Ji’s son, Xi Qi. Although the great officer Xun Xi disapproved of these actions, he acceded to the dying Lord Xian’s request to promote Xi Qi’s succession. When another great officer, Li Ke, attempted to restore the legitimate line of succession, Xun Xi felt bound by his promise to the late ruler and refused to join in Li Ke’s plot. Li Ke then instigated the murder of both the illegitimate ruler Xi Qi and his successor Zhaozi, as well as his loyal officer Xun Xi. Xun Xi is praised for his steadfast loyalty to Lord Xian despite the dubious status of the lord’s successors.

Why did Guo Xia of Qi and [Dan] Man Gu of Wey lead troops to besiege Qii? It was a punitive expedition [to intervene in the succession of the rulers of Qii]. Why, in this instance, does [the Spring and Autumn] judge it to be a punitive expedition? [Dan] Man Gu [of Wey] received a command from Duke Ling [of Wey] to install Zhe. Relying on the resoluteness of Man Gu’s sense of righteousness, [Duke Ling] was able to oppose [the state of Qii]. Who was this Zhe? He was the son of Kuai Kui. Why did Duke Ling not install Kuai Kui but installed Zhe? Kuai Kui acted contrary to the Way, so Duke Ling expelled Kuai Kui and installed [his son] Zhe. Then based on Zhe’s righteousness, was it permissible to install him as ruler? The answer is: It was permissible. Why was it permissible? [The principle is:] Do not on account of your own father’s commands shirk your kingly father’s commands, and do not on account of your kingly father’s commands shirk your own father’s commands. The [commands] of the father devolve to the son. Do not, on account of family obligations, neglect the obligations to your ruler; do not, on account of the obligations to your ruler, neglect your family obligations. [Thus in all cases, the obligations] of the superior devolve to the subordinate.

Who was this third brother of [the marquis] of Ji? The younger brother of the Yi of Ji. Why is he not referred to by his personal name? He was worthy. In what respect was he worthy? He took the penalty upon himself. Under what circumstances did he do so? Master Lu says: “He asked permission to perpetuate the five halls of the ancestral temple in order to preserve [the offerings for his] elder and younger sisters and paternal aunts.” (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 121)

The feud between Ji and Qi was unequally balanced, since Qi was great and Ji small. [The ruler of] Ji knew that [his state] was bound to be lost. Therefore he pledged [the city of] Shi and took on himself the guilt that his forefather had attracted vis-à-vis Qi [see Zhuang 4.4]. He asked permission to be the perpetuator of the five halls of the ancestral temple, wishing to sue [the city of] Shi to provide for the sacrifices whereby he would preserve his elder and younger sisters and paternal aunts. (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 150)

33. Emending the character dai 代 to shou 狩, following Lai, CQFLJZJY 82. In the twenty-eighth year of Duke Xi, Duke Wen of Jin “realized his ambitions” when he summoned the Son of Heaven to an assembly of the Lords of the Land north of the Yellow River and the king complied. For a subject to summon his ruler to an assembly did not accord with the rites. The Spring and Autumn concealed the truth of the matter and stated simply: “The Son of Heaven went on a hunt north of the [Yellow] River.” Duke Xi 5.28.16: “The Heavenly King hunted at Heyang.” Gongyang: “[The Spring and Autumn] does not normally record hunts, why in this instance does it do so? It does not condone the fact [that the duke] again summoned the Son of Heaven. Master Lu said: ‘[He was] mild to those nearby but trampled on distant lands.’”

What is implied by the expression “grand exodus” (da qu 大去)? The Ji state was extinguished. Who extinguished it? The Qi state did. Why is this not stated? It is not stated to conceal the affair for the sake of Duke Xiang. [The Spring and Autumn] conceals [bad deeds] for the sake of the worthy. In what respect was Duke Xiang worthy? He acted in revenge. What was there to revenge? It was [the death of] a distant ancestor. Duke Ai was boiled to death in Zhou.” The Guliang Commentary maintains that the Spring and Autumn concealed the extinction of the Ji state for the sake of the worthy marquis of Ji: The marquis of Ji was worthy and yet the marquis of Qi extinguished him. (Adapted from Malmqvist, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guliang Commentaries,” 122)