Section 29.1
What the Spring and Autumn brings order to is others and the self. The means by which it brings order to others and the self is humaneness and righteousness. It uses humaneness to pacify others and righteousness to correct the self. For this reason, “humaneness” is a term that refers to others, and “righteousness” is a term that refers to the self. The Spring and Autumn speaks in these terms to differentiate them.
The relationships between humaneness and others and between righteousness and the self must be scrutinized thoroughly. Most people, however, do not scrutinize them, so they use “humaneness” to treat themselves generously while using “righteousness” to treat others coercively. When their applications are reversed [in that way] and their principles are transposed, [the two terms] will rarely fail to create confusion. Thus even though no one wants confusion, deep-seated confusion will predominate. On the whole, people are in the dark about the distinction between the self and others, so they fail to understand where humaneness and righteousness reside. For this reason, the
Spring and Autumn creates standards
1 of humaneness and righteousness. The standard of humaneness lies in loving others, not in loving the self. The standard of righteousness lies in correcting the self, not in correcting others. If we do not correct ourselves, even if we are capable of correcting others, [the
Spring and Autumn] will not grant that this is righteousness. If others are not the recipients of our love, even though we are replete with self-love, [the
Spring and Autumn] will not grant that this is humaneness.
In ancient times, Duke Ling of Jin murdered his chief cook so he could get [someone] more skilled [at preparing his] food and drink,
2 and he shot pellets at his ministers to indulge his whims. He certainly was filled with self-love, but [the
Spring and Autumn] did not grant that he was someone who secured the skill of others because he did not love others. If he were disposed to love the common people, [extending] downward [even] to birds, beasts, and swarming insects, there would be nothing that he failed to love. But since he did not love others, how could he be called “humane”? “Humaneness” is the term that designates loving others.
[When Duke Xi pursued the Chu army to] Sui,
3 the [
Gongyang]
Commentary did not use any terms that would magnify the event [in praise.] Yet [when Duke Zhuang] pursued [the Rong tribe] on his own initiative [before they had invaded his state],
4 the [
Gongyang Commentary] praised him for worrying about those who were far away. [The
Spring and Autumn] does not praise those who move to save a situation when troops have already invaded. It praises those who make advance preparation before troops have arrived. It praises those who preemptively save others from calamities.
If one moves to rescue a situation early and preemptively, then calamities will have no source from which to arise, and the world will be free from them. To observe the movement of events and awaken preemptively to their initial stirrings so as to eradicate disorder and prevent calamity when it has not yet taken shape—such is the intent of the Spring and Autumn and the acme of brilliance. Short of the wisdom of a Yao or Shun, who understood the root of propriety, who could match this?
Therefore, preventing calamities preemptively is the true expression of brilliance. Duke [Zhuang] worried about those who were far away, so the
Spring and Autumn praised him. It recorded in great detail its praise for the [duke’s] intent to worry about those who were far away so that [everyone] between Heaven and Earth would celebrate his humaneness. Short of the virtue of the Three Kings, who [embodied] the quintessence of selecting worthies, who could equal this? Therefore, using wisdom to illuminate what lies in the future and humaneness to attend generously to the distant, is love: the more distant, the more worthy; the nearer, the less estimable. Thus
the love of the king extends to the four tribes;
5the love of the hegemon extends to the Lords of the Land;
the love of the secure [ruler] extends to those within his territory;
the love of the imperiled [ruler] extends to his dependents and aides;
and the love of the [ruler] bereft [of his state] extends only to his person.
Although one who is isolated might achieve the position of Son of Heaven or Lord of the Land, he will not be able to employ a single person from among the officials or the common people. This being the case, even if no one destroys him, he will self-destruct. Thus the
Spring and Autumn does not state: “Liang was attacked.” Rather, it states: “Liang perished.”
6 For in fact, the love of the ruler extended only to his person. Thus I say: Humaneness means loving others; it does not consist of loving the self. This is the standard.
Righteousness does not refer to rectifying others but to rectifying the self. When there are chaotic times and depraved rulers, everyone aspires to rectify others. Yet how can this be called “righteousness”? In ancient times, King Ling of Chu punished the rebels of Chen and Cai,
7 and Duke Huan of Qi put a stop to the crimes of Yuan Taotu.
8 It was not that [these rulers] were unable to rectify others but that the
Spring and Autumn did not praise them. It did not consider them to be righteous because they had not rectified their own persons yet simply hastened to benefit [themselves personally].
9Helü was able to rectify the difficulties between Chu and Cai, but the
Spring and Autumn withheld the expression “righteous” because he had not rectified his own person.
10 Luzi was not able to rectify any of the Lords of the Land, yet the
Spring and Autumn granted that he possessed righteousness because he had rectified his own person.
11 Thus I say: Righteousness lies in rectifying the self; it does not lie in rectifying others. This is the standard.
Now if we lack [some trait] but look for it in others, or if we have [some trait] and yet criticize it in others, this is something that no one will find acceptable; it is contrary to principles. How could this be called righteousness? Righteousness means that appropriateness resides in the self. Only when appropriateness resides in the self can one describe it as “righteousness.” Thus the term “righteousness” combines [the concept of] the self and [the concept of] appropriateness in a single word. From this perspective, the term “righteousness” refers to the self. Thus I say: To act and attain righteousness means getting it by yourself; to act and lose righteousness means losing it by yourself. People who are fond of righteousness are said to like themselves, whereas people who are not fond of righteousness are said to dislike themselves. Having considered [the issue] from this perspective, it is clear that righteousness refers to the self. Thus righteousness differs from humaneness.
Humaneness refers to what is directed away [from the self];
righteousness refers to what is directed toward [the self].
Humaneness magnifies what is distant;
righteousness magnifies what is near.
Love of others is called humaneness;
appropriateness of the self
12 is called righteousness.
Humaneness governs others;
righteousness governs the self.
Thus I say: “Humaneness [refers to] others; righteousness [refers to] the self.” This is what is meant.
The Noble Man sought out the distinction between humaneness and righteousness to bring order to the interactions between others and the self. Only then could the Noble Man distinguish between the internal and the external and determine compliance and deviance. For this reason, the Noble Man brought order to the internal by reverting to proper principles to rectify the self, relying on propriety to encourage good fortune. He brought order to the external by extending his compassion to ever widening circles of activity, relying on generous regulations to embrace the multitudes. Confucius said to Ranzi: “Those who bring order to the people first enrich them and only afterward provide them with education.”
13 [Confucius] spoke to Fanji and said: “Those who bring order to their persons first encounter difficulties and only afterward reap [the benefits].”
14 I understand these passages to mean that with regard to bringing order to the self and bringing order to others, the sequence followed is not the same. An
Ode declares:
“Give us drink. Give us food.
Teach us. Instruct us.”
15
To first provide them with food and drink and then educate and instruct them refers to bringing order to others. Another Ode exclaims:
“Kan kan, he carves the wheel spokes….
Indeed that noble man
does not eat the food of idleness.”
16
First the task and only afterward the repast; this refers to bringing order to the self.
The
Spring and Autumn censures the faults of those above and pities the hardships of those below. It does not call attention to minor transgressions external [to the ruler], but when they reside in [the ruler] himself, it records and condemns them. “Minor transgressions outside [the state of Lu] are not raised, but [ones that pertain to] the person [of the ruler] are recorded and condemned.” Now in these six examples, [the
Spring and Autumn] uses [the term] “humaneness” to [refer to] bringing order to others; it uses [the term] “righteousness” [to refer] to bringing order to the self. “Criticize the self generously and censure others sparingly.”
17 This expresses it. Moreover, the
Analects already has articulated this principle, but others have failed to consider it. It states: “The noble man assails evil in his own person but does not assail evil in others.”
18 Not to assail others’ evil: Is this not the most generous kind of humaneness? By oneself to assail [one’s own] evil: Is this not the perfection of righteousness? How does this differ from the expression “humaneness constitutes others; righteousness constitutes the self”?
Thus to declare one’s own evil is called fact;
to declare others’ evil is called slander.
To search in the self is called generosity;
to search in others is called stinginess.
To censure the self for the sake of perfection is called clarity;
to censure others for the sake of perfection is called stupidity.
to rely on the standards for ordering the self to order others means the ruler is not lenient;
to rely on the standards for ordering others to order the self means lacking the proper reverence in carrying out ritual propriety.
If the ruler is not reverent in applying propriety, he will compromise his conduct, and the people will not respect him.
If the ruler is not lenient, he will compromise his generosity, and the people will not feel affection for him.
If the people do not feel affection for him, they will not trust him.
If they do not respect him, they will not revere him.
If those above defy these two principles of governance and implement them in a biased way, those below will condemn them. Is it possible not to deliberate the proper place of humaneness and righteousness? Now,
if the eyes do not look, they will not see;
if the mind does not deliberate, it will not apprehend.
Though possessing the greatest delicacy in the world, if you do not taste it, you will not know its excellence.
Though possessing the utmost Way of the sages, if you do not discuss it, you will not understand its meaning. [29/38/17–29/39/28]