The people of Yan rebelled (against Qi’s occupation).
The King of Qi said,
“I feel deeply ashamed before Mencius.”
Chen Jia (Chen Gu) consoled him:
“Your Majesty need not worry. Do you consider yourself more benevolent and wise than the Duke of Zhou?”
The king exclaimed,
“Oh! How can you say such a thing?” (implying: “How dare I compare myself to the Duke of Zhou?”)
Chen Jia replied:
“The Duke of Zhou appointed his brother Guan Shu to oversee the former Yin people, yet Guan Shu later led them in rebellion.
If the Duke knew Guan Shu would rebel but still sent him, that would be un-benevolent;
if he did not know, that would be unwise.
Even the Duke of Zhou, then, did not fully embody perfect benevolence and wisdom – how much less so a ruler like you?
Let me go see Mencius and explain this on your behalf.”
Chen Jia went to Mencius and asked:
“Who was the Duke of Zhou?”
Mencius answered:
“An ancient sage.”
Chen Jia asked:
“Is it true he appointed Guan Shu to supervise the Yin, and Guan Shu then rebelled with them?”
“Yes,” said Mencius.
“Did the Duke of Zhou know in advance that Guan Shu would rebel when he appointed him?”
“No,” replied Mencius.
“Then even sages can make mistakes?”
Mencius responded firmly:
“The Duke of Zhou was the younger brother; Guan Shu was the elder.
Wasn’t it only natural for the Duke to trust his elder brother? Such an error is understandable.
Moreover, the noble person of antiquity corrected his faults; the so-called ‘noble’ of today merely perpetuates them.
The faults of the ancients were like eclipses of the sun or moon – visible to all.
But once they corrected themselves, the people looked up to them even more.
Today’s ‘gentlemen’ not only refuse to change – they even invent excuses to justify their errors!”
燕人畔。王曰：「吾甚慚於孟子。」
陳賈曰：「王無患焉。王自以為與周公，孰仁且智？」
王曰：「惡！是何言也？」
曰：「周公使管叔監殷，管叔以殷畔。知而使之，是不仁也；不知而使之，是不智也。仁智，周公未之盡也，而況於王乎？賈請見而解之。」
見孟子，問曰：「周公何人也？」
曰：「古聖人也。」
曰：「使管叔監殷，管叔以殷畔也，有諸？」
曰：「然。」
曰：「周公知其將畔而使之與？」
曰：「不知也。」
「然則聖人且有過與？」
曰：「周公，弟也；管叔，兄也。周公之過，不亦宜乎？且古之君子，過則改之；今之君子，過則順之。古之君子，其過也，如日月之食，民皆見之；及其更也，民皆仰之。今之君子，豈徒順之，又從為之辭。」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Gongsun Chou II uses the historical case of the Duke of Zhou to articulate a profound Confucian ethics of error, responsibility, and moral leadership.
Sages are Human: A realistic view of moral exemplars
Mencius acknowledges that even sages err – but their mistakes arise from human affections (e.g., fraternal loyalty), not selfishness. This reflects the Confucian view that moral perfection lies not in infallibility, but in sincerity and responsiveness.
Two responses to fault: Correction vs. Concealment
Mencius contrasts:
- The ancient noble person: openly acknowledges error and reforms;
- The contemporary “noble”: doubles down and rationalizes.
This dichotomy critiques the Warring States trend of rulers evading accountability – a veiled rebuke to Chen Jia’s attempt to excuse Qi’s failed invasion of Yan.
Rejecting false equivalence
Chen Jia implies:
“If the Duke of Zhou erred, why should the king feel shame?”
Mencius counters:
The Duke’s error was rooted in virtue (trust in kin); Qi’s was rooted in ambition.
The moral weight of an action depends on motive and response – not just outcome.
Historical Context: The aftermath of Qi’s Invasion of Yan (314 BCE)
Qi’s brutal occupation sparked rebellion, undermining its legitimacy. The king’s shame stems from ignoring Mencius’s earlier warning:
“Only take a state if its people welcome you.”
Chen Jia offers political spin; Mencius demands moral honesty.
The eclipse metaphor: Transparency builds trust
By comparing a noble person’s fault to a solar eclipse – visible, temporary, followed by renewed brilliance – Mencius champions ethical transparency as the foundation of public trust, a principle resonant with modern governance ideals.
Ultimately, this dialogue is not about defending the Duke of Zhou, but issuing a timeless challenge to power: True authority is earned not by never failing, but by how one rises after falling.
Leave a Reply