Both Yan Ying (also known as Yanzi) and Confucius were renowned sages in the Spring and Autumn period. Confucius greatly admired Yan Ying, yet Yan Ying strongly rejected Confucius. Why?
This is not because Yan Ying looked down upon Confucius’ personal character. Rather, as a pragmatic statesman, Yan Ying opposed Confucian teachings from the perspective of state governance. The core conflict lay in the tension between Confucian ideals and the practical needs of governance. This article draws on historical records including the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), the Annals of Yanzi (Yanzi Chunqiu), and the Mozi to explore this fascinating historical episode.
The Turning Point: A Lost Opportunity
The story begins in 517 BC, when Confucius, then 35 years old, fled the State of Lu and arrived in the State of Qi. Duke Jing of Qi was impressed by Confucius’ philosophy. On one occasion, Confucius told the duke: “Let the ruler be a ruler, the minister a minister, the father a father, and the son a son”. The duke praised this greatly. On another occasion, Confucius advised: “Governance lies in frugality”.
Delighted, Duke Jing decided to grant Confucius land in Nixi (also known as Erji or Linqiu). But before the decree could be issued, the duke consulted his prime minister – Yan Ying.
Yan Ying firmly opposed the idea. He delivered a sharp critique that would permanently end Confucius’ prospects in Qi. Duke Jing ultimately changed his mind. He received Confucius with courtesy but never asked about his teachings again. Later, when Qi ministers plotted against Confucius, the duke simply said: “I am old and can no longer use him.” Confucius had no choice but to leave Qi and return to Lu.
What exactly did Yan Ying say? His critique had four main points.
Point One: Ritual Formalism Detached from Reality
Confucius placed great emphasis on li (ritual propriety) – elaborate attire, intricate rules of deference, and detailed ceremonial gestures. Yan Ying argued that these were utterly impractical:
“Now Confucius elaborates his attire and adornments, complicates the rituals of ascending and descending, and refines the details of rapid and measured steps. Several generations could not exhaust his learning, nor could a single lifetime complete his rituals.”
If even a lifetime is not enough to master these rituals, how could ordinary people ever learn them? Yan Ying warned that imposing such complexities would “move the customs of Qi” – but not in a good way. Worse still, these outward formalities would cause “the people’s conduct to grow increasingly shallow” – people would focus on appearances while neglecting genuine virtue. Rituals, rather than educating the people, would become a burden impossible for them to bear.
Point Two: Lavish Burials Draining State Resources
Confucius advocated grand funerals and prolonged mourning. Yan Ying saw this as a disaster for any state:
“Extolling funerals and indulging grief, bankrupting families for lavish burials – this cannot be made a custom.”
And elsewhere: “厚葬破民贫国, 久丧循哀费日” (Lavish burials impoverish the people and drain the state; prolonged mourning wastes days and consumes time).
For Yan Ying, a statesman managing the affairs of a real state, this was not a minor philosophical disagreement. If everyone bankrupted themselves for funerals, the state would grow poor and the people would become idle. Qi needed “frugality in governance” – exactly the opposite of what Confucius was promoting. Yan Ying’s objection was deeply practical: a state cannot prosper when its wealth is buried in the ground.
Point Three: Confucian scholars Unfit for Governance
Yan Ying also criticized the character and conduct of Confucian scholars themselves:
“These Confucian scholars are glib and cannot be governed by law; arrogant and self-righteous, they cannot serve as subordinates; wandering about and begging for favors, they cannot serve the state.”
He elaborated that they are “haughty and self-satisfied” (倨傲自顺), making them difficult to manage in any hierarchical system. They make their living through persuasion and begging (游说乞贷), lacking practical skills. They are “not suitable for serving as subordinates” (不可以为下) and “cannot be governed by fixed laws” (不可轨法). In short, they are intellectuals who talk a great deal but cannot actually govern – a liability in any administration.
Point Four: Teachings That Bewitch Rulers but Harm the People
Yan Ying’s most serious charge was that Confucian teachings were fundamentally deceptive:
“Elaborately embellishing witchcraft to entice worldly rulers, grandly promoting music to delude and befuddle the people. His Way cannot be shown to the world, nor can his teachings guide the people.”
In the Mozi, a similar critique appears: “Kong Qiu [Confucius] elaborates his appearance and adornments to deceive the world” (孔丘盛容修饰以蛊世).
Yan Ying argued that while Confucius’ teachings might dazzle rulers, they “cannot benefit the people” (不能补民). If such doctrines were used to transform Qi’s customs, they would not “guide the masses or sustain the people” (非所以导众存民也). The danger was that a ruler enamored by Confucius’ elegant theories would adopt policies that looked impressive but ultimately harmed the state and its people.
A Clash of Worldviews
Why did Yan Ying so firmly reject Confucius? The answer lies in their fundamentally different worldviews.
- Confucius was an idealist. He believed that restoring the rituals of the Zhou dynasty would bring order to a chaotic world. His solutions looked backward to an idealized past.
- Yan Ying was a pragmatist. He governed a real state – Qi – with real problems. He needed policies that worked in practice, not theories that sounded beautiful but were impossible to implement.
Both men were dedicated to the welfare of their states and peoples. But they disagreed fundamentally on how to achieve that welfare. Confucius sought to reform through ritual and virtue; Yan Ying sought to govern through practicality and frugality. Their conflict was not personal – it was a clash between two visions of how a state should be ruled.
An Ironic Twist
There is a certain irony in this story. Confucius himself greatly admired Yan Ying. In the Analects, Confucius said: “Yan Pingzhong [Yan Ying] was good at interacting with others. The longer the acquaintance, the more he was respected.”
Yet Yan Ying, the man Confucius admired, became the primary obstacle to his career in Qi. The Annals of Yanzi records multiple instances of Yan Ying speaking against Confucius. Some later scholars even suggested that the Qi court deliberately schemed to lure Confucius in and then reject him.
Confucius became prime minister of Lu. Duke Jing of Qi was troubled by this. He said to Yan Ying: “When a neighboring state has a sage, that is a cause for concern for a rival state. Now that Confucius is serving as prime minister of Lu, what should we do about it?”
Yan Ying replied: “Your Majesty need not worry. The ruler of Lu is a weak sovereign, while Confucius is a sagacious minister. It would be better for you to secretly honor Confucius and offer him the position of prime minister in Qi. If Confucius then forcefully remonstrates with the Lu ruler but is not heeded, he will surely grow arrogant toward Lu and develop feelings for Qi—but Your Majesty must not accept him. Thus, cut off from Lu and without a patron in Qi, Confucius will be trapped.”
A year later, Confucius left Lu and went to Qi, but Duke Jing did not receive him. As a result, Confucius was later stranded between the states of Chen and Cai.
— Source: Annals of Yanzi (Yanzi Chunqiu)
Whether or not that is true, the historical record is clear: Yan Ying’s intervention changed the course of Confucius’ life – and perhaps the course of Chinese history. Had Confucius been given a position in Qi, his teachings might have taken a very different path. Instead, he returned to Lu and eventually began his long, wandering journey through the states – a journey that would make him the “stray dog” he later laughed about.
What This Story Teaches Us
The story of Yan Ying and Confucius reminds us that even the greatest wisdom must contend with the practical realities of its time. Confucius’ ideas were profound, but Yan Ying had valid concerns about their applicability. Both men were acting in what they believed to be the best interest of the state – they simply disagreed on what “best” meant.
For those of us looking back across more than two thousand years, this conflict offers a valuable lesson: great ideas are not always practical, and practical governance is not always inspiring. The tension between the two is as old as civilization itself.
Leave a Reply