5.5
Someone said, “Ran Yong is benevolent, but he is a poor talker.”
The Master said, “What need has he to be a good talker? Those who down others with clap-trap are seldom popular. Whether he is benevolent, I do not know. But I see no need for him to be a good talker.”
或曰：「雍也，仁而不佞。」子曰：「焉用佞？禦人以口給，屢憎於人。不知其仁，焉用佞？」
Notes
Someone remarked that Ran Yong, while humane and virtuous, lacked eloquence. Addressing the societal trend of “valuing eloquence over virtue” (e.g., strategists gaining influence through rhetoric, such as Su Qin, Zhang Yi), Confucius defended Ran Yong’s “lack of cunning speech”. In doing so, he clarified the fundamental distinction between “benevolence” and “eloquence”, underscoring the Confucian emphasis on inner moral character and the principle of “substance over form”.
Likewise, Confucius also said:
“Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with benevolence.”(Analects 1.3)
It directly points to the opposition between “fine words” and “benevolence”. Consistent with the maxim “How can glibness be needed? We do not know if he possesses benevolence – so why use glibness?”, it draws a value distinction between the superficial rhetoric of “glibness” and the profound moral virtue of “benevolence”, rejecting the misconception that “verbal show equals moral character”.
Leave a Reply