Chen Zi asked, “Under what circumstances would a gentleman of ancient times take office?”
Mencius replied, “There are three situations in which he would take office, and three in which he would resign.
First (the highest standard): If a ruler welcomed him with respect and proper etiquette, and stated that he would put his advice into practice, he would take office. If the ruler’s etiquette and attitude remained unfaltering, but he failed to implement his advice, he would resign.
Second (a secondary standard): Even if the ruler did not implement his advice, if he was welcomed with respect and proper etiquette, he would still take office. However, if the ruler’s etiquette and attitude waned, he would resign.
Third (the lowest standard): If he could not eat in the morning or the evening, and was so starved that he could not even step out of his door, and the ruler, upon hearing this, said, ‘As a ruler, I cannot implement his Way on a grand scale, nor can I follow his advice. To let him starve in my territory brings me shame,’ and then provided him with relief, such relief could be accepted, for it was merely to prevent death by starvation.”
Note
This passage from the Gaozi II chapter of the Mencius systematically outlines the “three-tiered standards” for a gentleman to enter or withdraw from public service, based on Mencius’ answer to his disciple Chen Zi. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- Clear Criteria for Advancing and Retreating: The Political Bottom Line and Dignity of the Scholar-Official
Mencius used “the Way” (political ideals and proposals) and “etiquette” (respect and attitude) as the core yardsticks to measure whether a gentleman should take office. Under the highest standard, “implementing the Way” is paramount. A gentleman takes office to realize his political ideals; if the ruler only listens but does not act, the gentleman will decisively leave without clinging to power. This demonstrates the independent character and political bottom line of Confucian intellectuals, who “serve when the world is governed by the Way and retire when it is not.” - Distinct Hierarchies: The Compromise Between Ideals and Reality
Mencius did not use absolute saintly standards to demand perfection from everyone; instead, he left room for compromise with secondary and lowest standards. When “implementing the Way” is hopeless, as long as the ruler maintains basic respect, the gentleman may stay. When survival itself is at stake, accepting the ruler’s relief to “avoid death” is also reasonable. This tiered standard reflects Mencius’ profound insight into and tolerance for real-world dilemmas and human nature, even as he adheres to his principles. - The Reciprocal Nature of the Ruler-Minister Relationship: A Cross-Examination of the Ruler’s Moral Responsibilities
In the lowest standard, Mencius uses the ruler’s words, “To let him starve in my territory brings me shame,” to profoundly reveal the essence of the Confucian ruler-minister relationship: it is not an absolute relationship of subordination, but a bilateral contract based on “the Way” and “righteousness.” If a ruler cannot employ a talented minister, he should at least guarantee his basic right to survive with dignity. Mencius used this to admonish the rulers of his time: even if you cannot employ a talented person, you must never mistreat or humiliate them.
陈子曰：“古之君子何如则仕？”孟子曰：“所就三，所去三。迎之致敬以有礼，言将行其言也，则就之；礼貌未衰，言弗行也，则去之。其次，虽未行其言也，迎之致敬以有礼，则就之；礼貌衰，则去之。其下，朝不食，夕不食，饥饿不能出门户。君闻之曰：‘吾大者不能行其道，又不能从其言也，使饥饿于我土地，吾耻之。’周之，亦可受也，免死而已矣。”
Leave a Reply