Gongsun Chou asked, “Gaozi said, ‘The poem Xiao Bian (Little Complaint) was written by a petty man.’”
Mencius asked, “Why did he say that?”
Gongsun Chou replied, “Because there is resentment in it.”
Mencius said, “How obstinate and shallow Old Master Gao is in interpreting poetry! Suppose there is a person here: if a man from the state of Yue draws a bow to shoot him, he can later talk about it with a smile and a laugh. There is no other reason for this than that the man from Yue is a stranger to him. But if his own elder brother draws a bow to shoot him, he will weep and cry as he talks about it. There is no other reason for this than that his brother is a close relative. The resentment in Xiao Bian stems from a deep love for one’s kin. Loving one’s kin is benevolence. How obstinate Old Master Gao is in interpreting poetry!”
Gongsun Chou then asked, “Why, then, is there no resentment in the poem Kai Feng (Gentle Wind)?”
Mencius replied, “In Kai Feng, the mother’s fault is minor; in Xiao Bian, the father’s fault is grave. If a parent commits a grave fault and the child does not resent it, it means their affection is growing distant. If a parent commits a minor fault and the child resents it, it means the child cannot bear even the slightest provocation. Growing distant from one’s parents is unfilial; being unable to bear slight provocations is also unfilial. Confucius said, ‘Shun was indeed the ultimate in filial piety; even at the age of fifty, he still yearned for his parents like a child.’”
Note
This passage from the Gaozi II chapter of the Mencius records a dialogue between Mencius and his disciple Gongsun Chou regarding literary and moral criticism of two famous poems in the Book of Poetry (Xiao Bian and Kai Feng). Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- The Ethical Reconstruction of “Resentment”: Kinship as the Legitimate Source of Resentment
Gaozi’s claim that resentment makes a poem the work of a “petty man” represents a mechanical, superficial absolutization of morality. Mencius, through the vivid metaphor of being shot at by a stranger versus an elder brother, reconstructs “resentment” ethically. He points out that resentment itself is not inherently evil; what matters is the motive behind it. Resentment directed at one’s closest kin stems precisely from deep familial love (“Qin Qin”). This pain and sorrow, rooted in blood ties and grace, is not the act of a petty man, but rather an embodiment of benevolence. - The Golden Mean of Filial Piety: The Dual Unfilialness of “Growing Distant” and “Intolerance”
Gongsun Chou’s follow-up question leads to Mencius’ dialectical reflection on “filial piety.” Mencius argues that a child’s reaction to a parent’s faults must be measured. If a parent commits a grave fault (as King You of Zhou did in Xiao Bian) and the child remains unmoved and unresentful, it indicates indifference and growing emotional distance, which is unfilial. Conversely, if a parent commits a minor fault (as the mother did in Kai Feng) and the child harbors resentment, it shows a narrow-mindedness and an inability to bear slight provocations, which is equally unfilial. Through this, Mencius establishes the Confucian Golden Mean for filial piety: a balanced integration of emotion and reason, of leniency and strictness. - “Yearning at Fifty”: The Ultimate Realm of Filial Piety is Pure Emotion
In his concluding remarks, Mencius quotes Confucius’ evaluation of Shun (“yearning for his parents at fifty”) to elevate filial piety to the realm of pure emotion. True filial piety is not about mechanically adhering to rules against resentment, nor is it driven by utilitarianism or fear. Rather, it is retaining the most primitive, pure attachment and reverence for one’s parents, just as Shun did, regardless of how the parents treat them or what age or worldly achievements the child has reached. This profound affection, which transcends secular rationality, stands as the highest benchmark of the Confucian concept of filial piety.
公孙丑问曰：“高子曰：‘小弁，小人之诗也。’”
孟子曰：“何以言之？”曰：“怨。”
曰：“固哉，高叟之为诗也！有人于此，越人关弓而射之，则己谈笑而道之；无他，疏之也。其兄关弓而射之，则己垂涕泣而道之；无他，戚之也。小弁之怨，亲亲也。亲亲，仁也。固矣夫，高叟之为诗也！”曰：“凯风何以不怨？”
曰：“凯风，亲之过小者也；小弁，亲之过大者也。亲之过大而不怨，是愈疏也；亲之过小而怨，是不可矶也。愈疏，不孝也；不可矶，亦不孝也。孔子曰：‘舜其至孝矣，五十而慕。’”
Leave a Reply