Duke Ping of Lu was about to set out when his favorite courtier, Zang Cang, asked:
“Usually, Your Lordship informs the officials of your destination before leaving. Now your carriage is ready, yet no one knows where you’re going. May I ask?”
“I’m going to see Mencius,” replied the duke.
Zang Cang objected:
“Why? Would you, a ruler, lower yourself to visit a mere commoner – do you truly consider him virtuous? But ritual propriety should come from the truly worthy! Yet it’s said that Mencius held a more lavish funeral for his mother than for his father. That violates proper rites! I suggest that you should not go to see him.”
“Very well,” said the duke.
Later, Yue Zhengzi – one of Mencius’s disciples – asked the duke:
“Why didn’t you go to see Meng Ke (Mencius)?”
The duke answered:
“Someone told me, Mencius honored his mother’s funeral more than his father’s, so I decided not to go.”
Yue Zhengzi asked:
“What do you mean by ‘more honored’? Was it because he used three ritual vessels as a scholar for his father, and five as a high official for his mother?”
“No,” said the duke. “I mean the coffin, outer coffin, robes, and coverings were finer.”
“That’s not a violation at all,” Yue Zhengzi explained. “It simply reflects changed circumstances – poverty before, prosperity later.”
When Yue Zhengzi reported this to Mencius, saying,
“I told the duke, and he was coming – but Zang Cang interfered, so he didn’t come after all,”
Mencius calmly replied:
“To act, someone may prompt you; to stop, someone may hinder you. But whether action or inaction prevails – that is not up to human will alone. My failure to meet the Duke of Lu is Heaven’s doing. How could that boy Zang prevent my encounter with destiny?”
魯平公將出。嬖人臧倉者請曰：「他日君出，則必命有司所之。今乘輿已駕矣，有司未知所之。敢請。」公曰：「將見孟子。」曰：「何哉？君所為輕身以先於匹夫者，以為賢乎？禮義由賢者出。而孟子之後喪踰前喪。君無見焉！」公曰：「諾。」
樂正子入見，曰：「君奚為不見孟軻也？」曰：「或告寡人曰，『孟子之後喪踰前喪』，是以不往見也。」曰：「何哉君所謂踰者？前以士，後以大夫；前以三鼎，而後以五鼎與？」曰：「否。謂棺槨衣衾之美也。」曰：「非所謂踰也，貧富不同也。」
樂正子見孟子，曰：「克告於君，君為來見也。嬖人有臧倉者沮君，君是以不果來也。」曰：「行或使之，止或尼之。行止，非人所能也。吾之不遇魯侯，天也。臧氏之子焉能使予不遇哉？」
Note
This dialogue comes from Mencius: King Hui of Liang II. On the surface, it appears to be a misunderstanding about the scale of funeral rites, but in fact it profoundly reveals Mencius’s views on political destiny, the true meaning of ritual (etiquette), and the character of a Confucian gentleman.
Ritual lies in sincerity and context, Not form
Zang Cang accused Mencius of honoring his mother’s funeral more lavishly than his father’s, claiming this violated the hierarchical principle of “father superior to mother.” However, Yue Zhengzi clarified the real reason: when Mencius’s father died, the family was poor and could only afford a simple burial; by the time his mother passed away, Mencius held an official post in Qi and had the means for a more dignified ceremony.
- This aligns with the Book of Rites: Qu Li: “In ritual, timeliness is paramount” – rites should adapt to one’s era, social status, and economic circumstances.
- Mencius stated that funerals express genuine reverence, not ostentation.
- Confucian ritual prioritizes appropriateness over rigidity. As Confucius said in the Analects (Ba Yi): “In rites, it is better to be frugal than extravagant; in mourning, better to grieve sincerely than to observe formal ease.”
Thus, Zang Cang’s judgment – based solely on outward appearances – was narrow-minded and missed the deeper moral principle.
“A favorite minister thwarts the ruler”: Petty Men Obstructing Virtuous Governance
As we mentioned above, Zang Cang’s judgment of Mencius was based solely on outward appearances. What’s worse is that Zang Cang’s actions may have stemmed from jealousy or resentment toward Mencius’s favor, as Mencius, as a representative of Confucianism, posed a potential threat to the interests of influential ministers like Zang Cang. Furthermore, as a close advisor to Duke Ping of Lu, Zang Cang may have intended to protect his own influence and prevent Mencius from intervening in state affairs.
As a favored court intimate without formal office, Zang Cang wielded undue influence over the duke – a common problem in the Warring States period, where rulers often trusted sycophants over true talent.
- Historical parallels abound: King Huai of Chu heeded the flatterer Jin Shang and exiled Qu Yuan; King Min of Qi favored corrupt attendants and banished Lord Mengchang.
- Throughout his travels, Mencius repeatedly faced rejection – not due to lack of wisdom, but because jealous ministers like Chunyu Kun in Qi or Zang Cang in Lu poisoned the ruler’s ear against him. Chunyu Kun was renowned for recommending talents, for example, he once visited Wei State as an envoy to secretly rescue Sun Bin. However Chunyu Kun disliked Mencius and marginalized him.
The Confucian view of fate and moral transcendence
Rather than blaming Zang Cang, Mencius attributed his missed audience to “Heaven”. This was not passive resignation, but a profound philosophical stance:
- He acknowledged that human affairs involve uncontrollable factors – timing, a ruler’s insight, historical conditions;
- He upheld the Confucian ideal: “Seek with the Dao/Tao; attainment depends on fate” (Mencius: Jin Xin I) – do your utmost, yet accept outcomes with equanimity;
- Spiritually, he remained autonomous: “I already know the Dao will not prevail,” yet he chose to “guard the Dao unto death.”
This attitude stands apart from Legalist pragmatism and Daoist withdrawal, embodying the Confucian spirit of “doing what is right even when success is impossible” – a blend of tragic resolve and serene dignity.
Historical Echoes
- Sima Qian wrote in the Records of the Grand Historian:
“While the world pursued alliances and power, Mencius spoke of the virtue of the ancient sage-kings – thus, wherever he went, he found no match.” - Zhu Xi of the Song dynasty commented on this passage:
“Petty men slander gentlemen – but the gentleman remains unmoved, for his self-confidence is firm and his understanding of fate deep.” - This episode became a classic symbol in Chinese intellectual history of “petty men ruining the state” and “the worthy left unrecognized.”
Leave a Reply