Chen Zhen asked Mencius:
“The other day in Qi, the king offered you one hundred yi of fine gold, and you refused it. But in Song, you accepted seventy yi, and in Xue, fifty yi. This seems contradictory: If refusing the gift in Qi was right, then accepting in Song and Xue must be wrong; if accepting now is right, then your earlier refusal must have been wrong. Surely, Master, one of these actions must be incorrect?”
Mencius replied:
“Actually, all were correct.
- When I was in Song, I was about to embark on a long journey. It’s customary for travelers to receive farewell gifts called – travel provisions. They explicitly said, ‘This is a parting gift for your journey.’ Why shouldn’t I accept it?
- In Xue, I was on guard due to security concerns. They explained, ‘We heard you needed protection,’ and sent money to help me prepare defenses. Again, why refuse?
- But in Qi, I had no special need – no journey, no danger. The king simply sent me a large sum with no stated purpose. That’s not a gift – it’s an attempt to buy me off.
How could a true noble person allow himself to be purchased with money?”
陳臻問曰：「前日於齊，王餽兼金一百而不受；於宋，餽七十鎰而受；於薛，餽五十鎰而受。前日之不受是，則今日之受非也；今日之受是，則前日之不受非也。夫子必居一於此矣。」
孟子曰：「皆是也。當在宋也，予將有遠行。行者必以贐，辭曰：『餽贐。』予何為不受？當在薛也，予有戒心。辭曰：『聞戒。』故為兵餽之，予何為不受？若於齊，則未有處也。無處而餽之，是貨之也。焉有君子而可以貨取乎？」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Gongsun Chou II addresses a subtle ethical dilemma: when is it morally acceptable for a scholar to accept gifts from rulers? Mencius’s answer hinges not on rigid rules but on context, intention, and ritual propriety.
The Criterion: “Having a proper ground”
Mencius introduces a key principle:
“If there’s no legitimate reason for a gift, it’s an attempt to commodify you (to treat you as merchandise).”
Acceptance is justified only when aligned with social norms (e.g., travel fare) or genuine need (e.g., self-defense).
Moral autonomy of the Confucian Scholar
In the Warring States era, rulers often used lavish gifts to co-opt intellectuals. By rejecting unexplained wealth, Mencius asserts that a gentleman serves the Dao, not personal gain – echoing Confucius’s teaching that wealth obtained unethically is unworthy of acceptance (Analects 4.5).
Ritual language as ethical safeguard
The donors in Song and Xue states framed their gifts using proper ritual terms (“farewell provisions,” “funds for defense”), giving them moral legitimacy. This reflects the Confucian emphasis on naming things correctly – actions must align with righteous labels to avoid moral corruption.
Strategic integrity in a world of power
As a traveling philosopher, Mencius needed material support but refused dependence that compromised his voice. His selective acceptance was a principled pragmatism: sustain life without surrendering conscience.
Unlike strategists like Su Qin or Zhang Yi, who traded loyalty for reward, Mencius upheld the Confucian ideal of moral independence amid political engagement.
Though brief, this episode reveals the nuanced balance Confucianism strikes between real-world survival and uncompromising ethical integrity.
Leave a Reply