Mencius said to Chi Wa:
“You resigned your post as magistrate of Lingqiu and requested to become Chief Justice – a reasonable move, since that position allows you to speak directly to the ruler.
But now several months have passed. Haven’t you had a chance to speak your mind yet?”
Chi Wa then submitted remonstrances to the king, but they were ignored. So he formally resigned and left.
People in Qi remarked:
“What Mencius advised Chi Wa to do was admirable – but what about himself? Why doesn’t he remonstrate or leave? We don’t understand.”
Gongduzi (a disciple of Mencius) reported this to Mencius.
Mencius replied:
“I’ve heard it said:
Officials with fixed duties should resign if they cannot fulfill them;
Ministers with the duty to speak out should depart if their advice is unheeded.But I hold no official post, and I bear no formal responsibility to remonstrate.
So isn’t my freedom to come and go – perfectly at ease, with ample room to maneuver?”
孟子謂蚔鼃曰：「子之辭靈丘而請士師，似也，為其可以言也。今既數月矣，未可以言與？」
蚔鼃諫於王而不用，致為臣而去。齊人曰：「所以為蚔鼃，則善矣；所以自為，則吾不知也。」
公都子以告。曰：「吾聞之也：有官守者，不得其職則去；有言責者，不得其言則去。我無官守，我無言責也，則吾進退，豈不綽綽然有餘裕哉？」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Gongsun Chou II clarifies the Confucian ethics of political engagement through the case of Chi Wa’s resignation, highlighting a key principle: moral action must align with one’s actual role and responsibilities.
Duty determines departure
Mencius distinguishes between two types of officials: those with administrative duties and those with remonstrance obligations. For them, office entails a moral contract – failure to act justifies, even demands, resignation.
Mencius’s unique position: The independent “Guest Teacher”
Unlike Chi Wa, Mencius held no formal appointment in Qi state. He was a respected scholar hosted by the court but not bound by institutional duties. Thus, he was not subject to the rule “depart if your words are ignored.” His autonomy allowed him to engage – or withdraw – based solely on moral judgment, embodying the Confucian ideal of “serving the Dao, not the ruler.”
Responding to public criticism
Critics accused Mencius of double standards. He countered that ethical expectations vary by role: Chi Wa, as an appointed censor, had no choice but to act or resign; Mencius, as a free intellectual, retained strategic flexibility – essential for preserving moral integrity.
Historical Context: Diverse roles of Warring States scholars
In an era when intellectuals could serve as advisors, officials, or teachers, Mencius deliberately avoided fixed posts (rejecting even lavish offers) to maintain his right to criticize. As he declared elsewhere: “When addressing great men, look down on them” (Mencius 13B.9) – a stance only possible without bureaucratic entanglement.
The Confucian art of “Coming and Going”
This episode reflects the nuanced Confucian view of political participation:
- Those in office must act or resign;
- Those outside may choose when and how to engage.
Mencius’s “ample room to maneuver” is not evasion but a deliberate strategy to uphold the Dao while navigating power – a model of principled independence that inspired generations of Chinese literati.
Leave a Reply