Mencius said:
“Yu the Great detested fine wine but loved wise counsel. Tang held to the Golden Mean and appointed the worthy without regard to their background. King Wen of Zhou looked upon the people as if they were wounded, and though he longed for the Dao, he always felt he had not yet fully grasped it. King Wu did not slight those near him nor forget those far away. The Duke of Zhou sought to combine the virtues of the three sage-kings – Yu, Tang, and Wen – and apply their four great practices. Whenever his actions fell short of this ideal, he would ponder deeply, day and night; once he found a solution, he would sit waiting for dawn to put it into practice immediately.”
孟子曰：「禹惡旨酒而好善言。湯執中，立賢無方。文王視民如傷，望道而未之見。武王不泄邇，不忘遠。周公思兼三王，以施四事；其有不合者，仰而思之，夜以繼日；幸而得之，坐以待旦。」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Li Lou II presents five paradigmatic rulers – Yu, Tang, King Wen, King Wu, and the Duke of Zhou – as embodiments of Confucian kingship, illustrating both the core virtues of benevolent rule and the sage’s relentless pursuit of moral and political perfection.
Each Sage-King represents a distinct virtue
- Yu: Rejected indulgence (wine) and valued honest advice – symbolizing self-restraint and openness to criticism.
- Tang: Upheld the Golden Mean (moderation) and appointed talent regardless of origin (e.g., elevating Yi Yin, a former cook).
- King Wen: Viewed the people “as if wounded” – a profound empathy that drove his governance; his sense of “not yet seeing the Way (Dao)” reflected humble, ceaseless striving.
- King Wu: Honored close advisors while remembering distant subjects – ensuring inclusive, balanced rule.
- Duke of Zhou: Integrated the best of all three earlier kings, aiming to implement their combined wisdom (“the four practices”) universally.
The sage’s reflective practice
The Duke of Zhou did not claim infallibility. When reality diverged from ideal, he engaged in deep reflection – “night after night” – until insight emerged. His “sitting until dawn” to act immediately shows urgent moral responsibility, not passive contemplation. This “learn–reflect–act” cycle became the Confucian model for statesmanship.
“Following the Ancient Kings” as creative inheritance
Mencius’s appeal to past sages was not antiquarian nostalgia but selective, principled emulation. He extracted enduring values – empathy, meritocracy, moderation, inclusivity – and urged their adaptation to present needs.
Later, Xunzi’s “follow later kings” complemented this by emphasizing institutional innovation alongside moral continuity.
Implicit critique of Warring States rulers
Amidst rampant luxury, nepotism, and short-term militarism, Mencius used these exemplars as mirrors:
- If you indulge in pleasure, remember Yu;
- If you exclude outsiders, remember Tang;
- If you ignore suffering, remember Wen;
- If you favor insiders, remember Wu;
- If you resist learning, remember the Duke of Zhou.
Populism vs. Moral Tradition
- All virtues converge on “protecting the people to become king”.
- Simultaneously, the lineage from Yu to the Duke of Zhou forms a continuous moral-political tradition, legitimizing Confucian governance through historical precedent.
Mencius once said:
Historical Legacy
Emperors like Han’s Wen Di (frugality, care for people) and Tang Taizong (merit-based appointments) consciously modeled themselves on these ideals. Zhu Xi later stressed that sages always felt “inadequate” – precisely the spirit of “not yet seeing the Dao.”
In essence:
Sage-kings were not divine – they cultivated virtue; the Duke of Zhou was not born perfect – he earned greatness through relentless effort. Each sage-king embodied a distinct virtue, all centered on the people and guided by the Dao; the Duke of Zhou synthesized them all, reflecting tirelessly and acting with urgent dedication. Those who seek righteous rule must look to these five models.
Leave a Reply