Wan Zhang asked Mencius, “Xiang made it his daily business to try and kill Shun. Yet, when Shun was established as the Son of Heaven, he merely banished him. Why was this?”
Mencius replied, “He actually enfeoffed him. Some people, however, say he banished him.”
Wan Zhang asked, “Shun banished Gong Gong to Youzhou, exiled Huan Dou to Chongshan, executed the San Miao at Sanwei, and put Gun to death at Yushan. When these four criminals were punished, all under heaven submitted, for he was punishing the unmerciful. Yet Xiang was extremely unmerciful, and Shun enfeoffed him in the state of Yubi. What crime had the people of Yubi committed? Is this how a benevolent man acts? He punishes others, but enfeoffs his own brother.”
Mencius replied, “When a benevolent man deals with his younger brother, he does not harbor anger, nor does he hold onto resentment; he simply loves and cares for him. Because he loves him, he wishes him to be noble; because he cares for him, he wishes him to be wealthy. Enfeoffing him in Yubi was to make him wealthy and noble. If he himself were the Son of Heaven while his younger brother was merely a commoner, could this be called loving and caring for him?”
Wan Zhang asked, “May I ask what is meant by those who say he banished him?”
Mencius replied, “Xiang was not allowed to govern his state arbitrarily. The Son of Heaven appointed officials to govern the state and collect its tributes and taxes on his behalf. Therefore, it is called banishment. How could he oppress those people? Nevertheless, Shun wished to see him frequently, so Xiang was able to come to court continuously. The saying, ‘Without waiting for the time of tribute, he received the ruler of Yubi on political business,’ refers precisely to this.”
萬章問曰：「象日以殺舜為事，立為天子，則放之，何也？」 孟子曰：「封之也，或曰放焉。」 萬章曰：「舜流共工于幽州，放驩兜于崇山，殺三苗于三危，殛鯀于羽山，四罪而天下咸服，誅不仁也。象至不仁，封之有庳。有庳之人奚罪焉？仁人固如是乎？在他人則誅之，在弟則封之。」 曰：「仁人之於弟也，不藏怒焉，不宿怨焉，親愛之而已矣。親之欲其貴也，愛之欲其富也。封之有庳，富貴之也。身為天子，弟為匹夫，可謂親愛之乎？」 「敢問或曰放者，何謂也？」 曰：「象不得有為於其國，天子使吏治其國，而納其貢稅焉，故謂之放，豈得暴彼民哉？雖然，欲常常而見之，故源源而來。『不及貢，以政接于有庳』，此之謂也。」
Note
This passage from the Wan Zhang I chapter of the Mencius focuses intensely on the fierce conflict between “public justice” and “private affection” in Confucian ethics, and how a sage-king seeks a balance between the two. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- The “Private Affection” of the Benevolent: The Primacy of Kinship and the Logic of Extending Love
Wan Zhang’s questioning represents the secular pursuit of “absolute fairness”: since Xiang is a wicked man, he should be executed just like Gong Gong and the others. However, Mencius points out that the emotional logic of a benevolent man toward his younger brother is “love and care,” meaning “loving him means wishing him nobility; caring for him means wishing him wealth.” In the Confucian ethical system of “love with distinctions,” the love for one’s closest kin is naturally superior to the love for strangers. If Shun became the Son of Heaven but left his brother as a commoner, it would be seen as a violation of the principle of “fraternal duty” (Ti). Therefore, enfeoffing Xiang was Shun fulfilling his emotional responsibility as an elder brother. - The Bottom Line of Politics: The Substance of “Banishment” and the Intervention of Public Power
Here, Mencius demonstrates profound political wisdom. He acknowledges Wan Zhang’s concern: allowing a wicked man to rule over people would indeed be unjust to the people. Therefore, while enfeoffing Xiang, Shun implemented the institutional arrangement of “appointing officials to govern his state.” This meant that although Xiang was nominally the ruler and enjoyed wealth, he was stripped of actual administrative and judicial power, preventing him from oppressing the people. This approach of “nominal enfeoffment with actual centralized administration” preserved fraternal affection while holding the political bottom line, perfectly illustrating the dual solution of a “benevolent man” when handling conflicts between family and state. - The Flexibility of Ritual: Deep Affection Through Political Pretexts
Finally, Mencius mentions that Shun received the ruler of Yubi “on political business without waiting for the time of tribute.” This represents Shun’s ultimate favoritism toward his brother within the institutional framework. According to Zhou dynasty rituals, there were strict time and ceremonial regulations for feudal lords to pay respects to the Son of Heaven. In order to see his brother, Shun deliberately broke the rules, using “discussing political affairs” as a pretext to summon Xiang at any time. This detail brings Shun down from the lofty position of the Son of Heaven back to the role of a warm and affectionate elder brother, vividly portraying the sage’s image of “great filial piety and fraternal duty.” - The Sage-King’s Dilemma in Historical Context
From the perspective of history and political philosophy, this dialogue reflects the transition and contradiction between “rule by the family” and “rule by the public” during the early formation of the state. As the sage-king under the abdication system, Shun’s legitimacy came not only from Yao’s abdication but also from his impeccable morality. Through this defense, Mencius demonstrated to the world that a true sage-king is not an emotionless machine, but a great politician capable of using wisdom and institutions to properly reconcile “private virtue” and “public justice” in complex ethical dilemmas.
Leave a Reply