Xian Qiu Meng asked Mencius, “There is a saying: ‘A scholar of great virtue cannot be treated as a subject by the monarch, nor as a son by his father.’ When Shun stood facing south as the ruler, Emperor Yao led the feudal lords to bow to him facing north, and Shun’s father, Gusou, also bowed to him facing north. When Shun saw his father, his countenance showed signs of unease. Confucius said, ‘At that time, the empire was in peril, indeed precarious!’ I wonder if this saying is true?”
Mencius replied, “No. These are not the words of a gentleman, but the rustic talk of the country bumpkins in the eastern part of Qi. The reality was that Yao was old, and Shun was merely acting as regent. The Canon of Yao states, ‘After twenty-eight years, Fangxun (Yao) passed away. The people mourned as if they had lost their father and mother. For three years, all music ceased within the four seas.’ Confucius said, ‘There are not two suns in the sky, nor two kings among the people.’ If Shun had already been the Son of Heaven, and yet led the feudal lords to observe a three-year mourning period for Yao, that would have meant there were two Sons of Heaven.”
Xian Qiu Meng said, “I now understand why Shun did not treat Yao as a subject. But the Book of Poetry says, ‘Under the whole heaven, every spot is the sovereign’s ground; to the borders of the land, every individual is the sovereign’s minister.’ Since Shun was already the Son of Heaven, may I ask why Gusou was not considered a minister?”
Mencius replied, “That poem does not mean what you suggest; it expresses the poet’s complaint about being so occupied with the king’s affairs that he could not care for his parents. It says, ‘All these are the king’s affairs, yet I alone am overworked.’ Therefore, those who interpret the Poetry must not let literal words obscure the phrasing, nor let the phrasing obscure the poet’s true intent. One must use their own empathetic understanding to trace the poet’s intent; only then can the true meaning be grasped. If one only looks at the literal words, the poem Yunhan says, ‘Of the remaining people of Zhou, not a single one is left.’ If we take these words literally, it would mean no people were left in Zhou at all.
The ultimate filial piety of a filial son is nothing greater than honoring his parents; the ultimate honoring of parents is nothing greater than nurturing them with the entire empire. To be the father of the Son of Heaven is the pinnacle of honor; to be nurtured by the entire empire is the pinnacle of nurturing. The Book of Poetry says, ‘Forever express your filial thoughts; let these filial thoughts be the model for all.’ This is exactly what it means. The Book of History also says, ‘Shun reverently went to see Gusou, with a respectful and trembling demeanor, and Gusou indeed became compliant.’ This is what is meant by ‘a father cannot treat him merely as a son.’”
咸丘蒙問曰：「語云：『盛德之士，君不得而臣，父不得而子。』舜南面而立，堯帥諸侯北面而朝之，瞽瞍亦北面而朝之。舜見瞽瞍，其容有蹙。孔子曰：『於斯時也，天下殆哉，岌岌乎！』不識此語誠然乎哉？」 孟子曰：「否。此非君子之言，齊東野人之語也。堯老而舜攝也。《堯典》曰：『二十有八載，放勳乃徂落，百姓如喪考妣，三年，四海遏密八音。』孔子曰：『天無二日，民無二王。』舜既為天子矣，又帥天下諸侯以為堯三年喪，是二天子矣。」 咸丘蒙曰：「舜之不臣堯，則吾既得聞命矣。《詩》云：『普天之下，莫非王土；率土之濱，莫非王臣。』而舜既為天子矣，敢問瞽瞍之非臣，如何？」 曰：「是詩也，非是之謂也；勞於王事，而不得養父母也。曰：『此莫非王事，我獨賢勞也。』故說《詩》者，不以文害辭，不以辭害志。以意逆志，是為得之。如以辭而已矣，《雲漢》之詩曰：『周餘黎民，靡有孑遺。』信斯言也，是周無遺民也。孝子之至，莫大乎尊親；尊親之至，莫大乎以天下養。為天子父，尊之至也；以天下養，養之至也。《詩》曰：『永言孝思，孝思維則，』此之謂也。《書》曰：『祗載見瞽瞍，夔夔齊栗，瞽瞍亦允若。』是為父不得而子也。」
Note
This passage, also from the Wan Zhang I chapter of the Mencius, is one of Mencius’s most brilliant discussions on classical hermeneutics and the politicization of Confucian filial piety. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- Hermeneutical Principles: “Tracing Intent Through Empathy”
Here, Mencius proposed a highly important principle in the history of Chinese literary criticism and hermeneutics: “Do not let literal words obscure the phrasing, nor let the phrasing obscure the poet’s true intent. Use empathy to trace the intent.” He opposed mechanical reading that fixated on isolated words or took passages out of context. When Xian Qiu Meng used “every individual is the sovereign’s minister” from the Book of Poetry to question why Shun’s father was not a minister, Mencius pointed out that this was merely an exaggerated rhetorical device expressing the poet’s exhaustion with state affairs. This principle not only corrected contemporary misreadings of the classics but also established the standard for later generations to seek the true intent (“Zhi”) behind the text. - The Ultimate Filial Piety: “Nurturing Parents with the Empire”
Mencius elevated “filial piety” in family ethics to the level of national politics. In the Confucian view, as the Son of Heaven, Shun’s greatest act of filial piety was not mere daily care, but “nurturing his parents with the empire.” This meant using the wealth and honor of the entire realm to provide for his parents, granting his father the supreme status of “Father of the Son of Heaven.” This discourse, which perfectly combined “private virtue” with “public power,” established the core position of filial piety in Confucian political philosophy: one of the highest goals of politics is to provide the conditions for all people to practice filial piety. - The Boundary Between Ethics and Politics: “A Father Cannot Treat Him Merely as a Son”
The proverb cited by Xian Qiu Meng, “a father cannot treat him as a son,” originally carried connotations of political usurpation. However, Mencius cleverly transformed it into an ethical realm. When Shun, despite his supreme status as the Son of Heaven, maintained an attitude of “respectful and trembling” deference toward his father, he was actually demonstrating to the world that above political power lies an inviolable family ethic. The Son of Heaven is a monarch in the court, but forever a son before his father. This steadfast adherence to family ethics did not weaken Shun’s political authority; rather, through the logic of “governing the world through filial piety,” it further solidified his moral legitimacy as a sage-king.
Leave a Reply