Wan Zhang asked Mencius, “Some people say that when Confucius was in the state of Wei, he lodged with a eunuch named Yong Ju, and when he was in Qi, he lodged with a eunuch named Ji Huan. Is this true?”
Mencius replied, “No, that is not the case. It was fabricated by those who love to stir up trouble. When Confucius was in Wei, he actually lodged with Yan Chouyou. The wife of Mizixia and the wife of Zilu were sisters. Mizixia once said to Zilu, ‘If Confucius lodges with me, he can obtain the position of a high minister in Wei.’ Zilu reported this to Confucius. Confucius said, ‘It is a matter of destiny.’
Confucius advanced according to the rites and retreated according to righteousness; whether he obtained a position or not, he said, ‘It is destiny.’ Had he lodged with Yong Ju and Ji Huan, that would have been contrary to both righteousness and destiny.
Confucius was highly respected in the states of Lu and Wei. However, when he was in Song, he encountered Huan Tui, the Minister of War, who intended to intercept and kill him. Confucius had to change into commoner’s clothes and secretly pass through Song. At that time, Confucius was in dire straits, so he lodged with Sizheng Zhenzi and served as a minister to Duke Zhou of Chen.
I have heard that to observe a courtier in the capital, one should look at whom he associates with; to observe a minister from afar, one should look at who provides him lodging. If Confucius had truly lodged with Yong Ju and Ji Huan, how could he still be called Confucius?”
Note
This passage, also from the Wan Zhang I chapter of the Mencius, is another classic defense by Mencius regarding Confucius’ character and political bottom line. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- Dispelling Rumors and Defending the Sage’s Image
During the Warring States period, various philosophical schools often exaggerated or even fabricated historical figures to promote their own doctrines. The rumors about Confucius lodging with eunuchs were clearly fabricated by unscrupulous politicians or busybodies to smear Confucius or to “secularize” him. Mencius categorically dismissed them as fabrications by “busybodies,” demonstrating the Confucian pursuit of rigorous historical truth and their resolute defense of the sage’s image. - “Advancing by Rites, Retreating by Righteousness, and Accepting Destiny”
This is Mencius’ highly concise summary of Confucius’ lifelong political integrity, and it represents the highest code of ethics for Confucian scholars entering public service. “Advancing by rites” means seeking office must conform to ritual norms, never by pandering to the powerful; “retreating by righteousness” means leaving office must conform to moral principles, never acting unscrupulously; “whether he obtained a position or not, it is destiny” reflects the Confucian open-mindedness and transcendence regarding personal glory or disgrace. Mencius pointed out through contrast that if Confucius had sought office by flattering eunuchs, he would have violated both “righteousness” and “destiny,” completely losing his sage-like character. - The Art of Judging Character: “Observing Courtiers by Their Associates, and Distant Ministers by Their Hosts”
Here, Mencius proposed a highly insightful political rule for judging character. A person’s political character and moral bottom line can often be seen from whom they choose to associate with and whom they rely on in times of adversity. When Confucius was being hunted by Huan Tui and was at the lowest point of his life, he still chose to lodge with the upright Sizheng Zhenzi rather than attach himself to eunuchs who could bring him power. Through this, Mencius demonstrated to the world: a true gentleman, even in the most difficult times, will never sacrifice his moral bottom line in exchange for worldly interests.
萬章問曰：「或謂孔子於衛主癰疽，於齊主侍人瘠環，有諸乎？」
孟子曰：「否，不然也。好事者為之也。於衛主顏讎由。彌子之妻與子路之妻，兄弟也。彌子謂子路曰：『孔子主我，衛卿可得也。』子路以告。孔子曰：『有命。』孔子進以禮，退以義，得之不得曰『有命』。而主癰疽與侍人瘠環，是無義無命也。孔子悅於魯衛，遭宋桓司馬將要而殺之，微服而過宋。是時孔子當阨，主司城貞子，為陳侯周臣。吾聞觀近臣，以其所為主；觀遠臣，以其所主。若孔子主癰疽與侍人瘠環，何以為孔子？」
Leave a Reply