3.22
The Master said, “Guan Zhong was in reality a man of very narrow capacities.”
Someone said, “Surely he displayed an example of frugality?”
The Master said, “Guan had three lots of wives, his State officers performed no double duties. How can he be cited as an example of frugality?”
“That may be,” the other said, “but surely he had a great knowledge of ritual?”
The Master said, “Only the ruler of a State may build a screen to mask his gate; but Guan had such a screen. Only the ruler of a State, when meeting another such ruler, may use cup-mounds; but Guan used one. If even Guan is to be cited as an expert in ritual, who is not an expert in ritual?”
子曰：「管仲之器小哉！」或曰：「管仲儉乎？」曰：「管氏有三歸，官事不攝，焉得儉？」「然則管仲知禮乎？」曰：「邦君樹塞門，管氏亦樹塞門；邦君為兩君之好，有反坫，管氏亦有反坫。管氏而知禮，孰不知禮？」
Notes
This is Confucius’ evaluation of Guan Zhong, a renowned statesman of the Spring and Autumn period. From the perspective of moral idealism, Confucius offers a profound critique of a political figure (Guan Zhong) who achieved monumental feats yet bore moral flaws.
Confucius’ statement, “Guan Zhong was narrow in vision and capacity!” is a deep moral judgment, centering on the belief that:
The highest aim of governance lies not merely in enriching the state and strengthening its military, but in rebuilding civilizational order through ritual and music.
Though Guan Zhong accomplished extraordinary deeds, he:
- Lived extravagantly, lacking frugality;
- Acted with presumption, disregarding ritual propriety;
- Prioritized political stratagems over virtue-based governance;
- Achieved hegemonic power but failed to attain kingly virtue.
Thus, in Confucius’ view, his “capacity” ultimately fell short of true greatness.
Leave a Reply