Chapter Three: The Distinction Between Craftiness and Uprightness — The Character of the Hegemony of Duke Huan of Qi and Duke Wen of Jin

Section 1. The Original Text and Its Explication

The Master said: "Duke Wen of Jin was crafty and not upright; Duke Huan of Qi was upright and not crafty." (Jin Wen gong jue er bu zheng, Qi Huan gong zheng er bu jue.)

This passage is extremely concise, yet it contains the Master's comprehensive evaluation of the two great hegemons of the Spring and Autumn period. "Jue" means guileful, crafty; "zheng" means upright, open and aboveboard. Duke Wen of Jin was crafty and not upright; Duke Huan of Qi was upright and not crafty.

At first glance, this appears to be a simple comparison. But upon deeper inquiry, nearly every word requires careful analysis.

Section 2. Why Was Duke Huan of Qi Called "Upright"$29

Duke Huan of Qi (Prince Xiaobai), of the Jiang surname and Lu clan, personal name Xiaobai. His path to the throne was itself not entirely "upright" — he competed with Prince Jiu for the succession, and Guan Zhong, representing Prince Jiu's faction, once shot an arrow at him (hitting his belt buckle but failing to kill him). Thereafter he raced back to Qi ahead of his rival and assumed the throne, compelling the state of Lu to execute Prince Jiu. In this process there was certainly an element of political maneuvering.

Why, then, did the Master call him "upright"$30

For this we must examine Duke Huan's record of hegemonic achievement after his enthronement.

The Zuo Tradition, Duke Xi year 4, records that Duke Huan led the feudal lords against the state of Chu. The Chu envoy asked: "You dwell by the northern sea, and we dwell by the southern sea — even a horse or ox in heat would not cross the distance between us. We did not expect you to enter our territory — what is the reason$31" Guan Zhong replied: "In former times, the Duke of Shao commanded our first lord, Grand Duke Tai: 'The five ranks of lords and nine grades of chiefs — you shall chastise them on my behalf, to buttress the House of Zhou.' He granted our lord the authority to campaign from the sea in the east to the Yellow River in the west, from Muling in the south to Wudi in the north. You have failed to send the tribute of wrapped bundled rushes; the royal sacrifices are not provided for; without them the wine cannot be filtered. For this we come to exact tribute. Moreover, King Zhao marched south and never returned — for this we demand an accounting."

This exchange is of critical importance. What was the reason for Qi's campaign against Chu$32 "You have failed to send the tribute of wrapped rushes; the royal sacrifices are not provided for" — Chu had not paid its tribute of bundled rushes (a plant used for filtering wine in sacrificial rites) to the Zhou Son of Heaven, preventing the royal sacrifices from being properly conducted. The expedition also sought an accounting for King Zhao of Zhou's failure to return from his southern campaign against Chu.

Both these justifications flew the banner of "honoring the king." Duke Huan's campaign against Chu was not for his own private gain, but to uphold the authority of the Zhou Son of Heaven — at least nominally so.

The Zuo Tradition, Duke Xi year 9, records the Kuiqiu covenant, at which Duke Huan presided over a gathering of feudal lords. The covenant contained such provisions as: "Let all we who are bound together, after this covenant, return to amity." The sworn articles further stated: "Do not dam the springs; do not restrict grain sales; do not change the designated heir; do not elevate a concubine to the status of primary wife; do not allow women to interfere in affairs of state." All these provisions concerned the maintenance of peaceful order and patrilineal ethics among the feudal states.

The Discourses of the States, Qi Yu records the governing strategy with which Guan Zhong assisted Duke Huan, whose core principle was: "The four classes of people must not be allowed to live in mixed communities, for mixing produces confused speech and disordered affairs." He "divided the state into three and the suburbs into five," and "established internal governance as a vehicle for military command" — a complete and systematic framework of administration.

Synthesizing these historical sources, we can see that Duke Huan's "uprightness" was manifested in several ways:

First, his banner of "honoring the king and repelling the barbarians" was forthright and aboveboard. His rallying cry was the defense of the Zhou Son of Heaven's authority; his mission, resistance to the incursions of the Rong, Di, and Chu barbarians. This constituted a "great righteousness."

Second, his diplomatic methods were open and transparent. He coordinated interstate relations through the mechanism of covenanted assemblies rather than through conspiracies and stratagems.

Third, his governing strategy was institutional and principled. Guan Zhong's reforms were not expedient stopgaps but a sustainable program of institution-building.

Fourth, he united the feudal lords nine times without resorting to war chariots. This point is particularly emphasized in later passages — Duke Huan convened the feudal lords nine times, mostly not through military conquest but through moral suasion and diplomatic mediation. In the Spring and Autumn era, this was exceedingly rare.

Master Meng states in Mencius, Gaozi II: "The Five Hegemons were sinners against the Three Kings; the feudal lords of today are sinners against the Five Hegemons." Master Meng held a generally critical view of the Five Hegemons, but even within that critique, Duke Huan of Qi was recognized as the most legitimate among them. This accords with the Master's own judgment.

Section 3. Why Was Duke Wen of Jin Called "Crafty"$33

Duke Wen of Jin (Chong'er), of the Ji surname, personal name Chong'er, led an extraordinarily tortuous life — wandering in exile for nineteen years, enduring countless hardships, and finally returning to assume the throne with the aid of the state of Qin.

The most representative episode illustrating why the Master called him "crafty" was the Battle of Chengpu.

The Zuo Tradition, Duke Xi year 28, provides a detailed account of the entire battle. The most famous episode is the "retreat of three stages" (tuibi san she). During his exile, Duke Wen had received the hospitality of King Cheng of Chu, and had promised: "If Jin and Chu should ever meet in battle on the central plain, I shall withdraw three stages." When the Battle of Chengpu erupted, the Jin army did indeed retreat three stages (ninety li).

On the surface, this appeared to be an act of "trust" — he was fulfilling his promise from years before. But from a military perspective, the retreat of three stages was in fact a tactic of luring the enemy deep — allowing the Chu army to grow complacent and overconfident, then counterattacking from advantageous terrain.

Even more critical were the diplomatic maneuvers after Chengpu. The Zuo Tradition, Duke Xi year 28, records: "On the guihai day, the prince Zihu led the feudal lords in a covenant at the royal court." After his victory over Chu, Duke Wen summoned the Zhou Son of Heaven to the "Covenant of Jiantu."

This is the crux of the matter: he summoned the Son of Heaven.

Under the ritual system of the Zhou dynasty, the Son of Heaven was never to be "summoned" by a feudal lord. The Spring and Autumn Annals records this as "the royal king went hunting at Heyang" — using the fiction of "the Son of Heaven going on a hunt" to disguise the reality that the Son of Heaven had been summoned to a gathering by a feudal lord. The Zuo Tradition states plainly: "At this assembly, the lord of Jin summoned the king, and received the feudal lords in his presence, and moreover arranged for the king to go hunting. Zhongni said: 'For a subject to summon his sovereign — this must not be taken as a precedent. Therefore the record says the royal king went hunting at Heyang.'"

The Master's own assessment is right here — "For a subject to summon his sovereign — this must not be taken as a precedent." This is the clearest embodiment of "crafty and not upright":

• You say you wish to honor the king, but you treat the Son of Heaven as a tool.
• You say you will retreat three stages to demonstrate good faith, but the retreat itself is a military stratagem.
• You say you wish to maintain the order among feudal lords, but you establish your hegemony by controlling the Son of Heaven.

Every step, nominally, is "upright" (honoring the king, keeping faith, maintaining order), but every step, in actual execution, is "crafty" (using the Son of Heaven, luring the enemy deep, establishing hegemony through war). This is "crafty and not upright."

Section 4. The Political Philosophy of "Craftiness" and "Uprightness"

Why did the Master juxtapose "craftiness" and "uprightness"$34 This was not merely a comparison of two historical figures, but an analysis of two fundamentally different political paths.

The politics of "uprightness" is a politics of consistency between inside and out. Whatever your purpose, your means should correspond to it. If you say you wish to uphold the order of the realm, then your own conduct should itself be orderly and in accord with ritual. Duke Huan's hegemony, while not devoid of power calculations, was broadly directed toward "honoring the king and repelling the barbarians," and was achieved primarily through covenanted assemblies (diplomacy) rather than war.

The politics of "craftiness" is a politics of rupture between ends and means. What you say is one thing; what you do is another. You use the name of "uprightness" to carry out the reality of "craftiness." Duke Wen's hegemony, while also aimed at maintaining the feudal order, was suffused with stratagems and guile in its methods.

These two political paths received more systematic theoretical expression in later pre-Qin thought.

Master Xun writes in Xunzi, Wang Ba: "When righteousness is established, one becomes a king; when trust is established, one becomes a hegemon; when schemes and stratagems are established, one perishes." Duke Huan, who established his hegemony through "trust," roughly fits the description of "when trust is established, one becomes a hegemon." Duke Wen, who pursued hegemony through "craftiness," had already approached the realm of "schemes and stratagems" — though he had not yet reached the point of "perishing," the grade of his political character was already one level lower.

The Most High (Laozi), chapter 17, states: "Of the best, the people only know that they exist; next best, the people love and praise them; next, the people fear them; worst, the people despise them. When trust is insufficient, there is distrust." When the ruler's own trustworthiness is inadequate, the people will likewise have no trust in him.

Duke Wen's "craftiness" was precisely a manifestation of "insufficient trust." Every "upright" declaration he made was undermined by his own "crafty" conduct. In the long run, the feudal lords ceased to take his banner of "honoring the king" seriously — for everyone could see that so-called "honoring the king" was merely a tool for pursuing hegemony.

Duke Huan's "uprightness," while also not purely selfless (he too was pursuing hegemony), at least maintained a high degree of consistency between "name" and "reality." This consistency itself possessed immense moral power — it made the feudal lords willing to follow him and gave all the people of the realm a sense of security.

Section 5. Duke Huan's Hegemony Viewed Through the Ancient Concept of "Uprightness"

The character "zheng" (upright/correct) carries extremely rich connotations in archaic culture.

The Shuowen Jiezi explains: "Zheng means 'is'; from 'zhi' (stop) and 'yi' (one) — to stop at one." Though Xu Shen's explanation is a later work, the oracle-bone form of "zheng" — combining the elements of "kou" (a city or state) and "zhi" (a foot, marching) — already reveals its original meaning: "zheng" is to march straight toward a target.

The Book of Documents, Hong Fan records the words of Jizi: "Without bias or partiality, follow the king's righteousness. Without private likes, without private dislikes, follow the king's road. Without bias or faction, the king's way is broad. Without faction or bias, the king's way is level. Without deviation or slant, the king's way is straight and true." This is the supreme political expression of "uprightness" — impartial, open, broad and bright.

Duke Huan's hegemony, while it could not fully reach the height of the "kingly way," was, within the sphere of the "hegemon's way," truly the closest to "uprightness." His "honoring the king and repelling the barbarians" was well-reasoned; his "nine unions of the feudal lords" won others through virtue (at least on the surface); his governing strategy was institutional and principled.

Duke Wen's "craftiness," on the other hand, brings to mind the judgment of the hexagram Kan (The Abysmal) in the Book of Changes: "Repeated abysmal — if you are sincere, you have success in your heart. Action brings esteem." Kan means peril, entrapment. "Repeated abysmal" — layer upon layer of peril. Duke Wen spent his life in upheaval and exile, enduring danger after danger. These experiences forged his ability to survive in perilous circumstances — which is to say, his capacity for "craftiness." But "craftiness" is a survival strategy born of desperation; it ought not become the norm of governance.

The Book of Changes, Xi Ci II states: "The world reaches the same destination by different roads; unity of purpose through a hundred deliberations." The way of the world is one, but the paths to it differ. Duke Huan chose the path of "uprightness"; Duke Wen chose the path of "craftiness"; both ultimately achieved hegemony. But the Master clearly believed that the path of "uprightness" was morally superior.

Section 6. The Influence of "Craftiness" and "Uprightness" on Later Politics

Here we must pose a question: why did the Master choose this context to compare Duke Huan of Qi with Duke Wen of Jin$35

From the surrounding textual context, this passage follows directly after the discussion of Zang Wuzhong's "coercion of the ruler." Zang Wuzhong's problem was "pressuring the sovereign through force" — a "crafty" rather than "upright" mode of conduct. The logical progression from individual-level "coercion of the ruler" to hegemon-level "distinction between craftiness and uprightness" represents an ascent in scale.

And the passages that follow concern the "humaneness" of Guan Zhong — Guan Zhong being the chief minister and right arm of Duke Huan. Thus, "Duke Huan of Qi was upright and not crafty" actually lays the groundwork for the discussion of Guan Zhong's "humaneness": it was precisely because Duke Huan's hegemony was "upright" that Guan Zhong's service to Duke Huan could be evaluated as "humane." Had Duke Huan been "crafty and not upright" like Duke Wen, Guan Zhong's achievements would have to be discounted.

The Guanzi, Xing Shi chapter states: "What the Way speaks is one, but those who apply it differ. One who hears the Way and strives to benefit his household is a person of one household; one who hears the Way and strives to benefit his district is a person of one district; one who hears the Way and strives to benefit his state is a person of one state; one who hears the Way and strives to benefit all under Heaven is a person of all under Heaven." Guan Zhong's greatness lay precisely in being a person who "strived to benefit all under Heaven." And the reason he could do so was that Duke Huan's "uprightness" provided him the platform to display his talents.

If we push this logic one step further: was the Master himself not also a person who "strived to benefit all under Heaven"$36 He spent his life traveling from state to state, seeking an "upright" ruler to serve, and never found one. Guan Zhong's fortune was to have encountered a ruler as "upright" as Duke Huan; the Master's misfortune was to live in a "crafty" age and find no enlightened ruler worthy of his service.

This dimension of meaning transforms the "distinction between craftiness and uprightness" from a mere historical assessment into something laden with deep sorrow for the times and personal feeling.