A Deep Exploration of the Way of Sovereign and Minister in 'The Analects: Xian Wen' and the Contingency of Benevolence and Righteousness

Section 2: Why Was Duke Huan of Qi Called "Upright" (Zheng)$30

Duke Huan of Qi (Gongzi Xiaobai), of the Jiang surname, Lu clan, named Xiaobai. His accession process was not entirely "upright"—he contended for the throne with Gongzi Jiu; Master Guan Zhong once shot him with an arrow on behalf of Gongzi Jiu (the arrow struck his belt hook, but he survived). Afterwards, he rushed back to Qi to claim the throne and compelled Lu to execute Gongzi Jiu. It cannot be said that power politics played no role in this process.

So, why did the Master still call him "Upright" (Zheng)$31

This requires an examination of Duke Huan’s hegemonic career after taking the throne.

Zuo Zhuan, 4th Year of Duke Xi, records that Duke Huan led the lords to attack Chu. The Chu envoy asked: "Your Lord resides in the Northern Sea, and our ruler in the Southern Sea; our horses and cattle do not touch. We never expected Your Lord to cross into our lands; for what reason$32" Master Guan Zhong replied: "In the past, Duke Kang of Lu commanded our former ruler, the Great Duke, saying: 'You shall lead the Five Lords and Nine Barons to jointly support the Zhou house.' He granted our former ruler land extending East to the Sea, West to the River, South to Muling, and North to Wudi. Now, your tribute of Baomao (a grass used for filtering sacrificial wine) does not arrive, and you do not provide the required materials for the King’s sacrifices, thus preventing the proper making of wine. It is for this that I attack you. King Zhao journeyed south and never returned; it is for this that I inquire."

This dialogue is crucial. What was the stated reason for Qi’s attack on Chu$33 It was the need to "Honor the King and expel the barbarians" (Zun Wang Rang Yi)—Chu failed to present the Baomao tribute to the Son of Heaven, hindering the proper performance of royal sacrifices. Furthermore, Qi inquired about the fate of King Zhao, who perished on a southern expedition against the south.

These two justifications were made under the banner of "supporting the Son of Heaven." Duke Huan’s attack on Chu was not for his private gain, but to maintain the authority of the Son of Heaven—at least nominally.

Zuo Zhuan, 9th Year of Duke Xi, records the Alliance of Kuaiqiu, presided over by Duke Huan. The alliance terms included: "All those who join this alliance shall reconcile their disputes after the oath" (凡我同盟之人，既盟之后，言归于好). It also records the oath: "Do not dam springs, do not hoard foodstuffs, do not exchange the trees of others, do not take a concubine as a wife, and do not let women interfere in state affairs" (毋壅泉，毋讫籴，毋易树子，毋以妾为妻，毋使妇人与国事). These stipulations were all about maintaining peace and the patriarchal social order among the feudal lords.

Guoyu, Qi Yu records the strategy of Master Guan Zhong assisting Duke Huan: "The four classes of people should not be mixed; if mixed, their words become chaotic, and their affairs disordered." "Integrate their states and organize their peripheries," "Establish internal administration and delegate military command." This was a complete and systematic governance structure.

Considering this historical evidence, we can discern the aspects in which Duke Huan’s actions were "Upright" (Zheng):

First, the banner of "Honoring the King and Expelling the Barbarians" was open and above board. He rallied the lords under the pretext of upholding the Son of Heaven's authority and resisting incursions by the Di (northern barbarians) and Chu (southern barbarians)—this was "Great Righteousness" (Da Yi).

Second, his diplomatic methods were transparent. He coordinated relations among the lords through alliances rather than through schemes and stratagems to divide and conquer.

Third, his governance strategy was institutionalized and systematic. Guan Zhong’s reforms were not temporary expedients but the construction of a sustainable system.

Fourth, in achieving the "Nine Summits of the Lords" (Jiu He Zhuhou), he did not rely on chariots of war. This point is emphasized in later passages—Duke Huan convened the lords nine times (the number nine signifying plurality), mostly through moral persuasion and diplomatic negotiation, rather than through military conquest. This was exceedingly rare in the Spring and Autumn period.

Mencius, Gongsun Chou I, quotes Mencius as saying: "The Five Hegemons were sinners against the Three Kings; today’s feudal lords are sinners against the Five Hegemons" (五霸者，三王之罪人也；今之诸侯，五霸之罪人也). Although Mencius generally criticized the Five Hegemons, even within this critique, Duke Huan of Qi was considered the most justifiable among them. This aligns with the Master’s judgment.