The Master said: Yu is the man to settle a long litigation in a few words.
Tzŭ Kung was fond of weighing other men's merits and defects. The Master said: Surely Tz‘u must be a very great sage! Personally, I have no time for this.
[1] It is said elsewhere in the Analects (see [p. 94]) that "the higher type of man is unlike a vessel designed for some special use," which means that his moral capacity is not narrow and limited. Tzŭ Kung, then, it seems, had not fully grasped the higher principles of morality, was wanting in breadth of mind and the larger outlook on life. His aptitudes, however, were excellent so far as they went, and the Master compliments him hero on his proficiency in things relating to religious ceremonial.
[2] Confucius probably wished to impress upon his questioner that true moral virtue (fen) was deeply implanted in the soul, and not to be gauged offhand from the presence or absence of certain superficial signs.
[3] It is passing strange that the clumsy "I grant you" for wu yü ju (I and you) should have found favour with translators. Wade even goes one better, by translating: "I award you this praise, Hui does not equal you "!
[4] Prime Minister of the Chêng State in the sixth century B.C. When he had ruled for three years, so great was the change effected that "doors were not locked at night, and lost articles were not picked up on the highway." Confucius wept when he heard of his death.
[5] Minister in the neighbouring state of Ch‘i.
[6] A minister of the Wei State in the seventh century B.C. In the revolution referred to the prince was driven from his throne, but afterwards reinstated through the "stupidity," that is to say, the unwavering loyalty and devotion of Ning.
[7] These were brothers, celebrated for their protest against the overthrow of the Yin dynasty. Rather than live under the rule of the new sovereign, the great and virtuous Wu Wang, they wandered away into the mountains to perish of cold and hunger. This fidelity to the cause of Chou Hsin, one of the bloodiest and most infamous tyrants in history, seems a shade more quixotic than the conduct of those who espoused for so long the fallen fortunes of the house of Stuart.