The Fractured State of Lu During the Spring and Autumn Period

The Spring and Autumn Period , had gradually usurped the authority that rightfully belonged to the ducal house through strategic marriages, military expansion, and administrative control.

The Ji family, under the leadership of Ji Wuzi, emerged as the most powerful of these three houses. They controlled vast territories, maintained private armies, and effectively dictated state policy while reducing the duke to a ceremonial figurehead. This power dynamic created constant tension between the ducal house seeking to reclaim its authority and the great families determined to maintain their privileged positions. The political culture of Lu during this period became characterized by intricate rituals of deference that barely concealed the underlying struggle for power, setting the stage for the dramatic events that would test the moral fiber of its officials.

The Deception at Bian: Ji Wuzi’s Calculated Move

In approximately 542 BCE, Duke Xiang of Lu embarked on a diplomatic mission to the state of Chu, leaving a power vacuum that Ji Wuzi quickly sought to exploit. The strategic border city of Bian, located between Lu and neighboring states, had long been a point of contention. Rather than openly challenging ducal authority, Ji Wuzi devised an elaborate ruse to claim the territory under the pretext of maintaining order.

He composed an official letter sealed with his ministerial seal—a document carrying the weight of state authority—claiming that the people of Bian were on the verge of rebellion and that he had mobilized forces to suppress this imagined uprising. To deliver this message, he selected Ji Ye, a trusted retainer known for his integrity and loyalty. Unbeknownst to Ji Ye, the document contained a deliberate falsehood: the people of Bian had not rebelled at all. This was purely a land grab disguised as necessary state action.

The timing of this deception was crucial. With Duke Xiang abroad and unable to verify the situation personally, Ji Wuzi calculated that the duke would have no choice but to accept the fait accompli. The choice of messenger was equally strategic—Ji Ye’s reputation for honesty would lend credibility to the false claims. This manipulation of a virtuous official for corrupt purposes demonstrates the sophisticated political machinations that characterized the era’s power struggles.

The Courtly Dance: Rong Chengzi’s Preemptive Acquiescence

When Ji Ye presented the sealed document to Duke Xiang upon his return journey, a fascinating political theater unfolded. Before the duke could respond to the news about Bian, minister Rong Chengzi intervened with what appeared to be gracious acceptance of Ji Wuzi’s actions. His response, recorded in historical texts, represents a masterclass in political subtlety.

Rong Chengzi declared: “You are the limbs and bones supporting the state of Lu. Matters of the altars of soil and grain are truly under your control. Whatever you find advantageous, why concern yourself specifically with Bian? If Bian has committed offenses and you punish them, they are your subjects. What need is there to report this?”

On the surface, these words expressed confidence in Ji Wuzi’s leadership and judgment. In reality, they represented a painful acknowledgment of political reality—the ducal house lacked the military strength to challenge the Ji family’s dominance. By preemptively accepting the seizure, Rong Chengzi spared Duke Xiang the humiliation of a forced concession while simultaneously documenting the breach of protocol for posterity. This exchange illustrates how ancient Chinese officials often communicated complex political messages through ritualized language that maintained appearances while acknowledging power realities.

The Revelation and Moral Crisis of Ji Ye

The truth about Bian emerged gradually for Ji Ye. Initially believing he was performing a legitimate service for his lord, he eventually discovered that no rebellion had occurred—the entire justification for seizing Bian was fabricated. This realization triggered a profound moral crisis for the honorable retainer.

In the Confucian ethical framework that governed the behavior of officials, loyalty to one’s lord was paramount, but this loyalty was expected to operate within the broader context of moral principles. Ji Ye found himself in an impossible position: he had unintentionally participated in deceiving his sovereign, violating the fundamental relationship between ruler and minister that formed the bedrock of political order.

His anguish was compounded by the fact that he had been valued specifically for his reliability and integrity—qualities that Ji Wuzi had exploited to make the deception credible. The psychological impact of this realization cannot be overstated for an official whose identity was built upon moral constancy. He had become an unwitting instrument in corrupting the very values he embodied, creating a crisis that demanded decisive action to reclaim his moral standing.

The Righteous Resignation: Principle Over Privilege

Ji Ye’s response to this ethical violation was dramatic and principled. He returned the lands and stipends granted to him by Ji Wuzi, effectively resigning from his position of privilege and influence. In explaining his actions, he declared: “He made me deceive our lord, claiming I was capable. If capability means deceiving one’s sovereign, how dare I enjoy his emoluments and stand in his court?”

This statement reveals several important aspects of ancient Chinese political philosophy. First, it emphasizes that technical competence (“capability”) must always be subordinate to moral integrity—a theme that would later be central to Confucian thought. Second, it demonstrates the concept of collective responsibility; even though Ji Ye wasn’t the architect of the deception, he recognized that his participation implicated him morally. Third, it shows the importance of symbolic action—by returning his emoluments, he made his moral stance physically manifest and publicly visible.

His resignation wasn’t merely a personal protest but a political statement that challenged the normalization of corruption. In a system where material rewards flowed from political patronage, rejecting these benefits constituted a powerful critique of the prevailing power structure. Ji Ye essentially declared that some things were more valuable than wealth and status—namely, personal integrity and the proper ordering of ruler-minister relationships.

Cultural and Social Impacts of the Incident

The story of Ji Ye’s resignation resonated throughout the intellectual history of ancient China precisely because it touched upon fundamental tensions in political culture. During the Spring and Autumn Period, the traditional feudal system was breaking down, creating moral ambiguities for officials who served both hereditary lords and the theoretical ideal of good governance.

This incident became part of a larger discourse about the limits of loyalty and the primacy of moral principle. Confucius, who would be born a few decades after these events, frequently addressed such dilemmas in his teachings. The Analects would later assert: “The superior man understands righteousness; the small man understands profit” —a distinction embodied by Ji Ye’s choice of moral principle over material advantage.

The story also illustrates the complex social position of shi (士), the scholar-official class to which Ji Ye belonged. These men were expected to be both competent administrators and moral exemplars, often navigating conflicting obligations to their immediate lords, the ruler, and abstract ethical principles. Ji Ye’s actions established a powerful precedent for how officials should respond when these obligations came into conflict.

Furthermore, the incident demonstrates the importance of reputation in ancient Chinese political culture. Ji Wuzi’s need to use a respected official like Ji Ye for his deception shows that even powerful ministers required at least the appearance of legitimacy. Conversely, Ji Ye’s resignation damaged Ji Wuzi’s standing by demonstrating that not all officials would compromise their principles for advancement.

Historical Legacy and Modern Relevance

The story of Ji Ye’s resignation has endured for over two millennia as an exemplar of integrity in Chinese political thought. It was preserved in various historical records, including the Guoyu and later historical works, ensuring its transmission to subsequent generations of officials and scholars.

During the Confucian revival of the Han dynasty, stories like Ji Ye’s provided historical precedents for the ethical principles that reformers sought to institutionalize. The emphasis on officials maintaining moral autonomy rather than blind obedience to superiors became a cornerstone of the Confucian bureaucratic ideal. This tension between loyalty to one’s immediate superior and loyalty to higher principles would recur throughout Chinese history, most notably in the Ming dynasty struggles between powerful eunuchs and righteous officials.

In modern times, the story continues to resonate as a timeless exploration of ethical dilemmas in hierarchical organizations. The challenge Ji Ye faced—whether to comply with unethical directives from a superior or maintain personal integrity at great cost—remains relevant in corporate, governmental, and institutional settings worldwide. His response represents what we might now call “principled resignation”—leaving a position of privilege rather than compromising one’s values.

The narrative also offers insights into the psychology of whistleblowing and ethical resistance. Ji Ye’s actions demonstrate that speaking truth to power sometimes requires leaving the system entirely rather than working within it. His story provides an ancient counterpart to modern debates about institutional complicity and personal responsibility.

Perhaps most importantly, Ji Ye’s legacy reminds us that historical moments of moral courage often occur not in grand battles between obvious good and evil, but in complex situations where decent people must choose between competing obligations. His choice to privilege abstract principle over concrete loyalty established a standard that would inspire countless officials throughout Chinese history who faced similar dilemmas between convenience and conscience.

In an age increasingly concerned with ethical leadership and institutional accountability, the ancient story of a retainer who valued integrity above position continues to offer profound lessons about the moral dimensions of power and the courage required to maintain one’s principles in the face of institutional pressure.