The Gongyang Commentary and a slightly later work, the Guliang Commentary, are the two earliest commentaries to the Annals (Chunqiu). They were written under the Western Han dynasty, but their contents were traditionally traced to oral traditions originating with Confucius’s disciple Zixia and transmitted by Zixia’s disciples Gongyang Gao and Guliang Chi.

Both the Gongyang and Guliang commentaries are structured in a question-and-answer format aimed at explaining irregularities in the terse and formulaic language of the Annals. The commentators assumed that Confucius followed strict rules of terminology when composing the Annals, and that any deviations from these rules were subtle messages passing moral judgment on rulers and ministers. The Gongyang and Guliang occasionally had similar interpretations of Confucius’s coded judgments, but they more frequently differed, resulting in centuries of disputation and rivalry between the two commentarial schools.

The excerpts below from the Gongyang and Guliang commentaries and their major subcommentaries reflect several principles behind their interpretation of Confucius’s attitude toward the “barbarians.” They assume that Confucius regarded barbarian peoples as inferior, immoral outsiders and a threat to the security of the Central States. Barbarians who came to the aid of the Central States, adopted Chinese diplomatic conventions, or acknowledged the authority of the Zhou king or his vicegerent—the latter a powerful lord designated as “hegemon” (ba)—could be “promoted” (jin 進) in the Annals record to a level equivalent to that of a Chinese state, but could forfeit that promotion very quickly by reverting to barbaric behavior.

Chinese rulers who behaved immorally could also be denigrated as barbarians via the application of terminology normally reserved for barbarian rulers. Such “barbarizing” denigration or demotion was also usually temporary in nature (e.g., the Gongyang interpretation of Cai in 519-506 BCE), but might occasionally be more long-lasting (e.g., the Guliang interpretation of Qin in 627 BCE). Note also that the Guliang subcommentator Fan Ning’s (ca. 339-401 CE) culture-based interpretation of Chu’s transformation into a barbarian state was probably influenced by Zuozhuan commentator Du Yu’s explanation of the “barbarization” of Qǐ (see source 1.2), as well as the account of Chu’s origins found in Sima Qian’s Shiji (source 1.8).¹ The Gongyang and Guliang commentaries themselves treat the Chu and Wu rulers as unambiguously barbarian and make no mention of their claims to Chinese ancestry.

~~~~~

Lord Yin, Year 2 (721 BCE)

In the spring of the second year, our lord (Lord Yin) had a conference with the Rong at Qian.

Gongyang Commentary: The Gongyang Commentary does not comment on this line. [Gongyang subcommentary by He Xiu (129-182 CE): The Annals records conferences to show its distaste for rulers who neglect domestic governance and rely on external allies. In ancient times, the lords were not permitted to leave the borders of their states except to pay court [to the king]…. A true king does not seek to govern the barbarians (Yi-Di), but the Rong are named here to show that when the barbarians come [to submit], we do not refuse them, and when they leave, we do not pursue them.]

Guliang Commentary: A ruler who attends a conference is asserting authority outside his state. A wise ruler does this prudently, a ruler with integrity does it decisively, and a humane ruler does it with a sense of security. Only a ruler with these three characteristics can attend a conference. [Lacking them,] Lord Yin placed himself in peril when he had a conference with the Rong. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: A ruler without these three characteristics should not attend a conference. How much more so a conference with the Rong!]

Lord Yin, Year 7 (716 BCE)

In the winter, the Heavenly (Zhou) King sent Fan Bo on a diplomatic visit [to Lu]. The Rong attacked (fa) Fan Bo at Chuqiu and returned.²

Gongyang commentary: Who was Fan Bo? A minister of the Son of Heaven. He was on a diplomatic visit, so why does the text say that he was attacked? Because [the Rong] captured him. If they captured him, then why does it say that they attacked him? To elevate him [to the level of a state]. Why elevate him so? To show disapproval of barbarians capturing [a person of] the Central States. [Subcommentary by He Xiu: Because the land where this took place was not connected to the Zhou capital, the text calls it the Central States to rectify its status. The Central States are the states that practice ritual propriety and moral duty (liyi 禮義). A noble man does not allow those without ritual propriety and moral duty to have control over those with ritual propriety and moral duty. Hence it refuses to call this “capturing” and rectifies it as “attacking.” When capturing a minister of the Son of Heaven is rectified as attacking the Central States, the message is that capturing a person of the Central States is already unacceptable, what more capturing a minister of the Son of Heaven? This demeans the barbarians (Yi-Di) and shows respect to the Son of Heaven.]

Guliang Commentary: Who was Fan Bo? A minister of the Son of Heaven. When a state is invaded, that is called an attack [in the Annals]. This was one man, yet it is also called an attack. Why? To elevate the Son of Heaven’s command. When attacking one man is equivalent to attacking a state, that shows respect for the Son of Heaven’s command. The “Rong” referenced here was the state of Wei. Calling the state of Wei “the Rong” demotes it to the level of the Rong, because it attacked an ambassador from the Son of Heaven. Chuqiu was a city in the state of Wei.³

Lord Huan, Year 15 (697 BCE)

A man of Zhulou, a man of Mou, and a man of Ge came to visit our court.

Gongyang Commentary: Why are they all called men?⁴ To denigrate them as barbarians (Yi-Di zhi).⁵ [Subcommentary by He Xiu: Lord Huan committed an evil act, yet these three men all came to his court to pay homage to him.⁶ The three men formed a group large enough to bear collective blame, so they are denigrated as barbarians.]

[The Guliang Commentary does not comment on this line.]

Lord Xi, Year 4 (656 BCE)

[The minister] Qu Wan of Chu came and made a covenant with our army. They made a covenant at Shaoling.⁷

Gongyang Commentary: Since the army was at Shaoling, why does the text say “made a covenant” twice? To express delight at the submission of Chu. Why does it speak with delight at the submission of Chu? Chu was the last to submit when a true king was on the throne and the first to rebel when there was no true king. It was a barbarian (Yi-Di) [state] and afflicted the Central States.⁸ The southern barbarians (Yi) and the northern Di invaded from either side, and the fate of the Central States hung by a thread. Lord Huan [of Qi] saved the Central States and repelled the barbarians, bringing Jing (Chu) to submission—a deed worthy of a true king.⁹

Guliang Commentary: Chu did not have ministerial ranks, so why is Qu Wan mentioned by name?¹⁰ He is nominally accepted as a minister since he had come to meet with Lord Huan. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: This shows respect to Lord Huan by not having him make a covenant with one of base status.] He is not described as an envoy because the initiative [for the peace negotiations] came from Qu Wan. Was he in the right, then? He was not in the right. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: It is improper for a minister to make such decisions on his own.] He is elevated in importance because he came to meet with the lords. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: He is elevated in importance for respecting the Central States and submitting to those who practice the moral Way.]…

Lord Xi, Year 33 (627 BCE)

In the summer, in the fourth month, on the day xinsi, the men of Jin and the Jiang Rong defeated Qin at Yao (Xiao).¹¹

Gongyang Commentary: Why is it merely called “Qin”? [Subcommentary by He Xiu: This question is based on the principle that a defeated side is called an “army,” and if it was not able to assemble as a proper army, it is described as “men.”] To denigrate it as a barbarian [state] (Yi-Di zhi).¹² Why is it denigrated as a barbarian [state]? The Liege of Qin was going to launch a sneak attack on Zheng, but Baili Xi and Jian Shu remonstrated with him, saying, “There has never been an army that escaped destruction when attempting a sneak attack across a distance of a thousand li.”¹³ The Liege of Qin was angered and said, “You two are old enough for the trees planted by your grave plots to have grown big and tall.¹⁴ What do you know of such matters?” As the army was marching out, Baili Xi and Jian Shu sent their sons off and told them, “You are sure to die in the dale of Yao. That is where King Wen once sheltered from a storm. We will collect your bodies there.” Their sons, standing in the ranks, saluted them with their hands and departed. Baili Xi and Jian Shu followed behind their sons, crying. The Liege of Qin said angrily, “What are you doing, crying for my army?” They replied, “We would not dare cry for our lord’s army. We are only crying for our sons.” Xian Gao, a merchant from Zheng, met the Qin army at Yao and falsely claimed to be bringing food to them on orders from the Liege of Zheng. Some in the army favored continuing with the attack, while others favored retreating. At that point, the men of Jin and the Jiang Rong ambushed and annihilated them at Yao; not one horse or chariot wheel returned [to Qin].

Guliang Commentary: Why is it not called a battle but a defeat? To denigrate Qin as a barbarian [state] (Di zhi). Why is it denigrated as a barbarian [state]? Qin crossed a thousand li of treacherous territory to invade a defenseless state. It advanced but could not hold on to its gains; it retreated but lost its army in a defeat. It heedlessly brought disorder to parents teaching their children, and disregarded the difference between men and women.¹⁵ Qin became a barbarian [state] starting with the Battle of Yao….

Lord Wen, Year 9 (618 BCE)

In winter, Jiao, an ambassador from the Master of Chu, came to visit our court.¹⁶

Gongyang Commentary: Who was Jiao? A minister of Chu. Chu did not have ministerial ranks, so why was he recorded [by name] here?¹⁷ Chu had just begun to have ministerial ranks. If Chu had begun to have ministerial ranks, then why was Jiao’s clan name not recorded? One should not give barbarians what they want all at once. [Subcommentary by He Xiu: If the ambassador’s clan name was also recorded, then one would have to fault him for not following the rites of the Central States completely. But [Confucius] suspected that the barbarians were inferior in their capacities and could not quickly practice all [the rites], so he adopted a gradual approach.]

Guliang Commentary: Chu did not have ministerial ranks, so why is he named as Jiao? We were commending him for coming [to our court].

Lord Wen, Year 10 (617 BCE)

The ruler of Chu killed his minister Yishen.

[The Gongyang and Guliang commentaries do not comment on this line.]

[Guliang subcommentary by Fan Ning: The [Guliang] Commentary for Lord Xi, Year 4 states that Chu did not have ministerial ranks. Yet now it says that its ruler killed his minister. The rulers of Chu were originally descended from Zhurong and Jilian.¹⁸ But because their state was in close proximity to the southern Man, they gradually adopted [Man] customs. For that reason, they were rejected and regarded as barbarians. By this time, they knew how to submit to the Central States and had become a strong state; therefore, they were promoted (jin).]

Lord Cheng, Year 3 (588 BCE)

Zheng attacked Xu.

[The Gongyang and Guliang commentaries do not comment on this line.]

[Gongyang subcommentary by He Xiu: Lord Xiang of Zheng is only called Zheng here to express detestation at his working wholeheartedly with Chu to attack the Xia states repeatedly. From this point onward, the Central States had endless covenants and conferences, and many wars broke out. The barbarians were colluding together, so [the ruler of Zheng] is denigrated as a barbarian.]

Lord Cheng, Year 12 (579 BCE)

In the autumn, the men of Jin defeated the Di at Jiaogang.

[The Gongyang Commentary does not comment on this line.]

Guliang Commentary: The Central States are not recorded as fighting battles with barbarians, only as defeating them. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: This is to avoid treating the barbarians as equals of the Central States.]

Lord Cheng, Year 15 (576 BCE)

In winter, the eleventh month, [Lu minister] Shusun Qiaoru held a conference with Shi Xie of Jin, Gao Wujiu of Qi, Hua Yuan of Song, Sun Linfu of Wei, Gongzi You of Zheng, and a man of Zhulou. They had a conference with Wu at Zhongli.

Gongyang Commentary: Why is Wu singled out as a participant in the conference? To mark Wu as an outsider. Why was Wu an outsider? The Annals regards [Confucius’s] home state [of Lu] as the inside and the [other] Xia states as those outside [when speaking of interstate relations]. But it regards the Xia states as those inside and the barbarians as those outside [when speaking of relations between the Xia states and the barbarians].¹⁹

A true king would wish to unify the entire subcelestial realm (tianxia 天下), so why speak in terms of outside and inside? This means that he begins [the unification] from the places closer to him.

Guliang Commentary: Why is the word “conference” used twice? To mark Wu as an outsider. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: The word “conference” is used again to emphasize that barbarians are outsiders.]

Lord Zhao, Year 12 (530 BCE)

Jin attacked Xianyu.

[The Gongyang Commentary does not comment on this line.]

[Gongyang subcommentary by He Xiu: [The Lord of Jin] is only called Jin here because his lack of moral duty allowed the barbarians to coerce the Central States. Now Chu had used deception to conquer the states of Chen and Cai. The Xia states, fearing for their survival, had held a conference with Jin at Quyin. Rather than using his status as ruler of a powerful state to bring peace to the lords and show them expansive love, he first attacked a state whose ruler shared his surname.²⁰ By attacking his own kin first, he desired to display his might and assert his hegemony. That is why he is denigrated as a barbarian.]

Guliang Commentary: [The Lord of Jin] is only called Jin here to denigrate him as a barbarian. Why is he denigrated as a barbarian? To show that it was improper of him to attack the Central States in concert with the barbarians. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: Xianyu’s ruler had the surname Ji; he was a White Di.²¹ Its territory was located in Zhongshan, so it was considered one of the Central States.²² “The barbarians” here means the state of Chu.]

Lord Zhao, Year 23 (519 BCE)

On the day wuchen [of the seventh month], Wu defeated the armies of Dun, Hu, Shen, Cai, Chen, and Xu at Jifu.²³ Kun, the Master of Hu, and Ying, the Master of Shen, were killed. Xia Nie of Chen was captured.

Gongyang Commentary: This was a pitched battle, so why it is recorded in the language for a surprise attack? To show disapproval of barbarians holding superiority over the Central States. In that case, why was it not recorded in language that gives the Central States superiority [over Wu]? Because the [lords of the] Central States were also new barbarians. [Subcommentary by He Xiu: The Central States are different from the barbarians because of their ability to respect those deserving of respect. The royal dynasty was in disorder, yet none of the lords was willing to save it; relations between rulers above and ministers below were in a state of ruin. Thus they, too, had newly begun behaving like barbarians. That is why the Annals does not allow them to hold superiority….] … If [the Annals]means to show disapproval of barbarians holding superiority over the Central States, why does it mention the capture of Xia Nie of Chen? To promote (jin) Wu slightly. [Subcommentary by He Xiu: Wu could agree on a date to fight a pitched battle, so its conduct had improved enough to merit a slight promotion. Hence it was spoken of using language appropriate to the Central States….]

Guliang Commentary: The Annals does not speak of defeats suffered by the Central States. Why does it speak of a defeat here? If the Central States were not defeated, why would Kun, the Master of Hu, and Ying, the Master of Shen, have been killed? Recording it as a defeat explains the cause of their deaths. [Subcommentary by Fan Ning: If not for the army’s defeat, these rulers would not have been killed. This commends the rulers of Hu and Shen for dying for their states.]

Lord Ding, Year 4 (506 BCE)

In winter, the eleventh month, on the day gengwu, the Prince of Cai and the Master of Wu fought a battle with a man of Chu at Boju and defeated the Chu army.

Gongyang Commentary: Why is the Wu ruler acknowledged as a Master here?²⁴ Because he was a barbarian and yet was concerned for the Central States…. Cai [when attacked by Chu] had sought aid from Wu, and Wu Zixu said [to the ruler of Wu], “Cai has committed no offense, and it is Chu that is unjust. My Lord, if you have concern for the Central States in your heart, then now is the time to show it.”²⁵ ….

Guliang Commentary: Why is the Wu ruler acknowledged as a Master here? Because he was fighting on the side of the Prince of Cai and therefore was elevated in status. Why would he be elevated in status for fighting on the side of the Prince of Cai? The Wu ruler kept his word to the Central States and repelled the barbarians, so he is promoted….

On the day gengchen, Wu occupied the Chu capital.

Gongyang Commentary: Why is the Wu ruler not addressed as a Master here? He had gone back to being a barbarian. How did he go back to being a barbarian? He, as a ruler, took up residence in the palace of the ruler of Chu, while his ministers took up residence in the Chu ministers’ homes. He must have taken the king of Chu’s mother as a concubine [by force].²⁶

Guliang Commentary: …Why is the Wu ruler just called “Wu” here? To denigrate him as a barbarian (Di zhi). Why is he denigrated as a barbarian? He, as a ruler, took up residence in the bedchamber of the ruler of Chu and took the Chu ruler’s consorts as his own, while his ministers took up residence in the Chu ministers’ bedchambers and took the Chu ministers’ consorts as their own. He must have desired to take the king of Chu’s mother as a concubine [by force], and that is not right. He sought to maximize his selfish gains from the defeat inflicted on his enemy and occupy his enemy’s state. Thus he returned to his barbarian ways.

Lord Ai, Year 13 (482 BCE)

Our lord had a conference with the Liege of Jin and the Master of Wu at Huangchi.²⁷

Gongyang Commentary: Why is the Wu ruler acknowledged as a Master here? Because the Wu ruler chaired the conference. Since Wu chaired the conference, why is the Liege of Jin mentioned first? To show disapproval of barbarians holding authority over the Central States. Then why does it say, “and the Master of Wu”? [He Xiu’s subcommentary: In the case of the Zhongli conference, Wu was marked as an outsider and not mentioned in the same breath as the other lords….] This language indicates that there were two hegemons at the conference (i.e., the lords of Jin and Wu).

Since the Annals disapproves of barbarians holding authority over the Central States, why does it record the event with language indicating that there were two hegemons at the conference? To show the Wu ruler’s importance. Why was the Wu ruler so important? Because with him present, none of the lords in the subcelestial realm dared to not attend.

Guliang Commentary: The Master of Wu was promoted (jin) at the Huangchi conference! Therefore, he is acknowledged as a Master. Wu was a barbarian state whose people cut their hair and tattooed their bodies. But its ruler desired to accept the rites of Lu and the authority of Jin, and thus requested a ritual cap and robe to wear. It sent tribute to the Zhou capital to show respect for the Heaven-ordained king. Thus Wu was promoted. Wu was a large state in the east, but it repeatedly summoned [the rulers of] small states to conferences with the lords to unite them with the Central States. Since Wu was able to do this, who can deny that they behaved like subjects [of the Zhou king]? Therefore, Wu was promoted. “King” is an exalted title, while “Master” is a humble title. [The Wu ruler] renounced an exalted title and accepted a humble title in order to have a conference with the lords and show respect for the Heaven-ordained king.²⁸ Fuchai, the king of Wu, said, “Bring me a good cap!” Confucius said, “Great indeed! Fuchai knew nothing of [the sumptuary regulations for] caps but desired to wear a cap.”²⁹

---

1. However, Fan Ning rejected the Zuozhuan interpretation of the changes in the Qǐ rulers’ titles as editorial interventions by Confucius. Instead, he interpreted them as actual demotions and promotions issued by the Zhou kings of the time. ↩︎
2. The Zuozhuan (see source 1.2) explains that Liege Fan had previously treated this group of Rong rudely when they came to the Zhou court to pay tribute to the Zhou king and presented gifts to the ministers. They avenged their humiliation by ambushing and capturing him at Chuqiu during his diplomatic mission to Lu. ↩︎
3. The Guliang Commentary confuses the Chuqiu where Fan Bo was ambushed with the Wei capital Chuqiu, which was only founded in 659 BCE after a Rong attack sacked the previous Wei capital. The Chuqiu mentioned here is believed to be in the vicinity of modern Cao country, Shandong. ↩︎
4. These were state rulers and would normally be listed with their noble titles. ↩︎
5. The normal practice in the Annals was to refer to a barbarian ruler only by the name of his state or at best as a man of his state, rather than by a noble title. ↩︎
6. Lord Huan of Lu had seized power by assassinating his half-brother Lord Yin in 711 BCE. ↩︎
7. Qi, leading a coalition of nine states (including Lu), invaded Chu’s vassal state Cai. Rather than risk a war with Qi and its allies, Chu chose to negotiate a peace covenant and agreed to resume sending tribute to the Zhou king. ↩︎
8. On the perception of Chu as a barbarian state, see source 1.1, note 2. ↩︎
9. Lord Huan was the ruler of Qi at this time, with Guan Zhong as his chief minister. He was officially acting on the Zhou king’s behalf as hegemon of the Central States. ↩︎
10. This is an honor generally accorded only to ministers in the Annals. Note that the idea of Chu being too “barbaric” to have ministerial ranks is not supported by historical evidence. ↩︎
11. On this battle, see also the Zuozhuan entry for Lord Xiang, Year 14 in source 1.2. ↩︎
12. On the representation of Qin as a barbarian and barbarized state in some Warring States and Han texts, including the Gongyang and Guliang commentaries, see Yuri Pines, “The Question of Interpretation: Qin History in Light of New Epigraphic Sources,” Early China 24 (2004), 1–44. Pines argues that this perception arose in part from Qin rulers’ own efforts to construct a separate, non-Zhou (or non-Xia) identity for themselves in Warring States times. ↩︎
13. The Liege of Qin at this time was Lord Mu (r. 659-621 BCE). Baili Xi and Jian Shu were two of his chief ministers. ↩︎
14. In other words, you have outlived your usefulness. ↩︎
15. This sentence is cryptic. The Tang period subcommentator Yang Shixun suggested that it means the Qin army committed atrocities against women and children in the state of Hua, which it annexed en route to attacking Zheng. ↩︎
16. According to the Zuozhuan, this ambassador was Dou Jiao (d. 605 BCE, also known as Dou Yuejiao). He had an arrogant look on his face when bearing gifts for the Lu ruler, leading a Lu minister to predict that he would bring about the downfall of his ministerial clan, the Ruo’ao. In 605 BCE, Dou Jiao indeed launched a rebellion against the Chu ruler but was defeated and killed. Much of the Ruo’ao clan was then put to death. ↩︎
17. The commentators believed that the Annals typically only records an ambassador’s name if he was a minister. ↩︎
18. Zhurong was a mythical fire god whom Sima Qian’s Shiji (see source 1.8) historicized as Wuhui, a descendant of the sage-king Zhuanxu and a Minister of Fire under the sage-king Lord Ku. His grandson Jilian was said to be the first ruler of Chu. ↩︎
19. The Gongyang Commentary consistently interprets both Chu and Wu as barbarian states, ignoring the later Wu kings’ claim of descent from Taibo (see source 1.2, note 35, and source 1.8). ↩︎
20. Here, He Xiu interprets Xianyu as a Chinese state because of its rulers’ use of the surname Ji 姬, which was shared with the Zhou royal family and many of the lords of the Central States, including the lords of Jin. However, other sources suggest that Xianyu was founded by a branch of the Di “barbarians,” known as the White Di 白狄. ↩︎
21. A later subcommentary identifies this as a quote from the genealogical encyclopedia Shiben. ↩︎
22. Fan Ning apparently identifies Xianyu with the later state of Zhongshan and reasons that Confucius interpreted it as one of the Central States based on geographical location rather than ethnicity. However, the relationship between Xianyu and Zhongshan remains disputed. On the history, archaeology, and ambiguous identity of Zhongshan, see Wu Xiaolong, Material Culture, Power, and Identity in Ancient China (Cambridge University Press, 2017). ↩︎
23. These six states were vassals of Wu’s rival, Chu. According to the Zuozhuan, a Chu army also fought in this battle and was defeated along with the vassal armies. ↩︎
24. Being a barbarian ruler, he would normally be referred to either by the name of his state only, or at best as a man of his state. ↩︎
25. Note how the state of Cai, whose ruler is denigrated as a “new barbarian” in the entry for Lord Zhao, Year 23, is now unambiguously part of the “Central States,” perhaps because it has renounced its vassalage to Chu and thus become the target of a Chu punitive attack. ↩︎
26. Boying (also named Mengying), the mother of King Zhao of Chu (r. 516-489 BCE), was a Qin princess known for her beauty. The Biographies of Exemplary Women (Lienü zhuan), compiled by Han scholar Liu Xiang around 18 BCE, claims that after capturing the Chu capital, the king of Wu took all of King Zhao’s consorts into his harem. When he came for Boying, however, she drew a sword, admonished him for his impropriety, and threatened to commit suicide. The king of Wu then relented out of shame. ↩︎
27. See source 1.2 for the Zuozhuan account of this conference. ↩︎
28. The Guliang Commentary claims that the Wu ruler formally renounced the use of the title “king” and accepted his proper rank as Master to show deference to the Zhou king. This seems to be based on an earlier source, the Guoyu, but contradicts the Zuozhuan. ↩︎
29. This quote attributed to Confucius is not found in other extant sources. ↩︎