Justin Tiwald’s reinterpretation of Mencius’ “right of rebellion” as a moral framework critical of tyrannical forms of rule instead of an “open mechanism” for bottom-up revolts has been agreed upon and supported by a range of scholars’ recent reflections. However, this new perspective still awaits further development due to the scarcity of textual sources and other empirical evidence in pre-Qin history. In the interests of specifying and substantiating historical Confucian views about political legitimacy and rebellion, this article focuses on a unique case called “Shuwu’s Tragedy” from Zuozhuan and Gongyangzhuan with a rich corpus of Neo-Confucian commentaries and debates on a minister’s “right” to denounce the monarch for brutality. Shuwu was a virtuous prince of the state of Wey who temporarily assumed the monarchical duties of his fleeing elder brother, Duke Cheng of Wey, and he successfully resolved a military conflict with the state of Jin in 632 BCE. However, Duke Cheng murdered Shuwu when Shuwu planned to return the throne to him. Wey’s minister, Yuan Xuan, thus escaped from Wey and accused Duke Cheng in front of the hegemon, Duke Wen of Jin, which eventually triggered further bloody killings and chaos in Wey’s court and family. After reviewing the Neo-Confucian commentaries, I argue that Shuwu’s case strongly supports Tiwald’s new thesis on Mencius’ “right of rebellion”. Furthermore, I discuss a fundamental question in Mencius’ political ethics: which takes priority, chastening the tyrant or restoring order?

Rights