Liuxia Hui

Liuxia Hui is a public official remembered for holding to the straight way of serving others despite being dismissed from office three times. His refusal to abandon his country and his principles makes him an example of integrity under political pressure; Confucius also condemns Zang Wenzhong for knowing Liuxia Hui’s worth yet failing to bring him into service.

Identity and Reputation

Liuxia Hui served as chief criminal judge. The account gives no further biographical detail, but it makes his official position central: his integrity is tested not in withdrawal from public life, but in the repeated consequences of serving within it.

Confucius’s judgment of Zang Wenzhong supplies a second measure of Liuxia Hui’s standing. He calls Zang a holder of office who had effectively stolen his position because he knew Liuxia Hui was worthy and did not establish him in office. The criticism turns Liuxia Hui’s reputation into a test of the people responsible for recognizing and employing talent.

Dismissal and Refusal to Withdraw

Liuxia Hui was dismissed from his post three times. When someone asked whether it was not time for him to leave, he answered that upright service would bring the same repeated dismissals wherever he went. The pattern makes the choice stark: the problem, in his account, lies not in one office or one country but in the cost of serving people without bending the way.

He rejects the alternative of crooked service just as plainly. If he were willing to serve others by a crooked path, he reasoned, there would be no need to leave his parents’ country. His answer therefore links staying and integrity: he will not escape the consequences of upright conduct by changing allegiance, nor preserve a post by compromising how he serves.

Political and Ethical Significance

The brief episode leaves Liuxia Hui in place rather than granting him a triumphant reversal. His three dismissals remain the consequence of his chosen course, and the text records no reinstatement. The force of the example lies instead in the steadiness of his answer: office can be lost repeatedly without making upright service itself a mistake.

His story also sharpens the distinction between personal virtue and political responsibility. Liuxia Hui bears the cost of acting uprightly; Zang Wenzhong is criticized for withholding recognition from a worthy man. Together, the judgments make public integrity depend not only on how an official serves, but also on whether those who hold power give worthy people a place to serve.