《左傳．隱公四年》君子曰：「石碏，純臣也」。後世學者如顧棟高亦特為之論，讚譽有加。本文則從衛莊公立嗣的態度，石碏告老的動機、時間等因素，認為石碏實為首鼠兩端，見風轉舵之人。唯就宗族需求而論，此牆頭草的處世方式，正在其所以長久之道。由是而論此類「君子曰」之觀點，或符合彼輩之需求。然而若以不同角度觀之，其弊自見。視其為一說，可：固不必奉為聖經，信之不渝。

According to tso Chiu-ming’s commentary on The Spring and Autumn Annals, a broad consensus among the noblemen spoke highly of Sher Chue’s (石碏) loyalty and purity, which complied with their quest for political stability. Such a quest was literally condensed as “What the nobility said: Sher Chue was an unadulterated loyalist.” In the fourth year of Duke Yin’s (隱公) reign. Such eulogies continued to ferment in the coming dynasties. For instance, Gu Dong-gau (顧棟高) spared to pains in paying Sher tribute. My article means to scrutinize Sher from a brand new angle—Duke Juang of Wei’s (衛莊公) urgent need to appoint his own heir. It also probes into Sher Chue’s motivation to plead for a retirement, an act with perfect timing to enhance his political influence. A Janus-faced Machiavellianism like this accounts for his strategy to sit on the fence whenever power struggles befall. However, only through such Machiavellianism could he survive the direst clan politics. Fence-sitting prolonged the time to make a decision and every second thought prevented the clan from any mistake made out of sheer imprudence. That is the way these clans prospered in ancient China. This call for political steadiness led to a collective voice in The Spring and Autumn Annals, i. e., “What the nobility said.” (君子曰) A perspective is, after all, an angle to look at the world, which demands a Foucauldian panorama in our time. One man’s meat can be another’s poison. Sher Chue’s pure loyalty may prove invalid if we re-examine it through a different perspective, say, the proletariat. “What the nobility said” represents only as an angle, not the everlasting truth.