既曰大夫以君命出，進退在大夫矣；又曰以君命出，聞喪徐行而不反者何也。
On the one hand, it says that an officer must not do as he pleases and must not instigate affairs on his own initiative; but, on the other hand, it says that if, after having left the borders of his state, an officer can find a way to enhance the security of his state’s altars and otherwise bring advantage to his state, then deciding matters on his own is permissible.
曰此四者者各止其科，不轉移也。
It says on the one hand that going forward or retreating is up to an officer, but on the other hand that, when an officer on a mission receives word of a parent’s death, he may slow the speed with which he pursues his journey and not return. Why is this?
不得擅生事者，謂平生常經也；專之可者，謂救危除患也；進退在大夫者，謂將帥用兵也；徐行而不及者，謂出使道聞君親之喪也。
The answer is that each of these four principles has its own area of application that cannot be exchanged with another.
公子子結擅生事，春秋不非，以為救莊公危也。
The rule stating that one cannot enter into affairs on one’s own initiative refers to normal and standard situations.
The rule saying that deciding matters on one’s own is permissible refers to actions that can save the state from danger and eliminate threats.
公子遂擅生事，春秋譏之，以為僖公無危事也。
The rule saying that going forward or retreating is up to the officer refers to situations in which the officer is leading troops, and the rule saying that an officer may slow the speed with which he pursues his journey and not return refers to what an officer may do when he hears of a parent’s death while on the road.
故君有危而不專救，是不忠也；君無危而擅生事，是不臣也。
Prince Jie1 is not condemned in the Annals for acting on his own initiative because, by doing so, he saved Lord Zhuang2 from danger.
傳曰：「詩無通故，易無通吉，春秋無通義。
Prince Sui3 is held up to scorn in the Annals for acting on his own initiative because the authors felt that Lord Xi4 was not faced with any danger at the time.
」此之謂也。
Thus, failing to deal with matters on your own when your ruler is in danger is to be disloyal, whereas dealing with matters on your own when your ruler is not in danger is to fail to act like an officer.
A passage in an old text says, “In the Odes there is no explanation that can be applied to all passages; in the Changes there is no hexagram that is auspicious in all circumstances; and in the Annals there is no principle that can be applied everywhere.” That says it well.