The Chinese Classics (Prolegomena), James Legge [popular books of all time TXT] 📗

personal character of the ruler, we look anxiously for what directions he has given for the cultivation of that. But here he is very defective. ‘Self-adjustment and purification,’ he said, ‘with careful regulation of his dress, and the not making a movement contrary to the rules of propriety;— this is the way for the ruler to cultivate his person [2].’ This is laying too much stress on what is external; but even to attain to this is beyond unassisted human strength. Confucius, however, never recognised a disturbance of the moral elements in the constitution of man. The people would move, according to him, to the virtue of their ruler as the grass bends to the wind, and that virtue

 

1 Ana. XII. xvii; xviii; xix.

2 ���e, xx. 14.

 

would come to the ruler at his call. Many were the lamentations which he uttered over the degeneracy of his times; frequent were the confessions which he made of his own shortcomings. It seems strange that it never came distinctly before him, that there is a power of evil in the prince and the peasant, which no efforts of their own and no instructions of sages are effectual to subdue.

The government which Confucius taught was a despotism, but of a modified character. He allowed no ‘jus divinum,’ independent of personal virtue and a benevolent rule. He has not explicitly stated, indeed, wherein lies the ground of the great relation of the governor and the governed, but his views on the subject were, we may assume, in accordance with the language of the Shu-ching:— ‘Heaven and Earth are the parents of all things, and of all things men are the most intelligent. The man among them most distinguished for intelligence becomes chief ruler, and ought to prove himself the parent of the people [1].’ And again, ‘Heaven, protecting the inferior people, has constituted for them rulers and teachers, who should be able to be assisting to God, extending favour and producing tranquillity throughout all parts of the kingdom [2].’ The moment the ruler ceases to be a minister of God for good, and does not administer a government that is beneficial to the people, he forfeits the title by which he holds the throne, and perseverance in oppression will surely lead to his overthrow. Mencius inculcated this principle with a frequency and boldness which are remarkable. It was one of the things about which Confucius did not like to talk. Still he held it. It is conspicuous in the last chapter of ‘The Great Learning.’ Its tendency has been to check the violence of oppression, and maintain the self-respect of the people, all along the course of Chinese history.

I must bring these observations on Confucius’s views of government to a close, and I do so with two remarks. First, they are adapted to a primitive, unsophisticated state of society. He is a good counsellor for the father of a family, the chief of a clan, and even the head of a small principality. But his views want the comprehension which would make them of much service in a great dominion. Within three centuries after his death,the government of China passed into a new phase. The founder of the Ch’in dynasty conceived the grand idea of abolishing all its feudal kingdoms, and centralizing their administration in himself. He effected the revol 2 See the Shu-ching, V. i. Sect. I. 2, 7.

 

lution, and succeeding dynasties adopted his system, and gradually molded it into the forms and proportions which are now existing. There has been a tendency to advance, and Confucius has all along been trying to carry the nation back. Principles have been needed, and not ‘proprieties.’ The consequence is that China has increased beyond its ancient dimensions, while there has been no corresponding development of thought. Its body politic has the size of a giant, while it still retains the mind of a child. Its hoary age is in danger of becoming but senility.

Second, Confucius makes no provision for the intercourse of his country with other and independent nations. He knew indeed of none such. China was to him ‘The Middle Kingdom [1],’ ‘The multitude of Great States [2],’ ‘All under heaven [3].’ Beyond it were only rude and barbarous tribes. He does not speak of them bitterly, as many Chinese have done since his time. In one place he contrasts their condition favourably with the prevailing anarchy of the kingdom, saying ‘The rude tribes of the east and north have their princes, and are not like the States of our great land which are without them [4].’ Another time, disgusted with the want of appreciation which he experienced, he was expressing his intention to go and live among the nine wild tribes of the east. Some one said, ‘They are rude. How can you do such a thing?’ His reply was, ‘If a superior man dwelt among them, what rudeness would there be [5]?’ But had he been a ruler-sage, he would not only have influenced them by his instructions, but brought them to acknowledge and submit to his sway, as the great Yu did [6]. The only passage of Confucius’s teachings from which any rule can be gathered for dealing with foreigners is that in the ‘Doctrine of the Mean,’ where ‘indulgent treatment of men from a distance’ is laid down as one of the nine standard rules for the government of the country [7]. But ‘the men from a distance’ are understood to be pin and lu [8] simply,— ‘guests,’ that is, or officers of one State seeking employment in another, or at the royal court; and ‘visitors,’ or travelling merchants. Of independent nations the ancient classics have not any knowledge, nor has Confucius. So long as merchants from Europe and other parts of the world could have been content to appear in China as suppliants, seeking the privilege of trade, so

 

1 ����.

2 ���L; Ana. III. v.

3 ���U; passim.

4 Ana. III. v.

5 Ana. IX. xiii.

6 ���g, III. ii. 10; et al.

7 �X���H.

8 ����.

 

long the government would have ranked them with the barbarous hordes of antiquity, and given them the benefit of the maxim about ‘indulgent treatment,’ according to its own understanding of it. But when their governments interfered, and claimed to treat with that of China on terms of equality, and that their subjects should be spoken to and of as being of the same clay with the Chinese themselves, an outrage was committed on tradition and prejudice, which it was necessary to resent with vehemence.

I do not charge the contemptuous arrogance of the Chinese government and people upon Confucius; what I deplore, is that he left no principles on record to check the development of such a spirit. His simple views of society and government were in a measure sufficient for the people while they dwelt apart from the rest of mankind. His practical lessons were better than if they had been left, which but for him they probably would have been, to fall a prey to the influences of Taoism and Buddhism, but they could only subsist while they were left alone. Of the earth earthy, China was sure to go to pieces when it came into collision with a Christianly-civilized power. Its sage had left it no preservative or restorative elements against such a case.

It is a rude awakening from its complacency of centuries which China has now received. Its ancient landmarks are swept away. Opinions will differ as to the justice or injustice of the grounds on which it has been assailed, and I do not feel called to judge or to pronounce here concerning them. In the progress of events, it could hardly be but that the collision should come; and when it did come it could not be but that China should be broken and scattered. Disorganization will go on to destroy it more and more, and yet there is hope for the people, with their veneration for the relations of society, with their devotion to learning, and with their habits of industry and sobriety; there is hope for them, if they will look away from all their ancient sages, and turn to Him, who sends them, along with the dissolution of their ancient state, the knowledge of Himself, the only living and true God, and of Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.

8. I have little more to add on the opinions of Confucius. Many of his sayings are pithy, and display much knowledge of character; but as they are contained in the body of the Work, I will not occupy the space here with a selection of those which have struck myself as most worthy of notice. The fourth Book of the Analects,

 

which is on the subject of zan, or perfect virtue, has several utterances which are remarkable.

Thornton observes:— ‘It may excite surprise, and probably incredulity, to state that the golden rule of our Saviour, ‘Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you,’ which Mr. Locke designates as ‘the most unshaken rule of morality, and foundation of all social virtue,’ had been inculcated by Confucius, almost in the same words, four centuries before [1].’ I have taken notice of this fact in reviewing both ‘The Great Learning’ and ‘The Doctrine of the Mean.’ I would be far from grudging a tribute of admiration to Confucius for it. The maxim occurs also twice in the Analects. In Book XV. xxiii, Tsze-kung asks if there be one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life, and is answered, ‘Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself do not do to others.’ The same disciple appears in Book V. xi, telling Confucius that he was practising the lesson. He says, ‘What I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to do to men;’ but the master tells him, ‘Tsze, you have not attained to that.’ It would appear from this reply, that he was aware of the difficulty of obeying the precept ; and it is not found, in its condensed expression at least, in the older classics. The merit of it is Confucius’s own.

When a comparison, however, is drawn between it and the rule laid down by Christ, it is proper to call attention to the positive form of the latter, ‘All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.’ The lesson of the gospel commands men to do what they feel to be right and good. It requires them to commence a course of such conduct, without regard to the conduct of others to themselves. The lesson of Confucius only forbids men to do what they feel to be wrong and hurtful. So far as the point of priority is concerned, moreover, Christ adds, ‘This is the law and the prophets.’ The maxim was to be found substantially in the earlier revelations of God. Still it must be allowed that Confucius was well aware of the importance of taking the initiative in discharging all the relations of society. See his words as quoted from ‘The Doctrine of the Mean’ on pages 48, 49 above. But the worth of the two maxims depends on the intention of the enunciators in regard to their application. Confucius, it seems to me, did not think of the reciprocity coming into action beyond the circle of his five relations of society. Possibly, he might have

 

1 History of China, vol. i. p. 209.

 

required its observance in dealings even with the rude tribes, which were the only specimens of mankind besides his own countrymen of which he knew anything, for on one occasion, when asked about perfect virtue, he replied, ‘It is, in retirement, to be sedately grave; in the management of business,