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, to be reverently attentive; in intercourse with others, to be strictly sincere. Though a man go among the rude uncultivated tribes, these qualities may not be neglected [1].' Still Confucius delivered his rule to his countrymen only, and only for their guidance in their relations of which I have had so much occasion to speak. The rule of Christ is for man as man, having to do with other men, all with himself on the same platform, as the children and subjects of the one God and Father in heaven.
How far short Confucius came of the standard of Christian benevolence, may be seen from his remarks when asked what was to be thought of the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness. He replied, 'With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness [2].' The same deliverance is given in one of the Books of the Li Chi, where he adds that 'he who recompenses injury with kindness is a man who is careful of his person [3].' Chang Hsuan, the commentator of the second century, says that such a course would be 'incorrect in point of propriety [4].' This 'propriety' was a great stumbling-block in the way of Confucius. His morality was the result of the balancings of his intellect, fettered by the decisions of men of old, and not the gushings of a loving heart, responsive to the promptings of Heaven, and in sympathy with erring and feeble humanity.
This subject leads me on to the last of the opinions of Confucius which I shall make the subject of remark in this place. A commentator observes, with reference to the inquiry about recompensing injury with kindness, that the questioner was asking only about trivial matters, which might be dealt with in the way he mentioned, while great offences, such as those against a sovereign or a father, could not be dealt with by such an inversion of the principles of justice [5]. In the second Book of the Li Chi there is the following passage:-- 'With the slayer of his father, a man may not live under the same heaven; against the slayer of his brother, a man must never have to go home to fetch a weapon; with the slayer of
1 Ana. XIII. xix.
2 Ana. XIV. xxxvi.
3 禮記, 表記, par. 12.
4 非禮之正.
5 See notes in loc., p. 288.
his friend, a man may not live in the same State [1].' The lex talionis is here laid down in its fullest extent. The Chau Li tells us of a provision made against the evil consequences of the principle, by the appointment of a minister called 'The Reconciler [2].' The provision is very inferior to the cities of refuge which were set apart by Moses for the manslayer to flee to from the fury of the avenger. Such as it was, however, it existed, and it is remarkable that Confucius, when consulted on the subject, took no notice of it, but affirmed the duty of blood-revenge in the strongest and most unrestricted terms. His disciple Tsze-hsia asked him, 'What course is to be pursued in the case of the murder of a father or mother?' He replied, 'The son must sleep upon a matting of grass, with his shield for his pillow; he must decline to take office; he must not live under the same heaven with the slayer. When he meets him in the marketplace or the court, he must have his weapon ready to strike him.' 'And what is the course on the murder of a brother?' 'The surviving brother must not take office in the same State with the slayer; yet if he go on his prince's service to the State where the slayer is, though he meet him, he must not fight with him.' 'And what is the course on the murder of an uncle or a cousin?' 'In this case the nephew or cousin is not the principal. If the principal on whom the revenge devolves can take it, he has only to stand behind with his weapon in his hand, and support him [3].'
Sir John Davis has rightly called attention to this as one of the objectionable principles of Confucius [4]. The bad effects of it are evident even in the present day. Revenge is sweet to the Chinese. I have spoken of their readiness to submit to government, and wish to live in peace, yet they do not like to resign even to government the 'inquisition for blood.' Where the ruling authority is feeble, as it is at present, individuals and clans take the law into their own hands, and whole districts are kept in a state of constant feud and warfare.
But I must now leave the sage. I hope I have not done him injustice; the more I have studied his character and opinions, the more highly have I come to regard him. He was a very great man, and his influence has been on the whole a great benefit to the Chinese, while his teachings suggest important lessons to ourselves who profess to belong to the school of Christ.
1 禮記, I. Sect. I. Pt. v. 10.
2 周禮, 卷之十四, pp. 14-18.
3 禮記, II. Sect. I. Pt. ii. 24. See also the 家語, 卷四, 子貢問.
4 The Chinese, vol. ii. p. 41.
SECTION III.
HIS IMMEDIATE DISCIPLES.
Sze-ma Ch'ien makes Confucius say: 'The disciples who received my instructions, and could themselves comprehend them, were seventy-seven individuals. They were all scholars of extraordinary ability [1].' The common saying is, that the disciples of the sage were three thousand, while among them there were seventy-two worthies. I propose to give here a list of all those whose names have come down to us, as being his followers. Of the greater number it will be seen that we know nothing more than their names and surnames. My principal authorities will be the 'Historical Records,' the 'Narratives of the School,' 'The Sacrificial Canon for the Sage's Temple, with Plates,' and the chapter on 'The Disciples of Confucius' prefixed to the 'Four Books, Text and Commentary, with Proofs and Illustrations.' In giving a few notices of the better-known individuals, I will endeavour to avoid what may be gathered from the Analects.