University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Criticisms on Confucius (Wên K`ung).

The students of Confucianism of the present day like to swear
in verba magistri, and to believe in antiquity. The words of the
Worthies and Sages are to them infallible, and they do their best
to explain and practise them, but they are unable to criticize them.
When the Worthies and Sages take the pencil, and commit their
thoughts to writing, though they meditate, and thoroughly discuss
their subject, one cannot say that they always hit the truth, and
much less can their occasional utterances all be true. But although
they cannot be all true, the scholars of to-day do not know, how
to impugn them, and, in case they are true, but so abstruse that
they are difficult to understand, those people do not know how to
interpret their meaning. The words of the Sages on various occasions
are often contradictory, and their writings at different times
very often mutually clash. That however is, what the scholars of
our time do not understand.

One always hears the remark that the talents of the Seventy
Disciples of the school of Confucius surpassed those of the savants
of our days. This statement is erroneous. They imagine that Confucius
acting as teacher, a Sage propounding the doctrine, must
have imparted it to exceptionally gifted men, whence the idea that
they were quite unique. The talents of the ancients are the talents
of the moderns. What we call men of superior genius now-a-days,
were regarded by the ancients as Sages and supernatural beings,
hence the belief that the Seventy Sages could not appear in other
generations.

If at present there could be a teacher like Confucius, the
scholars of this age would all be like Yen and Min,[1] and without

Confucius, the Seventy Disciples would be only like the Literati of
the present day. For though learning from Confucius, they could
not thoroughly inquire. The words of the Sage they did not
completely understand, his doctrines and principles they were
unable to explain. Therefore they ought to have asked to get
a clearer conception, and not understanding thoroughly, they
ought to have raised objections in order to come to a complete
understanding.

The sentiments which Kao Yao[2] uttered before the Emperor
Shun were shallow and superficial, and not to the point. Yü asked
him to explain himself, when the shallow words became deeper,
and the superficial hints more explicit,[3] for criticisms animate the
discussion, and bring out the meaning, and opposition leads to
greater clearness.

Confucius ridiculed the guitar-playing and singing of Tse Yu,[4]
who, however, retorted by quoting what Confucius had said on a
previous occasion. If we now take up the text of the Analects,
we shall see that in the sayings of Confucius there is much like
the strictures on the singing of Tse Yu. But there were few disciples
able to raise a question like Tse Yu. In consequence the
words of Confucius became stereotyped and inexplicable, because
the Seventy could not make any objection, and the scholars of
the present time are not in a position to judge of the truth of
the doctrine.

Their scientific methods do not arise from a lack of ability,
but the difficulty consists in opposing the teacher, scrutinizing his
doctrine, investigating its meaning, and bringing evidence to ascertain
right and wrong. Criticism is not solely permitted vis-à-vis to
sages, as long as they are alive. The commentators of the present
day do not require the instruction of a sage, before they dare to
speak.

If questions be asked on things which seem inexplicable, and
Confucius be pressed hard, how can this be deemed a violation of
the moral laws, and if those who really are able to hand down
the holy teachings, impugn the words of Confucius, why must their
undertaking be considered unreasonable? I trust that, as regards

those inquiries into the words of Confucius and those remarks on
his unintelligible passages, men of genius of all ages, possessing
the natural gift of answering questions and solving difficulties,
will certainly appreciate the criticisms and investigations made in
our time.

"Mêng I Tse[5] asked, what filial piety was. The Master said,
`To show no disregard.' Soon after, as Fan Chih[6] was driving
him, the Master told him saying, "Mêng Sun[7] asked me, what filial
piety was, and I answered him, `To show no disregard.' "

Fan Chih said, `What does that mean?' The Master replied,
`That parents, while alive, should be served according to
propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to
propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety.'
"[8]

Now I ask, Confucius said that no disregard is to be shown
viz. no disregard to propriety. But a good son also must anticipate
his parents' thoughts, conform to their will, and never disregard their
wishes. Confucius said "to show no disregard," but did not speak
of disregard for propriety. Could Mêng I Tse, hearing the words
of Confucius, not imagine that he meant to say, "no disregard for
(the parents) wishes?" When Fan Chih came, he asked, what it
meant. Then Confucius said, "That parents while alive should be
served according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be
buried according to propriety; and that they should be sacrificed
to according to propriety." Had Fan Chih not inquired, what the
words "no disregard" meant, he would not have understood them.

Mêng I Tse's talents did not surpass those of Fan Chih, therefore
there is no record of his sayings or doings in the chapters
of the Analects. Since Fan Chih could not catch the meaning, would
Mêng I Tse have done so?

Mêng Wu Po asked what filial piety was. The Master replied
"If the only sorrow parents have, is that which they feel, when
their children are sick."[9]

Mêng Wu Po used to cause his parents much sorrow, therefore
Confucius spoke the afore-mentioned words. Mêng Wu Po was a
cause of sorrow to his parents, whereas Mêng I Tse disregarded
propriety. If in reproving this fault Confucius replied to Mêng Wu
Po "If the only sorrow parents have is that which they feel, when
their children are sick," he ought to have told Mêng I Tse that
only in case of fire or inundation might propriety be neglected.

Chou Kung says that small talents require thorough instructions,
whereas for great ones a hint is sufficient. Tse Yu possessed
great talents, yet with him Confucius went into details. The talents
of Mêng I Tse were comparatively small, but Confucius gave him a
mere hint. Thus he did not fall in with Chou Kung's views. Reproving
the shortcomings of Mêng I Tse, he lost the right principle.
How was it that none of his disciples took exception?

If he did not dare to speak too openly owing to the high
position held by Mêng I Tse, he likewise ought to have said to
Mêng Wu Po nothing more than `not to cause sorrow (is filial piety),'
for both were scions of the Mêng family, and of equal dignity.
There is no apparent reason, why he should have spoken to Mêng
Wu Po in clear terms and to Mêng I Tse thus vaguely. Had Confucius
freely told Mêng I Tse not to disregard propriety, what harm
would there have been?

No other family was more powerful in Lu than the Chi
family, yet Confucius blamed them for having eight rows of pantomimes
in their court,[10] and objected to their performing a sacrifice
on Mount T`ai.[11] He was not afraid of the evil consequences, which
this lack of reserve in regard to the usurpation of territorial rights
by the Chi family might have for him, but anticipated bad results
from a straightforward answer given to Mêng I Tse? Moreover,
he was questioned about filial piety more than once, and he had
always his charioteer at hand.[12] When he spoke to Mêng I Tse,
he was not merely in a submissive mood,[13] therefore he informed
Fan Chih.

Confucius said[14] "Riches and honour are what men desire. If
they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be

held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If they cannot
be obtained in the proper way, they should not be avoided."[15]

The meaning is that men must acquire riches in a just and
proper way, and not take them indiscriminately, that they must
keep within their bounds, patiently endure poverty, and not recklessly
throw it off. To say that riches and honour must not be
held, unless they are obtained in the proper way, is all right, but
what is poverty and meanness not obtained in a proper way?
Wealth and honour can, of course, be abandoned, but what is the
result of giving up poverty and meanness? By giving up poverty
and meanness one obtains wealth and honour. As long as one
does not obtain wealth and honour, one does not get rid of poverty
and meanness. If we say that, unless wealth and honour
can be obtained in a proper way, poverty and meanness should
not be shunned, then that which is obtained is wealth and honour,
not poverty and meanness. How can the word "obtaining" be
used with reference to poverty and meanness? Therefore the passage
ought to read as follows:

"Poverty and meanness are what people dislike. If they cannot
be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided."

Avoiding is the proper word, not obtaining. Obtaining is
used of obtaining. Now there is avoiding, how can it be called
obtaining? Only in regard to riches and honour we can speak of
obtaining. How so? By obtaining riches and honour one avoids
poverty and meanness. Then how can poverty and meanness be
avoided in the proper way?—By purifying themselves and keeping
in the proper way officials acquire rank and emoluments, wealth
and honour, and by obtaining these they avoid poverty and meanness.

How are poverty and meanness avoided not in the proper
way?—If anybody feels so vexed and annoyed with poverty and
meanness, that he has recourse to brigandage and robbery for
the purpose of amassing money and valuables, and usurps official
emoluments, then he does not keep in the proper way.

Since the Seventy Disciples did not ask any question regarding
the passage under discussion, the literati of to-day are likewise
incapable of raising any objection.

If the meaning of this utterance is not explained, nor the
words made clear, we would have to say that Confucius could not

speak properly. As long as the meaning continues unravelled, and the
words unexplained, the admonition of Confucius remains uncomprehensible.
Why did his disciples not ask, and people now say nothing?

"Confucius said of Kung Yeh Ch`ang that he might be wived
and that, although he was put in bonds, he was not guilty. Accordingly
he gave him his daughter to wife."[16]

I ask what was the idea of Confucius, when he gave a wife
to Kung Yeh Ch`ang. Did he think him fit to marry, because he
was thirty years old, or on account of his excellent conduct? If
he had his thirty years in view, he should not have spoken of
his being in fetters, and if he looked upon his conduct, there was
no occasion either for mentioning his imprisonment. Why? Because
all who joined the school of Confucius were well-behaved. Therefore
they were called accomplished followers. If among these
followers one or the other was unmarried, he might have been
married, but it need not be mentioned. If among the disciples
many unmarried ones existed and Kung Yeh Ch`ang was the most
virtuous of them, and should therefore Confucius have given him a
wife alone, then in praising him Confucius ought to have enumerated
his deeds instead of speaking of his imprisonment. There are
not a few persons in the world, who suffer violence without being
guilty, but they are not perfect sages therefore. Of ordinary people
who are wronged, there are a great many, not only one. If Confucius
made an innocent man his son-in-law, he selected not a virtuous man,
but one who had suffered injustice. The only praise Confucius had for
Kung Yeh Ch`ang was his innocence; of his doings or his qualities he
said not a word. If in fact he was not virtuous, and Confucius made
him his son-in-law, he did wrong, and if he was virtuous indeed,
but Confucius in praising him did not mention it, he was wrong
likewise. It was like his giving a wife to Nan Yung,[17] of whom he
said that `if the country were well-governed, he would not be out
of office, and if it were ill-governed, he would escape punishment
and disgrace,'[18] a praise which left nothing to be desired.[19]

The Master said to Tse Kung, "Which of you two, yourself
or Hui is superior?" Tse Kung replied, "How dare I compare myself
with Hui? If Hui hears one point, he knows therefrom ten
others. If I hear one, I know but two." The Master said "Not
equal to him. I and you together cannot compare with him."[20]

Thus with a view to setting forth the excellence of Yen Hui this
question was put to Tse Kung. This calls for the following remark:

That which Confucius propounded was propriety and modesty.
Tse Lu would govern a State with propriety, but his words were
not modest, therefore Confucius criticized him.[21] Had Tse Kung
really been superior to Hui, he would, on being asked by Confucius,
have replied nevertheless that he was not equal to him, and had
he been inferior in fact, he would likewise have owned to his inferiority.
In the first case the answer would not have been wrong
or a deception of the Master, for propriety and modesty require
depreciatory and humble words.

What was the purport of this inquiry of Confucius? If he was
aware that Yen Hui surpassed Tse Kung, he did not need to ask the
latter, and if he really did not know, and therefore asked Tse Kung,
he would not have learned it in this way either, for Tse Kung was
bound to give a modest and humble reply. If Confucius merely
wanted to eulogise Hui and praise his virtue, there were many
other disciples not enjoying the same fame, why must he just ask
Tse Kung?

The Master said, "Admirable indeed was the virtue of Hui!"[22]
and further, "I have talked with Hui for a whole day, and he has
not made any objection, as if he were stupid"[23] and, "Such was
Hui, that for three months there would be nothing in his mind
contrary to perfect virtue."[24] In all these three chapters Hui is
praised directly, but not at the cost of any other person, why
then must Tse Kung in one chapter serve to him as a foil?

Somebody might think that Confucius wanted to snub Tse Kung.
At that time the fame of Tse Kung was greater than that of Yen
Hui. Confucius apprehensive, lest Tse Kung should become too conceited
and overbearing, wanted to humble him.

If his name ranked above that of Hui, it was a simple fact
at that time, but not brought about by Tse Kung's endeavours to

supersede his rival. How could the judgment of Tse Kung have
affected the case? Even supposing that, in case Yen Hui's talents
were superior to his, he had submitted of his own accord, there
was no necessity for any snubbing. If Tse Kung could not know it
himself, he would, nothwithstanding anything Confucius might have
said, have been convinced that the latter only wanted to humble
him, and in that case questioning or no questioning would have
neither humbled nor elated him.

Tsai Wo being asleep during the day time, the Master said,
"Rotten wood cannot be carved; a wall of dirty earth will not
receive the trowel. But what is the use of my reproving Tsai
Wo!"[25] —For sleeping during the day Tsai Wo was reprimanded in
this way.

Sleeping during day time is a small evil. Rotten wood and
dirty earth are things in such a state of decay, that they cannot
be repaired, and must be regarded as great evils. If a small evil
is censured, as though it were a great one, the person in question
would not submit to such a judgment. If Tsai Wo's character was
as bad as rotten wood or dirty earth, he ought not to have been
admitted to the school of Confucius nor rank in one of the four
classes of disciples.[26] In case his character was good however,
Confucius dealt too harshly with him.

"If a man is not virtuous, and you carry your dislike of
him to extremes, he will recalcitrate."[27] The dislike shown by
Confucius for Tsai Wo has been, so to say, too strong. Provided
that common and ignorant people had committed some smaller
punishable offence, and the judge condemned them to capital
punishment, would they suffer the wrong, and complain of the
injustice, or would they quietly submit, and consider themselves
guilty? Had Tsai Wo been an ignorant man, his feelings would
have been the same with those people guilty of some offence; being
a worthy, he must have understood a reproof of Confucius, and
have reformed at the slightest remark. An open word was sufficient

to enlighten him, whereas an exaggeration would have missed its
mark. At the first allusion he would already have reformed. That
however did not depend on the strength of the language used, but
on Tsai Wo's ability to change.

The scheme of the "Ch`un Ch`iu" is to point out any small
goodness, and to censure small wrongs.[28] But if Confucius praised
small deserts in high terms, and censured trifling wrongs immoderately,
would Tsai Wo having the scheme of the Ch`un Ch`iu in view
agree with such criticism? If not, he would not accept it, and
the words of Confucius would be lost.

The words of a Sage must tally with his writings. His words
come from his mouth, and his writings are in his books, but both
flow from the heart, and are the same in substance. When Confucius
composed the "Ch`un Ch`iu" he did not censure small things,
as if they were very important, but in reproving Tsai Wo he condemned
a small offence in the same manner as an enormous crime.
His words and his writings disagree. How should they convince
a man?

The Master said, "At first my way with men was to hear
their words, and to give them credit for their conduct. Now my
way is to hear their words, and look at their conduct. It is from
Tsai Wo that I have learnt to make this change."[29] That is from
the time, when Tsai Wo was asleep in the day time, he changed
his method of studying men. But one may well ask, how can a
man's sleeping during the day time spoil his character, and how
can a man of bad conduct become good by not sleeping day or
night? Is it possible to learn anything about people's goodness
or badness from their sleeping during the day time?

Amongst the disciples of Confucius in the four classes Tsai
Wo took precedence over Tse Kung. If he was so lazy, that nothing
could be made out of his character, how could he advance so far?
If Tsai Wo reached such a degree of perfection notwithstanding his
sleeping during the day, his talents must have been far superior to
those of ordinary people. Supposing that he had not yet reached
the goal, but was under the impression that he had done enough,
he did not know better himself. That was a lack of knowledge,
but his conduct was not bad. He only wanted some enlightenment,
but to change the method of studying men for that reason
was superfluous.

Let us assume that Tsai Wo was conscious of his deficiencies,
but felt so exhausted, that he fell asleep during day time. That
was a relaxation of his vital force. This exhaustion may increase
to such a degree, that death ensues and not only sleep.[30]

As regards the method of judging human character by taking
into consideration the actions, the words are disregarded, and by
laying all stress on words, the conduct is left out of consideration.
Now although Tsai Wo was not very energetic in his actions, his
words were well worth hearing. There is a class of men who
speak very well, but whose deeds are not quite satisfactory. From
the time that Tsai Wo slept during the day, Confucius began to hear
the words, and look at the conduct, and only in case they both
corresponded, called a man virtuous. That means to say, he wanted
a perfect man, but how does that agree with his principle that
perfection must not be expected from one man?[31]

Tse Chang asked saying, "The minister Tse Wên[32] thrice took
office, and manifested no joy in his countenance. Thrice he retired
from office, and manifested no displeasure. He made it a point to
inform the new minister of the way in which he had conducted
the government;—what do you say of him?" The Master replied,
"He was loyal."—"Was he benevolent?"—"I do not know. How
can he be pronounced benevolent?[33] Tse Wên recommended Tse Yü
of Ch`u as his successor. Tse Yü attacked Sung with a hundred warchariots,
but was defeated and lost most of his men.[34] If Tse Wên
was ignorant like that, how could he be considered benevolent?"

My question is this. When Tse Wên recommended Tse Yü, he
did not know him, but wisdom has nothing to do with virtue.
Ignorance does not preclude benevolent deeds. There are the five
virtues:—benevolence, justice, propriety, intelligence, and truth, but
these five are separate, and not necessarily combined. Thus there
are intelligent men, benevolent men, there are the well-mannered,
and the just. The truthful must not always be intelligent, or the
intelligent, benevolent, the benevolent, well-mannered, or the well-mannered,
just. Tse Wên's intelligence was obfuscated by Tse Yü,

but how did his benevolence suffer therefrom? Consequently it is
not right to say, "How can he be pronounced benevolent?"

Moreover loyal means generous, and generosity is benevolence.
Confucius said, "By observing a man's faults it may be known that
he is benevolent."[35] Tse Wên possessed true benevolence. If Confucius
says that loyalty is not benevolence, he might as well assert that
father and mother are not the two parents, or that husband and
wife are not a pair.

The duke Ai[36] asked which of the disciples loved to learn.
Confucius replied to him, "There was Yen Hui. He did not vent
his anger on others, nor did he twice commit the same fault. Alas!
his fate was short and he died; and now there is none. I have
not yet heard of any one who loves to learn."[37] —

What was really the cause of Yen Hui's death? It is, of course,
attributed to his short fate, which would correspond to Po Niu's
sickness.[38] All living men have received their fate, which is complete,
and must be clean.[39] Now there being the evil disease of Po
Niu,[40] one says that he had no fate.[41] Those who remain alive,
must have been endowed with a long fate. If a person has obtained
a short fate, we should likewise say that he has no fate.
Provided that heaven's fate can be short or long, it also must be
good or bad. Speaking of Yen Hui's short fate, one can speak likewise
of Po Niu's bad fate. Saying that Po Niu had no fate, one
must admit that Yen Hui had no fate either. One died, the other
was diseased; Confucius pitied them both, and called it fate. The
thing which is derived from heaven is the same, but it is not given
the same name, for which I do not see any apparent reason.[42]

Duke Ai asked Confucius who loved to learn. Confucius replied,
"There was Yen Hui who loved to learn, but now there is none.
He did not vent his anger on others nor commit the same fault
twice."—Why did Confucius say so?

There are those who presume that Confucius wished to add a
criticism on Duke Ai's character, and that therefore he spoke of
the venting of anger and committing faults twice. Sticking to the
duke's inquiry, he gave him this reply, thereby at the same time
censuring the duke's short-comings, but without committing himself.

However K`ang Tse[43] likewise asked about the love of learning,
and Confucius in his answer also indicated Yen Hui.[44] K`ang Tse had
his faults as well, why did Confucius not answer so as to reprove
K`ang Tse too? K`ang Tse was not a sage, his doings were not
without fault. In fact K`ang Tse was distressed about the number
of thieves. Confucius replied, "If you, sir, were not covetous, although
you should reward them to do it, they would not steal."[45]
This shows that K`ang Tse's weak point was his covetousness. Why
did not Confucius attack it?

Confucius having visited Nan Tse, Tse Lu was displeased, on
which the Master said, "If I have done a wicked thing, may
Heaven fall down on me, may Heaven fall down on me!"[46] —

Nan Tse was the wife of Duke Ling of Wei.[47] She had invited
Confucius. Tse Lu was displeased and suspected Confucius of having
had illicite intercourse with her. In order to exculpate himself
Confucius said, "If I have done any thing disgraceful, may Heaven
crush me." To prove his perfect sincerity he swore that he did
not deceive Tse Lu.

I ask:—by thus exonerating himself, does Confucius really clear
himself? If it had happened once that Heaven fell down, and killed
people for having perpetrated any disgraceful act, Confucius might
allude to, and swear by it. Tse Lu would most probably believe
him then, and he would be whitewashed. Now, nobody has ever

been crushed by Heaven. Would therefore Tse Lu believe in an
oath to the effect that Heaven might fall down on him?

It happens sometimes that a man is killed by lightning,
drowned by water, burned by fire, or crushed by the tumbling
wall of a house. Had Confucius said "May the lighting strike me,
the water drown me, the fire burn me, or a wall crush me," Tse
Lu would undoubtedly have believed him, but instead of that he
swore before Tse Lu by a disaster, which has never before happened.
How could this dispel Tse Lu's doubts, and make him believe?

Sometimes people are crushed while asleep, before they awake.
Can we say that Heaven crushed them? All those who are crushed
in their sleep, before they awake, have not of necessity done some dishonest
deed. Though not far advanced in philosophy, yet Tse Lu knew
how to distinguish the truth of a thing. Confucius swearing by something
unreal Tse Lu would assuredly not have got rid of his doubts.

Confucius asserted that life and death were fate, and that
wealth and honour depended on Heaven.[48] Accordingly human life
can be long or short, which has nothing to do with human actions,
goodness or badness. In fact Yen Hui died prematurely, and Confucius
spoke of his short fate.[49] Are we entitled to conclude therefrom
that people whose fate is short and who die young, must have
done something wrong?

Although Tse Lu was not yet very proficient in philosophy,
yet from the words of Confucius he knew the real meaning of life
and death. Confucius swore that, if he had done anything dishonest,
Heaven might crush him instead of telling Tse Lu that he was only
under the rule of fate, for how could Heaven fall down upon him
and kill him, before the appointed time of his death had come?
Thus on taking his oath before Tse Lu that Heaven might crush
him, he could not expect to find credence, and in that case the
exculpation of Confucius would have been no exculpation.

The Shu-king[50] says, "Be not as arrogant as Tan Chu,[51] who only
liked to saunter idly about." Thus the Emperor Shun admonished
Yü not to treat an unworthy son like a son, and to pay attention
to the commands of Heaven. He was alarmed, lest Yü should be
partial to his son, therefore he adduced Tan Chu as an example
calculated to deter him. But Yü replied:[52] —"I had my marriage

on the hsing, jen, kwei, and chia days. When the cries and whines
of my son were first heard, I did not treat him like my son." He
related something that had happened, from the past forecasting
the future, and deducting what could not be seen from that which
was apparent. Thus he demonstrated that he would not venture
to show partiality for an unworthy son. He did not say:—"May
Heaven fall down on me," knowing very well that common people
in swearing like to invoke Heaven.

When Tse Lu suspected the actions of Confucius, the latter did
not refer to his conduct in the past to prove that he had done
nothing reproachable, but said that Heaven might crush him. How
does he differ from common people, who for the purpose of dispelling
a doubt will solemnly protest by Heaven?

Confucius said:—"The phœnix does not come; the River sends
forth no Plan:—it is all over with me!"[53]

The Master felt distressed that he did not become emperor.
As emperor he would have brought about perfect peace. At such
a time the phœnix would have made its appearance, and the Plan
would have emerged from the Yellow River.[54] Now he did not
obtain imperial authority, therefore there were no auspicious portents
either, and Confucius felt sick at heart and distressed. Hence his
words:—"It is all over with me!"

My question is:— Which after all are the necessary conditions
preceding the appearance of the phœnix and the Plan of the River,
which though fulfilled, did not bring about their arrival?[55] If it
be perfect peace, it may be urged that not all the emperors, under
whose reign perfect peace prevailed, attracted the phœnix or the
Plan of the River.

The Five Emperors and the Three Rulers[56] all brought about
perfect peace, but comparing their omens, we find that they had
not all the phœnix as an indispensable attribute. During the time
of perfect peace the phœnix is not a necessary omen. That Confucius,
a sage, should have longed so much for something that was
not at all indispensable, and that he worried himself, is not right.

Somebody might object that Confucius did not sorrow, because
he was not appointed emperor, but that, when he felt so sad, there
was no wise ruler, and that therefore he did not find employment.
The phœnix and the Plan of the River are omens of a wise ruler.
As long as they are absent, there is no wise ruler, and without a
wise ruler Confucius had no chance of finding employment.

How are these auguries called forth? By appointing wise
and able men the government is set right, and great success obtained.
Then the omens appear. After they have made their appearance,
there is no further need for a Confucius. Why has Confucius
only the end in view?[57] He does not think of the first steps,[58]
and solely sees the end, does not assist a king as minister, but
speaks of those portents.[59] The government not being in order,
those things, of course, do not become visible.

To conclude from their arrival that there must be a wise
ruler, would also be a mistake. The emperor Hsiao Wên Ti[60] deserved
the name of a wise ruler, yet in his annals[61] we find nothing about
a phœnix or the Plan of the River. Had Confucius lived under
Hsiao Wên Ti he would likewise have complained:—"It is all over
with me!"

The Master was expressing a wish to live among the Nine
Wild Tribes of the east. Some one said, "They are brutish. How
can you do such a thing?" The Master said, "If a superior man
dwelt among them, what brutality would there be?"[62]

Confucius felt annoyed, because his doctrine did not find its
way into China. This loss of his hopes roused his anger, and
made him wish to emigrate to the Wild Tribes. Some one remonstrated,
asking, how he could do such a thing, since the savages
were brutish and unmannerly. To which Confucius retorted by
saying, "If a superior man dwelt among them, what brutality
would there be?", which means to say that, if a superior man were

living among them and imparting his doctrine, there would be no
more rudeness.

How did Confucius conceive the idea of going to the Nine
Tribes?—Because his doctrine did not spread in China, he wished
to go there. But if China was no field for it, how could it have
spread among the savages? "The rude tribes of the east and north
with their princes are still not equal to China without princes."[63]
That shows that things which are easily managed in China are
very difficult among the savages. Can then something which has
failed, where everything is easy, be carried through, where everything
is difficult?

Furthermore, Confucius said, "If a superior man dwelt among
them, how came one to speak of brutality." Does that mean that
the superior man keeps his culture for himself, or that he imparts
it? Should he keep it closed up in his bosom, he might do that
in China as well, and need not go to the savages for that purpose.
If, however, he should instruct the savages in it, how could they
be taught?

Yü visited the State of the Naked People. He was naked
himself, while he stayed with them, and only when he left, he
put on his clothes again. The habit of wearing clothes did not
take root among the wild tribes. Yü was unable to teach the
Naked People to wear clothes, how could Confucius make superior
men of the Nine Tribes?

Perhaps Confucius, as a matter of fact, did not wish to go
to the wild tribes after all, but grieved that his doctrine was not
accepted, he merely said so in angry mood. Or, when some one
remonstrated, he knew pretty well that the wild tribes were barbarians,
but nevertheless he said, "What brutality would there
be?", insisting on having his own way and warding off the attack
of his interlocutor. If he really did not want to go, but said so
out of disgust, he did not tell the truth. "What the superior
man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."[64]
If Confucius knew that the wild tribes were uncivilized,
but at all costs insisted on being right, this was like the discussion
of Tse Lu with Confucius about Tse Kao.

Tse Lu got Tse Kao[65] appointed governor of Pi.[66] The Master
said, "You are injuring a man's son." Tse Lu replied, "There

are the spirits of the land and grain, and there are the people.
Why must one read books, before he can be considered to have
learned?" The Master said, "It is on this account that I hate
your glib-tongued people."[67]

Tse Lu knew that one must not give an inconsiderate answer
in order to have one's own way. Confucius was displeased with
him, and compared him with those glib-tongued people. He likewise
knew the impropriety of such replies, but he and Tse Lu gave
both glib-tongued answers.

Confucius said, "T`se[68] did not receive[69] Heaven's decree, but
his goods are increased by him, and his calculations are generally
correct."[70]

What does he mean by saying that T`se did not receive
Heaven's decree? One might suppose that he received the fate
that he should become rich, and by his own method knew beforehand,
what was going to happen, and in his calculation did not
miss the right moment. Now, does wealth and honour depend on
Heaven's appointment or on human knowledge? In the first case
nobody could obtain them by his own knowledge or cleverness,
if, on the other hand, men were the chief agents, why does Confucius
say that life and death are fate, and wealth and honour
depend on heaven?[71]

If we admit that wealth can be acquired by knowing the
proper way without receiving Heaven's decree, then honour also
can be won through personal energy without fate. But in this
world there is nobody who has won honour quite by himself
without a heavenly order to that effect. Hence we learn that we
cannot acquire wealth by ourselves, unless we have received Heaven's
order.

In fact Confucius did not acquire wealth and honour. He
wandered about, hoping that his services would be required. Having
exhausted all his wisdom in remonstrating with the princes and
being at his wits' end, he went home, and fixed the text of the
Shiking and the Shuking. His hopes were gone, and expectations
he had none. He said that it was all over with him,[72] for he was
well aware that his destiny was not to be rich and honoured, and
that all his travels could not supply this want. Confucius knew
that he had not received the destiny of a man who will become
exalted, and that searching for honour on his travels, he would
never find it. Yet he maintained that T`se was not destined to
be rich, but acquired wealth by his astuteness. The words and
the actions of Confucius disagree, one does not know why.

Some say that he wished to attack the faults of Tse Kung,
who did not care much for the right doctrine or virtue, but only
for the increase of his wealth. Confucius therefore reproved his
fault, wishing to induce him to comply entirely, and to change his
conduct. Combating Tse Kung's shortcomings he might say that he
did not love the doctrine or virtue, but only his wealth, but why
must he assert that he had not received the fate, which is in opposition
to his former utterance that wealth and honour depend
on Heaven?

When Yen Yuan died, the Master said:—"Alas! Heaven is
destroying me! Heaven is destroying me!"[73]

This means that, when a man is to rise, Heaven gives him
a support, whereas, when his destruction is impending, he deprives
him of his assistance. Confucius had four friends, by whom he
hoped to rise,[74] but Yen Yuan died prematurely. Therefore his exclamation:—"Heaven
is destroying me!"

One may ask:—Did Yen Yuan die, because Confucius did not
become an emperor, snatched away by Heaven, or did he die an
untimely death of himself, his allotted span being so short?—If
he died prematurely, because his appointed time was short, he
was bound to die, and even if Confucius had become an emperor,
he would not have remained alive.

The support of a man is like a stick, on which a sick person
is leaning. A sick man requires a stick to walk. Now, let the
stick be shortened by cutting off a piece, can we say then that
Heaven compelled the sick man not to walk any more? If he
could rise still, could the short stick be lengthened again? Yen
Yuan's short life is like the shortness of the stick.

Confucius said that Heaven was destroying him, because Yen
Yuan was a worthy.[75] But worthies in life must not necessarily
act as supporters of somebody, just as sages do not always receive
Heaven's special appointment. Among the emperors there are many
who are not sages, and their ministers are very often not worthies.
Why? Because fate and externals[76] are different from man's talents.
On this principle it was by no means certain that Yen Yuan, had
he been alive, would have become the supporter of Confucius, or
that by his death he ruined Confucius. What proof had the latter
then for his assertion that Heaven was destroying him?

What was Heaven's idea after all that it did not make Confucius
emperor? Did it not appoint him, when he received his
life and his fate, or was it going to appoint him, but repented
afterwards? If originally he was not appointed, what harm could
be done by Yen Yuan's death? If he was first chosen for the imperial
dignity, and this scheme was abandoned later on, no externals
came into question, and the decision rested solely with
Heaven. And then which good acts of Confucius did Heaven see
to make him emperor, and which bad ones did it hear subsequently,
that it changed its mind, and did not invest him? The
Spirit of Heaven must have erred in his deliberations and not have
made the necessary investigations.

When Confucius went to Wei, the funeral rites of a former
land-lord of his were just going on there. He stepped into the
house and wept, and, when he came out, he ordered Tse Kung to
unharnass one outside horse, and give it as a present. Tse Kung
remarked:—"At the death of your disciple, you did not unharnass
a horse, but do it now for an old land-lord. Is that not too much?"

Confucius replied, "When I just now went in, I wept, and overwhelmed
with grief, went out, and cried. I cannot bear the idea
that my tears should not be accompanied by something. Therefore,
my son, do as I told you."[77]

Confucius unharnassed his horse, and gave it away for the
old lodging-house keeper, because he could not bear the thought
that his feelings should not be accompanied by some act of courtesy.
Along with such feelings politeness must he shown. When his feelings
are touched, a man is moved to kindness. Courtesy and emotion
must correspond. A superior man at least will act in that way.

When Yen Yuan died, the Master bewailed him, and was
deeply moved. His disciples said to him:—"Master, you are deeply
moved." He replied:—"If I were not deeply moved at this man's
demise, at whose should I be?"[78]

Such deep emotion is the climax of grief. Bewailing Yen Yuan
his emotion was different from that of all the other pupils. Grief
is the greatest sorrow.—When Yen Yuan died, his coffin had no
outer shell. Yen Lu[79] begged the carriage of the Master to sell and
get an outer shell for the coffin, but Confucius did not give it,
because a high officer could not walk afoot.[80] Mourning over the
old lodging-house keeper, he unharnassed a horse to give it away
as a present, because he did not like that his tears should not
be accompanied by some gift. Bewailing Yen Yuan he was deeply
moved, yet, when asked, he declined to give his carriage away,
so that his emotion had no counterpart in his actions. What
difference is there between tears and emotion, or between a horse
and a carriage? In one case politeness and sentiment were in harmony,
in the other kindness and right feeling did not correspond.
We do not see clearly what Confucius' ideas about politeness were.

Confucius said, "There was Li; when he died, he had a coffin,
but no outer shell. I would not walk on foot to get a shell for
him."[81] —The love for Li must have been deeper than that for Yen
Yuan. When Li died, he got no shell, because it was not becoming
for a high officer to walk on foot. Li was the son of Confucius,
Yen Yuan bore another surname. When the son died, he did not
receive that present, how much less had a man of another name
a right to it?

Then this would be a proof of the real kindness of Confucius.
If he showed himself affectionate towards his old land-lord, whereas
his kindness did not extend to his son, was it perhaps, because
previously he was an inferior official, and afterwards a high officer?
When he was an inferior official first, as such he could ride in a
carriage with two horses, as a high officer he would drive with
three. A high officer could not do without his carriage and walk
on foot, but why did he not sell two horses to get a shell, and
drive with the remaining one? When he was an official, he rode in
a carriage with two horses, and parted with one for the sake of
the old lodging-house keeper. Why did he not part with two now
to show his kindness, only keeping one to avoid walking on foot?

Had he not given away one horse as a present for the old
lodging-house keeper, he would not have transgressed any statute,
but by burying his son with a coffin, but without a shell he committed
an offence against propriety, and showed a disregard for
custom. Confucius attached great importance to the present, which
he was kind enough to make to the old man, and treated the funeral
ceremonies for his son very lightly. Honour was shown to a
stranger, but the rites were neglected in the case of his own son.
Since Confucius did not sell his carriage to get a shell for Li, he
cannot clear himself of the reproach of being an office-hunter,
who was afraid of being without his carriage. And yet he has
maintained himself that a superior man "will even sacrifice his
life to preserve his virtue complete."[82] Could it then be so difficult
to give up one's dignity in order to preserve propriety?

Tse Kung asked about government. The Master said, "The requisites
of government are that there be a sufficiency of food, a sufficiency
of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler."

Tse Kung said, "If it cannot be helped, and one of these
must be dispensed with, which of the three should be foregone
first?" "The military equipment" said the Master.

Tse Kung again asked, "If it cannot be helped, and one of
the remaining two must be dispensed with, which of them should
be foregone?" The Master answered: "Part with the food. From
of old, death has been the lot of all men; but if the people have
no faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the State."[83] —
Faith is the most important of all.

Now, if a State has no food, so that the people must starve,
they care no more for propriety and righteousness. Those being
neglected, how can confidence still be maintained?

It has been said that, as long as the granaries are full, people
observe the rules of propriety, and that, while they have sufficiency
of clothing and food, they know what honour and shame is.
Charity is the upshot of abundance, and mutual fighting the result
of privation. Now, provided that there is nothing to live on, how
could faith he preserved?

During the Ch`un-ch`iu period the contending States were
famine-stricken. People changed their sons in order to eat them,
and broke their bones for fuel to cook with.[84] Starving and without
food, they had no time to trouble about kindness or justice. The
love between father and son is based on faith, yet in times of
famine faith is thrown away, and the sons are used as food. How
could Confucius tell Tse Kung that food might be foregone, but that
faith ought to be preserved? If there is no faith, but food, though
unsought, faith will grow, whereas, if there is no food, but faith,
it cannot be upheld, though we may strive for it.

When the Master went to Wei, Jan Yu[85] acted as driver of
his carriage. The Master observed, "How numerous are the people!"
Jan Yu said:—"Since they are so numerous, what more could be
done for them?"—"Enrich them," was the reply.—"And when they
have been enriched, what more could be done?"—The Master said:
"Teach them."[86] —Speaking with Jan Yu, Confucius placed wealth first
and instruction after, but he told Tse Kung that food might be
dispensed with, provided there was faith. What difference is there
between food and wealth, faith and instruction? Both scholars
received different answers. The object prized most was not the
same in both cases. The opinions of Confucius about political
economy cannot have been very well settled.

Chü Po Yü[87] sent a messenger to Confucius, who questioned
him what his master was doing. The messenger replied, "My
master is anxious to make his faults few, but cannot succeed."

He then went out, and Confucius said, "This messenger! This
messenger!"[88]

This is a reproach. Those discussing the Analects hold that
Confucius reproves him for his humility on behalf of another.[89]

Confucius inquired of the messenger what his master was doing,
he asked about his business, not about his conduct. The messenger
ought to have replied to this question of Confucius:—"My master
does such and such a thing," or, "is occupied with such and such
a government affair," instead of saying:—"My master is anxious to
make his faults few, but cannot succeed." How do we know but
that in his reply he missed the point of the question, and that it
was to this that Confucius took exception? What did Confucius really
reproach the messenger for? Because he spoke humbly on another's
behalf, or because in his reply he missed the point?

The blame referred to something definite, but Confucius did
not make clear his fault merely saying:—"This messenger! This
messenger!" In later ages people began to have their doubts as
to wherein the messenger had failed. Han Fei Tse says:—"If the
style be too terse, it will prove a cause of dispute for the disciples."
How concise is Confucius' remark:—"This messenger!"

Some say that the idea of the "Spring and Autumn"[90] was
to keep a respectful silence on the faults of worthies, that Chü Po
Yü was such a worthy, and that therefore the same practice was
observed with regard to his messenger.

If one wants to know a person one must look at his friends,
and to know a prince one must observe his messengers. Chü Po Yü
was not a worthy, therefore his messenger had his faults. The
idea of the "Spring and Autumn" was to cover the faults of
worthies, but also to censure smaller misdemeanours.[91] Now, if no
reproach was made, but silence kept, where would the censuring
of minor offences come in? If Confucius was anxious to keep silence
on Chü Po Yü, he ought to have kept quiet, but since he said
with much pathos:—"This messenger! This messenger!", all his
contemporaries must have understood the blame. How could such
utterances serve the purpose of a respectful silence.

Pi Hsi[92] inviting him to visit him, the Master was inclined to
go, Tse Lu was displeased, and said:—"Master, formerly I have
heard you say, `When a man in his own person is guilty of doing
evil, a superior man will not associate with him.' Pi Hsi is in rebellion,
holding possession of Chung-mao; if you go to him, what
shall be said?"—The Master said, "So it is. But is it not said
that, if a thing be really hard, it may be ground without being
made thin? Is it not said that, if a thing be really white, it may
be steeped in a dark fluid without being made black?—Am I a
bitter gourd? How could I be hung up and not eat?"[93]

Tse Lu quoted a former remark of Confucius to refute him.
Formerly Confucius had spoken those words with the object of inducing
his pupils to act accordingly. Tse Lu quoted it to censure
Confucius. He was well aware of it, but did not say that his former
words were a joke meaning nothing, which could be disregarded.
He admitted that he had spoken those words, and that they must
be carried out, but "is it not said," he continued "that, if a thing
be really hard, it may be ground without being made thin, or if
it be white, that it may be steeped in a dark fluid without being
made black?" Could he invalidate Tse Lu's objections with these
words? "When a man in his own person is guilty of doing evil,
a superior man will not associate with him." To invalidate this
objection Pi Hsi ought not yet to have committed any evil, so that
one might still associate with him. However Confucius said that
what was hard, might be ground without becoming thin, and what
was white, might be steeped in a dark fluid without turning black.
According to this argument those whose conduct was, so to
speak, perfectly hard or perfectly white, might consort with Pi Hsi,
but why not those superior men, whose ways are soft and easily
tainted by wickedness?

Confucius would not drink the water from the "Robber Spring,"
and Tsêng Tse declined to enter into a village called "Mother's
Defeat."[94] They avoided the evil, and kept aloof from pollution,
out of respect for the moral laws and out of shame at the disgraceful
names. "Robber Spring" and "Mother's Defeat" were
nothing but empty names, but nevertheless were shunned by
Confucius and Tsêng Tse. Pi Hsi had done some real wrong, yet

Confucius intended visiting him. That he did not like the "Robber
Spring" was correct, but that he wished to open up relations with
Pi Hsi was wrong.

"Riches and honours acquired by unrighteousness are to me
as a floating cloud."[95] If Confucius, who said so, had taken the
wrong way, and lived on the salary paid him by a rebel, his words
about floating clouds would have been futile.

Perhaps he wanted to propagate his doctrine for a time only.
If that was his aim, he could meet the objections of Tse Lu by
speaking of the propagation of his doctrine, but not by speaking
of food. There might be allowed some time for the propagation
of his doctrine, but there would be none for his outlook for food.

In the words:—"Am I a bitter gourd? How could I be hung
up, and not eat" Confucius compares himself to a gourd, saying
that being in office a man must live on his salary. "I am no gourd
that might be hung up, and would require no food."[96] This is a
rebuff to Tse Lu, but this rejoinder of Confucius does not dispose
of Tse Lu's objection, for in criticising the master Tse Lu does not
assert that he ought not to take office. But he should choose a
proper State to live in. By the above comparison Confucius showed
that his only wish was to comfortably eat his bread. How undignified
is such an utterance! Why must he compare himself
with an official who wants to eat? A gentleman must not speak
like that.

It would make little difference, whether one speaks of being
hung up like a gourd without eating, or of being hung up out of
employ. In reply to Tse Lu he might have retorted "Am I a gourd
to be hung up, and out of employ?" Now speaking of food Confucius
admits that he sought office not for the sake of his doctrine,
but merely to find food. In taking office the motive of men is their
thirst for money, but giving it a moral aspect they say that they
do it to propagate their principles. Likewise in marrying the motive
is lust, but morally speaking it is to serve the parents. If an official
bluntly speaks of his food, would a bridegroom also own to his
sensuality?

The utterance of Confucius explains his feelings. The meaning
is unmistakable, and not obscured by a well sounding moral name.
It is very common, and unworthy of a superior man. The Literati

say that Confucius travelled about to find employment, but did not
succeed, and regretted that his doctrine did not spread. Methinks
they misunderstand Confucius' character.

Kung Shan Fu Jao, when he was holding Pi,[97] and in an attitude
of rebellion,[98] invited the Master to visit him, who was rather inclined
to go. Tse Lu said:—"Indeed you cannot go! Why must
you think of going to see Kung Shan!" The Master said, "Can it
be without some reason that he has invited me? If any one employ
me, may I not make an eastern Chou?"[99] —Making an eastern Chou
means that he intended putting forth his doctrine.[100]

Kung Shan Fu Jao and Pi Hsi were both in rebellion. With the
former he hoped to introduce his doctrine, whereas from the latter
he expected food. So his utterances are wavering, and his actions
are consequently inconsistent. Should this perhaps have been the
reason of his migrations and his inability to find employment?

"Yang Huo wanted to see Confucius, but he did not see him."[101]
He offered him a post, but Confucius would not have it. That was
disinterested indeed! When Kung Shan Fu Jao and Pi Hsi invited
him, he was inclined to go. That was very base! Kung Shan Fu
Jao and Yang Huo both rebelled, and kept Chi Huan Tse prisoner.
They were equal in their wickedness, and both invited Confucius in
the same polite way. However Confucius responded to Kung Shan
Fu Jao's call and did not see Yang Huo. Was Kung Shan Fu Jao still
a fit person to associate with, and Yang Huo not? Tse Lu remonstrated
against Kung Shan Fu Jao's invitation. Confucius ought to have
removed this objection by showing that he was as good at least
as Pi Hsi, and that his character was not so very bad.