天涯在线书库《www.tianyabook.com》
《The Spirit of the Chinese People》
INTRODUCTION
INTRODU
The Religion of Good-citizenship
Sage, thun ivir nicht rechtl Wir mussen den Pobel betrugen,
Sur, ivie ungeschickt, siur ivie wild er sich zeigt Ungeschid wild sind alle roherogenen ;
Seid nur redlid fiihrt ihn zum Menschli an.
Goethe
THE great war at the present moment is abs all the attention of the world exclusive of everything else. But then I think this war itself must make serious thinking people turn their attention to the great problem of civilisation. All civilisation begins by the quest of Nature, i.e. by subduing and trolling the terrific physical forces in Nature so that they do no harm to men. The modern civilisation of Europe to-day has succeeded in the quest of Nature with a success, it must be admitted, hitherto not attained by any other civilisation. But there is in this world a force more terrible even thaerrific physical forces in Nature and that is the passions in the heart of man. The harm which the physical forces of Nature do to mankind, is nothing pared with the ha藏书网rm which human passions do. Until therefore this terrible force,_the human passions_is properly regulated and trolled, there be, it is evident, not only no civilisation, but even no life possible for human beings.
In the first early and rude stage of society, mankind had to use
_ Arent we just doing the right thing? the mob we must befool them;
See, now, how shiftless! and look noild! {or such is the mob-Shiftless and wild all sons of Adam are when you befool them;
Be but ho and true, and thus make human, them all.
physical force to subdue and subjugate human passions. Thus hordes of savages had to be subjugated by sheer physical force. But as civilisation advances, mankind discovers a force more potent and more effective for subduing and trolling human passions than physical ford this force is called moral force. The moral force whi the past has been effective in subduing and trolling the human passions in the population of Europe, is Christianity. But now this war with the armament preg it, seems to show that Christianity has bee iive as a moral force. Without an effective moral force to trol arain human passions, the people of Europe have had again to employ physical force to keep civil order. As Car-lyle truly says, " Europe is Anarchy plus a stable. " The use of physical foraintain civil order leads to militarism. In fact militarism is necessary in Europe to-day because of the want of an effective moral force. But militarism leads to war and war mearu and waste. Thus the people of Europe are on the horns of a dilemma. If they do away with militarism, anarchy will destroy their civilisation, but if they keep up militarism, their civilisation will collapse through the waste aru of war. But Englishmen say that they are determio put down Prussian militarism and Lord Kiter believes that he will be able to stamp out Prussian militarism with three million drilled and armed Englishmen. But then it seems to me when Prussian militarism is thus stamped out, there will then arise another militarism, _the British militarism which again will have to be stamped out. Thus there seems to be no way of escape out of this vicious circle.
But is there really no way of escape? Yes, I believe there is. The Ameri Emerson long ago said, "I easily see the bankruptcy of the vulgar musket worship, _though great men be musket worshippers; and tis certain, as God liveth, the gun that does need anun, the law of love and justice alone effect a revolution." Now if the people of Europe really want to put down militarism, there is only one way of doing it and that is, to use what E-merson calls the gun that does not need anun, the law of love and justice, _in fact, moral force, With an effective moral force, militarism will bee unnecesary and disappear of it..
at problem of civilisation after this war, _here in a. There is, I say here again, an invaluable, but hitherto unsuspected asset of civilisation here in a, and the asset of civilisation is the real aman. The real aman is an asset of civilisation because he has the secret of a new civilisation which the people of Europe will want after this great war, and the secret of that new civilisation is what I have called the Religion of good citizenship. The first principle of this Religion of good citizenship is to believe that the Nature of Man is good; to believe in the power of goodness; to believe in the power and efficacy of what the Ameri Emerson calls the law of love and justice. But what is the law of love? The Religion of good citizenship teaches that the law of love means to love your father and mother. And what is the law of justice? The Religion of good citizenship teaches that the law of justice means to be true, to be faithful, to be loyal; that the woman in every try must be self-lessly, absolutely loyal to her husband, that the man in every try must be selflessly, absolutely loyal to his sn, to his King or Emperor. In fact the highest duty in this Religion of good citizenship I want to say finally here is the Duty of Loyalty, loyalty not only in deed, but loyalty in spirit or as Tennyson puts it,
To reverehe King as he were
Their sd their sce as their King,
To break the heathen and uphold the Christ.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ESE PEOPLE
A Paper that was to have been read before the Oriental Society of Peking
LET me first of all explain to you what I propose, with your permission, this afternoon to discuss. The subject of our paper I have called "The Spirit of the ese people."! do not mean here merely to speak of the character or characteristics of the ese people. ese characteristics have often been described before, but I think you will agree with me that such description or eion of the characteristics of the ese people hitherto have given us no picture at all of the inner being of the aman. Besides, when we speak of the character or characteristics of the ese, it is not possible to generalize. The character ofbbr>９９ｌｉb? the Northern ese, as you know, is as different from that of the Southern ese as the character of the Germans is different from that of the Italians.
But what I mean by the spirit of the ese people, is the spirit by which the ese people live, something stitutionally distinctive in the mind, temper aiment of the ese people which distinguishes them from all other people, especially from those of modem Europe and America. Perhaps I best express what I mean by calling the subject of our discussion the ese type of humanity, or, to put it in plainer and shorter words, the real aman.
Now, what is the real aman? That, I am sure, you will all agree with me, is a very iing subject, especially at the present moment, when from what we see going on around us in a today, it would seem that the ese type of humanity_the real aman_is going to disappear and, in his place, we are going to have a ype of humanity_the progressive or modern aman. In fact I propose that before the real aman, the old ese type of humanity, disappears altogether from the world we should take a good last look at him and see if we find anything anically distinctive in him which makes him so different from all other people and from the ype of humanity which we see rising up in a today.
chapter 4
Now the first thing, I think, which will strike you in the old ese type of humanity is that there is nothing wild, savage or ferocious in him. Using a term which is applied to animals, we may say of the real aman that he is a domesticated creature. Take a man of the lowest class of the population in a and, I think, you will agree with me that there is less of animality in him, less of the wild animal, of what the Germans call Rohheit, than you will find in a man of the same class in a European society. In fact, the one word, it seems to me, which will sum up the impression which the ese type of humanity makes upon you is the English word "gentle." By gentleness I do not mean softness of nature or weak submissiveness. "The docility of the ese," says the late Dr. D. J. Macgowan, "is not the docility of a brokeed, emasculated people. " But by the word " gentle" I mean absence of hardness, harshness, roughness, or violence, in fact of anything which jars upon you. There is irue ese type of humanity an air, so to speak, of a quiet, sober, chastened mellowness, such as you find in a piece of well-tempered metal. Ihe very physical and moral imperfes of a real aman are, if not redeemed, .９９ｌｉb. least softened by this quality of gentleness in him. The real aman may be coarse, but there is no grossness in his coarseness. The real aman may be ugly, but there is no hideousness in his ugliness. The real aman may be vulgar, but there is no aggressiveness, no blatan his vulgarity. The real aman may be stupid, but there is no absurdity in his stupidity. The real aman may be ing, but there is no deep malignity in his ing. In fact what I want to say is, that even in the faults and blemishes of body, mind and character of the real aman, there is nothing which revolts you. It is seldom that you will find a real aman of the old school, even of the lowest type, who is positively repulsive.
I say that the total impression which the ese type of humanity makes upon you is that he is gehat he is inexpressibly gentle. When you analyse this quality of inexpressible gentleness in the real aman, you will find that it is the the product of a bination of two things, namely, sympathy and intelligence. I have pared the ese type of humanity to a domesticated animal. Now what is that which makes a domesticated animal so different from a wild animal? It is something in the domesticated animal which we reise as distinctively human. But what is distinctively human as distinguished from what is animal? It is intelligence. But the intelligence of a domesticated animal is not a thinking intellige is not an intelligence whies to him from reasoning. her does it e to him from instinct, such as the intelligence of the fox, _ the vulpielligence whiows where eatable chis are to be found. This intelligence whies from instinct, of the fox, all,_even wild, animals have. But this, what may be called human intelligence of a domesticated animal is something quite different from the vulpine or animal intelligehis intelligence of a domesticated animal is an intelligence whies not from reasoning nor from instinct, but from sympathy, from a feeling of love and attat. A thh-bred Arab horse uands his English m?aster not because he has studied English grammar nor because he has an instinct for the English language, but because he loves and is attached to his master. This is what I call human intelligence, as distinguished from mere vulpine or animal intellige is the possession of this human quality which distinguishes domesticated from wild animals. In the same way, I say, it is the possession of this sympathetid true human intelligence, which gives to the ese type of humanity, to the real aman, his inexpressible gentleness.
I once read somewhere a statement made by a fner who had lived in both tries, that the longer a fner lives in Japan the more he dislikes the Japanese, whereas the longer a fner lives in a the more he likes the ese. I do not know if what is said of the Japanese here, is true. But, I think, all of you who have lived in a will agree with me that what is here said of the ese is true. It is well-known fact that the liking_you may call it the taste for the ese_grows upon the fhe longer he lives in this try. There is an indescribable something in the ese people which, in spite of their want of habits of cleanliness and refi, in spite of their mas of mind and character, makes fners like them as fners like no other people. This indescribable something which I have defined as gentleness, softens and mitigates, if it does not redeem, the physical and moral defects of the ese in the hearts of fners. This gentleness again is, as I have tried to show you, the product of what I call sympathetic or true human intelligen intelligence whies not from reasoning nor from instinct, but from sympathy_from the power of sympathy. Now what is the secret of the power of sympathy of the ese people?
I will here veo give you an explanation_a hypothesis, if you like to call it so_of the secret of this power of sympathy in the ese people and my explanation is this. The ese people have this power, this strong power of sympathy, because they live wholly, or almost wholly, a life of the heart. The whole life of aman is a life of feeling_not feeling in the sense of sensation whies from the bodily ans, nor feeling in the sense of passions which flow, as you would say, from the nervous system, but feeling in the sense of emotion or human affe whies from the deepest part of our nature_the heart or soul. Indeed I may say here that the real aman lives so much a life of emotion or human affe, a life of the soul, that he may be said sometimes to more than he ought to do, even the necessary requirements of the life of the senses of a man living in this world posed of body and soul. That is the true explanation of the insensibility of the ese to the physical disforts of un surroundings and want of refi. But that is her here nor there.
The ese people, I say, have the power of sympathy because they live wholly a life of the heart_a life of emotion or human affe. Let me here, first of all, give you two illustrations of what I mean by living a life of the heart. My first illustration is this. Some of you may have personally known an old friend and colleague of mine in Wug_known him when he was Minister of the Fn Office here in Peking_Mr. Liang Tun-yen, Mr. Liang told me, when he first received the appoi of the s Taotai of Hankow, that what made him wish and strive to bee a great mandarin, to wear the red button, and what gave him pleasure then in receiving this appoi, was not because he cared for the red button, not because he would heh be rid indepe, ９9liｂ._and we were all of us very poor then in Wug, _but because he wao rejoice, because this promotion and adva of his would gladden the heart of his old mother in ton. That is what I mean when I say that the ese people live a life of the heart_a life of emotion or human affe.
My other illustration is this. A Scotch friend of mine in the s told me he once had a ese servant who erfect scamp, who lied, who "squeezed, " and who was always gambling, but when my friend fell ill with typhoid fever in an out-of-the-ort where he had nn friend to attend to him, this awful scamp of a ese servant nursed him with a care aion which he could not have expected from an intimate friend or near relation. Indeed I think what was once said of a woman in the Bible may also be said, not only of the ese servant, but of the ese people generally:_"Much is fiven them, because they love much. " The eyes and uanding of the fner in a see mas and blemishes in the habits and in the character of the ese, but his heart is attracted to them, beca?use the ese have a heart, or, as I said, live a life of the heart_a life of emotion or human affe.
chapter 5
Now we have got, I think, a clue to the secret of sympathy in the ese people_the power of sympathy which gives to the real aman that sympathetic or true human intelligence, making him so inexpressibly gentle. Let us put this clue or hypothesis to the test. Let us see whether with this clue that the ese people live a life of the heart we explain not only detached facts such as the two illustrations I have given above, but also general characteristics which we see iual life of the ese people.
First of all let us take the ese language. As the ese live a life of the heart, the ese language, I say, is also a language of the heart. Now it is a well-known fact that children and uneducated persons among fners in a learn ese very easily, much more so than grown-up and educated persons. What is the reason of this? The reason, I say, is because children and uneducated persons think and speak with the language of the heart, whereas educated men, especially men with the modern intellectual education of Europe, think and speak with the language of the head or intellect. In fact, the reason why educated fners find it so difficult to learn ese, is because they are too educated, too intellectually and stifically educated. As it is said of the Kingdom of Heaven, so it may also be said of the ese language:_"Unless you bee as little children, you ot learn it. "
let us take another well-known fa the life of the ese people. The ese, it is well-known, have wonderful memories. What is the secret of this? The secret is: the ese remember things with the heart and not with the head. The heart with its power of sympathy, ag as glue, retain things much better than the head or intellect which is hard and dry. It is, for instance, also for this reason that we; all of us, remember things which we learnt when we were children much better than we remember things which we learnt in mature life. As children, like the ese, we remember things with the heart and not with the head.
Let us ake anenerally admitted fa the life of the ese people_their politeness. The ese are, it has often been remarked, a peculiarly polite people. Now what is the essence of true politeness? It is sideration for the feelings of others. The ese are polite because, living a life of the heart, they know their own feelings and that makes it easy for them to show sideration for the feelings of others. The politeness of the ese, although not elaborate like the politeness of the Japanese, is pleasing because it is, as the French beautifully express it, la politesse du coeur, the politeness of the heart. The politeness of the Japanese, oher hand, although elaborate, is not so pleasing, and I have heard some fners express their dislike of it?９9liｂ?, because it is what may be called a rehearsal politeness_a politeness learnt by heart as in a theatrical piece. It is not a spontaneous politeness whies direct from the heart. In fact the politeness of the Japanese is like a flower without fragrance, whereas the politeness of a really polite ese has a perfume like the aroma of a precious oi_instar ui fra-grantis_ whies from the heart.
Last of all, let us take another characteristic of the ese people, by calling attention to which the Rev. Arthur Smith has made his reputation, viz. :_want of exaess. Now what is the reason for this want of exaess in the ways of the ese people? The reason, I say again, is because the ese live a life of the heart. The heart is a very delicate aive bala is not like the head or intellect, a hard, stiff, rigid instrument. You ot with the heart think with the same steadiness, with the same rigid exaess as you with the head or intellect. At least, it is extremely difficult to do so. In fact, the ese pe9９lib?n or pencil which is a soft brush, may be taken as a symbol of the ese mind. It is very difficult to write or draw with it, but when you have once mastered the use of it, you will, with it, write and draw with a beauty and grace which you ot do with a hard steel pen.
Now the above are a few simple facts ected with the life of the ese people whiyone, even without any knowledge of ese, observe and uand, and by examining these facts, I think, I have made good my hypothesis that the ese people live a life of the heart.
Now it is because the ese live a life of the heart, the life of a child, that they are so primitive in many o.99liｂ.f their ways. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact that for a people who have lived so long in the world as a great nation, the ese people should to this day be so primitive in many of their ways. It is this fact which has made superficial fn students of a think that the ese have made nress in their civilisation and that the ese civilisation is a stagnant one. heless, it must be admitted that, as far as pure intellectual life goes, the ese are, to a certaient, a people of arrested development. The ese, as you all know, have made little or nress not only in the physical, but also in the pure abstract sces such as mathematics, logid metaphysics. Ihe very words "sce" and "logic" in the European languages have equivalent in the ese language. The ese, like children who live a life of the heart, have no taste for the abstract sces, because ihe heart and feelings are not engaged. In fact, for everything which does not ehe heart and feelings, such as tables of statistics, the ese have a dislike amounting to aversion. But if tables of statistid the pure abstract sces fill the ese with aversion, the physical sces as they are now pursued in Europe, which require you to cut up and mutilate the body of a living animal in order to verify a stific theory, would inspire the ese with repugnand horror.
The ese, I say, as far as pure intellectual life goes, are to a certaient, a people of arrested development. The ese to this day live the life of a child, a life of the heart. In this respect, the ese people, old as they are as a nation, are to the present day, a nation of children. But then it is important you should remember that this nation of children, who live a life of the heart, who are so primitive in many of their ways, have yet a power of mind and rationality which you do not find in a primitive people, a power of mind and rationality which has ehem to deal with the plex and difficult problems of social life, gover and civilisation with a success which, I will veo say here, the a and modern nations of Europe have not been able to attain_a success so signal that they have been able practically and actually to keep in peace９９ｌｉb? and reater portion of the population of the ti of Asia under a great Empire.
chapter 6
In fact, what I want to say here, is that the wonderful peculiarity of the ese people is not that they live a life of the heart. All primitive people also live a life of the heart. The Christian people of medieval Europe, as we know, also lived a life of the heart. Matthew Arnold says:_"The poetry of medieval Christainity lived by the heart and imagination." But the wonderful peculiarity of the ese people, I want to say here, is that, while living a life of the heart, the life of a child, they yet have a power of mind and rationality
which you do not find in the Christian people of medieval Europe or in any other primitive people. In other words, the wonderful peculi藏书网arity of the ese is that for a people, who have lived so long as a grown-up nation, as a nation of adult reason, they are yet able to this day to live the life of a child_a life of the heart.
Instead, therefor.9９lｉｂ?e, of saying that the ese are a people of arrested development, one ought rather to say that the ese are a people who never grow old. In short the wonderful peculiarity of the ese people as a race, is that they possess the secret of perpetual youth.
Now we ahe question which we asked in the beginning:_What is the real aman? The real aman, we see now, is a man who lives the life of a man of adult reason with the heart of a child. In short the real aman is a person with the head of a grown-up man and the heart of a child. The ese spirit, therefore, is a spirit of perpetual youth, the spirit of national immortality. Now what is the secret of this national immortality in the ese people? You will remember that in the beginning of this discussion I said that what gives to the ese type of humanity_to the real aman_his inexpressible gentleness is the possession of what I called sympathetic or true human intelligehis true human intelligence, I said, is the product of a bination of two things, sympathy and intellige is a w together in harmony of the heart and head. In short it is a happy union of soul with intelleow if the spirit of the ese people is a spirit of perpetual youth, the spirit of national immortality, the secret of this immortality is this happy union of soul with intellect.
You will now ask me where and how did the ese people get this secret of national immortality_this happy union of soul with intellect, which has ehem as a rad nation to live a life of perpetual youth? The answer, of course, is that they got it from their civilisation. Now you will not expect me to give you a lecture on ese civilisation withiime at my disposal. But I will try to tell you something of the ese civilisation which has a bearing on our present subject of discussion.
Let me first of all tell you that there is, it seems to me, one great fual differeween the ese civilisation and the civilisation of modern Europ. Here let me quote an admirable saying of a famous living art critic, Mr. Bernard Berenson. paring European with Oriental art, Mr. Berenson says:_"Our European art has the fatal tendency to bee sd we hardly possess a masterpiece which does not bear the marks of having heen a battlefield for divided is. " Now what I want to say of the European civilisation is that it is, as Mr. Berenson says of European art, a battlefield for divided is; a tinuous warfare for the divided is of sd art on the one hand, and ion and philosophy oher; in fact a terrible battlefield where the head and the heart_the soul and the intellee into stant flict. In the ese civilisation, at least for the last , years, there is no such flict. That, I say, is the one great fual differeween the ese civilisation and that of modern Europe.
In other words, what I want to say, is that in modern Europe, the people have a religion which satisfies their heart, but not their head, and a philosophy which satisfies their head but not their heart. Now let us look at a. Some people say that the ese have nion. It is certainly true that in a even the mass of the people do not take seriously tion. I mean religion in the European sense of the word. The temples, rites and ceremonies of Taoism and Buddhism in a are more objects of recreation than of edification; they touch the aesthetise, so to speak, of the ese people rather than their moral ious sense; in fact, they appeal more to their imagination than to their heart or soul. But instead of saying that the ese have nion, it is perhaps more correct to say that the ese do not want_do not feel the need ion.
Now what is the explanation of this extraordinary fact that the ese people, even the mass of the population in a, do not feel the need ion? It is thus given by an Englishman. Sir Robert K. Douglas, Professor of ese in the London Uy, in his study of fuism, says:_"Upwards of feions of amen have been absolutely subjected to the dicta of one man. Being a aman of ameeags of fucius were specially suited to the nature of those he taught. The Mongolian mind being emily phlegmatid. unspeculative, naturally rebels against the idea of iigating matters beyond its experiences. With the idea of a future life still unawakened, a plain, matter-of-fact system of morality, such as that enunciated by fucius, was suffit for all the wants of the ese. "
That l_amed English professor is right, when he says that the ese people do not feel the need ion, because they have the teags of fucius, but he is altogether wrong, when he asserts that the ese people do not feel the need ion because the Mongolian mind is phlegmatid unspeculative. In the first place religion is not a matter of speculatiion is a matter of feeling, of emotion; it is something which has to do with the human soul. The wild, savage man of Africa even, as soon as he emerges from a mere animal life and what is called the soul in him, is awakened, _ feels the need ion. Therefore although the Mongolian mind may be phlegmatid unspeculative, the Mongolian aman, who, I think it must be admitted, is a higher type of man than the wild man of Africa, also has a soul, and, having a soul, must feel the need ion unless he has something which take for him the place ion.
chapter 7
The truth of the matter is, _the reason why the ese people do not feel the need ion is because they have in fuism a system of philosophy ahics, a synthesis of human society and civilisation which take the place ion. People say that fuism is not a religion. It is perfectly true that fuism is not a religion in the ordinary European sense of the word. But then I say the greatness of fuism lies even in this, that it is not a religion. In fact, the greatness of fuism is that, without being a religion, it take the place ion; it make men do withion.
Now in order to uand how fuism take the place ion we must try and find out the reason why mankind, why mehe need ion. Mankind, it seems to me, feel the need ion for the same reason that they feel the need of sce, of art and of philosophy. The reason is because man is a being who has a soul. Now let us take sce, I mean physical sce. What is the reason which makes men take up the study of sce? Most people now think that men do so, because they want to have railways and aeroplanes. But the motive which impels the true men of sce to pursue its study is not because they want to have railways and aeroplanes. Men like the present progressive amen, who take up the study of sce, because they want railways and aeroplanes, will never get sce. The true men of s Europe in the past who have worked for the adva of sd brought about the possibility of building railways and aeroplanes, did not think at all of railways and aeroplanes. What impelled those true men of s Europe and what made them succeed in their work for the adva of sce, was because they felt in their souls the need of uanding the awful mystery of the wonderful universe in which we live. Thus mankind, I say, feel the need ion for the same reason that they feel the need of sce, art and philosophy; and the reason is because man is a being who has a soul, and because the soul in him, which looks into the past and future as well as the present_ not like animals which live only in the present_feels the need of uanding the mystery of this universe in which they live. Until men uand something of the nature, law, purpose and aim of the things which they see in the universe, they are like children in a dark room who feel the danger, insecurity and uainty of everything. In fact, as an English poet says, the burden of the mystery of the universe weighs upoherefore mankind want sce, art and philosophy for the same reason that they want religion, to lighten for them "the burden of the mystery, ....
The heavy and the weary weight of All this unintelligible world. "
Art and poetry ehe artist and poet to see beauty and order in the universe and that lightens for them the burden of this mystery. Therefore poets like Goethe, who says: "He who has art, has religion, " do not feel the need ion. Philosophy also ehe philosophers to see method and order in the universe, and that lightens for them the burden of this mystery. Therefore philosophers, like Spinoza, "for whom, " it has been said, "the of the intellectual life is a transport, as for the saint the of the religious life is a transport," do not feel the need ion. Lastly, sce also ehe stifi to see law and order in the universe, and that lightens for them the burden of this mystery. Therefore stifi like Darrofessor Haeckel do not feel the need ion.
But for the mass of mankind who are not poets, artists, philosophers or men of sce; for the mass of mankind whose lives are full of hardships and who are exposed every moment to the shock of act from the threatening forces of Nature and the cruel merciless passions of their fellow-men, what is it that lighten for them the
"burden of the mystery of all this unintelligible world?" It is religion. But how dion lighten for the mass of mankind the burden of this mystery? Religion, I say, lightens this burden by giving the mass of mankind a sense of security and a sense of permanence. In presence of the threatening forces of Nature and the cruel merciless passions of their fellowmen and the mystery and terror which these inspire, religion gives to the mass of mankind a refuge_a refuge in which they find a sense of security ; and that refuge is a belief in some supernatural Being or beings who have absolute power and trol over those forces which threaten them. Again, in presence of the stant ge, vicissitude and transition of things in their own lives_birth, childhood, youth, old age ah, and the mystery and uainty which these inspire, religion gives to the mass of mankind alse_a refuge in which they find a sense of permanence; and that refuge is the belief in a future life. In this way, I say, religion lightens for the mass of mankind who are not poets, artists, philosophers or stifi, the burden of the mystery of all this unintelligible world, by giving them a sense of security and a sense of permanen their existence. Christ said: " Peace I give unto you, peace which the world ot give and which the world ot take away from you." That is what I mean when I say that religion gives to the mass of mankind a sense of security and a sense of permaherefore, unless you find something which give 9９lib?o the mass of mankind the same peace, the same sense of security and of permanence which religion affords them, the mass of mankind will always feel the need ion.
But I said fuism, without being a religion take the place ion. Therefore, there must be something in fuism which give to the mass of mankind the same sense of security and permanence which religion affords them. Let us now find out what this something is in fuism which give the samesense of security and sense of permahat religion gives.
I have often been asked to say what fucius has done for the ese nation. Now I tell you of many things which I think fucius has aplished for the ese people. But, as to-day I have not the time, I will only here try to tell you of one principal and most important thing which fucius has done for the ese nation_the ohing he did in his life by which, fucius himself said, men in after ages would know him, would know what he had done for them. When I have explaio you this one principal thing, you will then uand what that something is in fu-ism which give to the mass of mankind the same sense of security and sense of permanence which religion affords them. In order to explain this, I must ask you to allow me to go a little more into detail about fucius and what he did.
chapter 8
fucius, as some of you may know, lived in what is called a period of expansion in the history of a_a period in which the feudal age had e to an end; in which the feudal, the semi-patriarchal social order and form of gover had to be expanded and restructed. This great ge necessarily brought with it not only fusion in the affairs of the world, but also fusion in men s minds. I have said that in the ese civilisation of the last ,years there is no flict between the heart and the head. But I must now tell you that in the period of expansion in which fucius lived there was also in a, as now in Europe, a fearful flict between the heart and the head. The ese people in fucius s time found themselves with an immense system of institutioablished facts, accredited dogmas, s, laws_in fact, an immense system of society and civilisation which had e down to them from their veed aors. In this system their life had to be carried forward; yet they began to feel_they had a sehat this system was not of their creation, that it by no means corresponded with the wants of their actual life; that, for them, it was ary, not rational. Now the awakening of this sense in the ese people ,years ago was the awakening of what in Europe to-day is called the modern spirit_the spirit of liberalism, the spirit of enquiry, to find out the why and the wherefore of things. This modern spirit in a then, seeing the want of correspondence of the old order of society and civilisation with the wants of their actual life, set itself not only to restruct a new order of society and civilisation, but also to find a basis for this new order of society and civilisation. But all the attempts to find a new basis for society and civilisation in a then failed. Some, while they satisfied the head_the intellect of the ese people, did not satisfy their heart; others, while they satisfied their heart, did not satisfy their head. Hence arose, as I said, this flict between the heart and the head in a ,yearsago, as we see it now in Europe. This flict of the heart and head in the new order of society and civilisation which men tried to restruct made the ese people feel dissatisfied with all civilisation, and in the agony and despair which this dissatisfa produced, the ese people wao pull down bbr>藏书网aroy all civilisation. Men, like Laotzu, then in a as men like Tolstoy in Europe to-day, seeing the misery and sufferiing from the flict between the heart and the head, thought they saw something radically wrong in the very nature and stitution of society and civilisation. Laotzu and g-tzu, the most brilliant of Laotzu s disciples, told the ese people to throw away all civilisation. Laotzu said to the people of a: "Leave all that you have and follow me; follow me to the mountains, to the hermits cell in the mountains, there to live a true life_a life of the heart, a life of immortality."
But fucius, who also saw the suffering and misery of the then state of society and civilisation, thought he reised the evil was not iure and stitution of society and civilisation, but in the wrong track which society and civilisation had taken, in the wrong basis which men had taken for the foundation of society and civilisation. fucius told the ese people not to throw away their civilisation. fucius told them that in a true society and true civilisation_in a society and civilisation with a true basis men also could live a true life, a life of the heart. In fact, fucius tried hard all his life to put society and civilisation on the right track; to give it a true basis, and thus prevent the destru of civilisation. But in the last days of his life, when fucius saw that he could not prevent the destru of the ese civilisation_what did he do? Well, as an architect who sees his house on fire, burning and falling over his head, and is vihat he ot possibly save the building, knows that the only thing for him to do is- to save the drawings and plans of the building so that it may afterwards be built again; so fucius, seeing the iable destru of the building of the ese civilisation which he id not prevent, thought he would save the drawings and plans, and he accly saved the drawings and plans of the ese civilisation, which are now preserved in the Old Testament of the ese Bible_the five ical Books known as the Wu g, five s. That, I say, was a great service which fucius has done for the ese nation_he saved the drawings and plans of their civilisation for them.
fucius, I say, when he saved the drawings and plans of the ese civilisation, did a great service for the ese nation. But that is not the principal, the greatest service which fucius has done for the ese nation. The greatest service he did was that, in saving the drawings and plans of their civilisation, he made a new synthesis, a new interpretation of the plans of that civilisation, and in that new synthesis he gave the ese people the true idea of a State_a true, rational, perma, absolute basis of a State.
But then Plato and Aristotle in aimes, and Rousseau and
Herbert Spencer in modern times also made a synthesis of civilisation, and tried to give a true idea of a State. Now what is the differeween the philosophy, the synthesis of civilisation made by the great men of Europe I have mentioned, and the synthesis of civilisation_the system of philosophy and morality now known as fu-ism? The differe seems to me, is this. The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and of Herbert Spencer has not bee a religion or the equivalent of a religion, the accepted faith of the masses of a people or nation, whereas fuism has bee a religion or the equivalent of a religion to even the mass of the population in a. When I say religion here, I mean religion, not in the narrow European sense of the word, but in the broad universal sense. Goethe says:_" Nur saemtliche Mens erkenneur; nur saemtliche Mens leben das Menschliche * . Only the mass of mankind know what is real life; only the mass of mankind live a true human life." Now when we speak ion in its broad universal sense, we mean generally a system of teags with rules of duct which, as Goethe says, is accepted as true and binding by the mass of mankind, or at l９９ｌiｂ?.99ｌｉｂ?e rise and fall_the Spring and Autumn of nations. This book might also be called the Latter Day Annals, like the Latter Day Pamphlets of Carlyle. In this book fucius gave a resume of the history of a false and det state of society and civilisation in which he traced all the suffering and misery of that false and det state of society and civilisation to its real cause_to the fact that men had not a true idea of a State; nht ception of the true nature of the duty which they owe to the State, to the head of the State, their ruler and Sn. In a way fucius in this book taught the divine right of kings. Now I know all of you, or at least most of you, do not now believe in the divine right of kings. I will nue the point with you here. I will only ask you to suspend your judgment until you have heard what I have further to say. In the meantime I will just ask your permission to quote to you here a saying of Carlyle. Carlyle says: "The right of a king to govern us is either a divine right or a diabolic wrong. " Now I want you, on this subject of the divine right of kings, to remember and ponder over this saying of Carlyle.
In this book fucius taught that, as in all the ordinary relations and dealings between men in human society, there is, besides the base motives of i and of fear, a higher and nobler motive to influehem in their duct, a higher and nobler motive which rises above all siderations of i and fear, the motive called Duty; so in this importaion of all in human society, the relatioween the people of a State or nation and the Head of that State or nation, there is also this higher and nobler motive of Duty which should influend inspire them in their duct. Bnt what is the rational babbr>sis of this duty which the people in a State or natioo the head of the State or nation? Now in the feudal age before fucius time, with its semi-patriarchal order of Society and form of Gover, wheate was more or less a family, the poeple did not feel so much the need of having a clear and firm basis for the duty which they owe to the Head of the State, because, as they were all members of one or family, the tie of kinship or natural affe already, in a way, bound them to the Head of the State, who was also the senior member of their or family. But in fucius time the feudal age, as I said, had e to an end; wheate had outgrown the family, wheizens of a State were no longer posed of the members of a or family. It was, therefore, then necessary to find a new, clear, rational and firm basis for the duty which the people in a State or natioo the Head of the State_ their ruler and sn. Now what new basis did fucius find for this duty? Confucius found the new basis for this duty in the word Honour.
chapter 10
When I was in Japan last year the ex-Minister of Education, Baron Kikuchi, asked me to translate four ese characters taken from the book in which, as I said, fucius taught this State religion of his. The four characters were Mio. yi (^^_^fo^C) . I translated them as the Great Principle of Honour and Duty. It is for this reason that the ese make a special distin between -fuism and all other religions by calling the system of teag taught by fucius not a chiao (^_the general term in ese fion with which they desigher religions, such as Buddhism, Mohammedanism and Christianity_but the ming chiao (^ ^C)_the religion of Haierm chum tzu chih too (^ ^.$lM) ieags of fucius, translated by Dr. Legge as "the way of the superior man, " for which the equivalent in the European languages is moral law_means literally, the way_the Law of the Gentleman. In fact, the whole system of philosophy and morality taught by fucius may be summed up in one word: the Law of the Gentleman. Now fucius codified this law of the gent?９９ｌｉｂ?leman and made it a Religion, _a State religion. The first Article of Faith in this State Religion is Mia yi_the Principle of Honour and Duty_which may thus be called: A Code of Honour.
In this State religion fucius taught that the only true, rational, perma and absolute basis, not only of a State, but of all Society and civilisation, is this law of the gentleman, the sense of honour in man. Now you, all of you, even those who believe that there is no morality in politics_all of you, I think, know and will admit the importance of this sense of honour in men in human society. But I am not quite sure that all of you are aware of the absolute y of this sense of honour in men for the carrying on of every form of human society; in fact, as the proverb which says: "There must be honour even among thieves, " show_even for the carrying on of a society of thieves. Without the sense of honour in men, all society and civilisation would on the instant break down and bee impossible. Will you allow me to show you how this is so? Let us take, for example, such a trivial matter as gambling in social life. Now unless mehey sit down to gamble all reise ahemselves bound by the sense of honour to pay when a certain colour of cards or dice turns up, gambling would on the instant bee impossible. The merts again_unless merts reise ahemselves bound by the sense of honour to fulfil their tracts, all trading would bee impossible. But you will say that the mert who repudiates his tract be taken to the law-court. True, but if there were no law-courts, what then? Besides, the law-court_how the law-court make the defaulting mert fulfil his tract? By force. In fact, without the sense of honour in men, society only be held together for a time by force. But then I think I show you that force alone ot hold society permaly together. The poli who pels the mert to fulfil his tract, uses force. But the lawyer, magistrate or president of a republic_how does he make the poli do his duty? You know he ot do it by force; but then by what? Either by the sense of honour in the poli or by fraud.
In modem times all over the world to-day_and I am sorry to say now also in a_the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic make the poli do his duty by fraud. In modem times the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic tell the poli that he must do his duty, because it is for the good of society and for the good of his try; and that the good of society means that he, the poli, get his pay regularly, without which he and his family would die of starvation. The lawyer, politi or president of a republic who tells the poli this, I say, zises fraud. I say it is fraud, because the good of the try, which for the poli means fifteen shillings a week, which barely keeps him and his family from starvation, means for the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republi to twenty thousand pounds a year, with a fine house, electric light, motor cars and all the forts and luxuries which the life blood labour of ten thousands of men has to supply him. I say it is 藏书网fraud because without the reition of a sense of honour_the sense of honour which makes the gambler pay the last penny in his pocket to the player who wins from him, without this sense of honour, all transfer and possession of property which makes the inequality of the rid poor in society, as well as the transfer of money on a gambling table, has no justification whatever and no binding force. Thus the lawyer, politi, magistrate or president of a republic, although they talk of the good of society and the good of the try, really depend upon the poli s unscious sense of honour whiot only makes him do his duty, but also makes him respect the right of property aisfied with fifteen shillings a week, while the lawyer, politi and president of a republic receive an ine of twenty thousand pounds a year. I, therefore, say it is fraud because while they thus demand the sense of honour from the poli; they, the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republi modem society believe, openly say and a the principle that there is no morality, no sense of honour in politics.
You will remember what Carlyle, I told you, said_that the right of a king to govern us is either a divine right or a diabolic wrong. Now this fraud of the modern lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic is what Carlyle calls a diabolic wrong. It is this fraud, this Jesuitism of the publi in modem society, who say and a the principle that there is no morality, no sense of honour in politid yet plausibly talk of the good of society and the good of the try; it is this Jesuitism which, as Carlyle says, gives rise to "the widespread suffering, mutiny, delirium, the he of sansculottisurres, the ce of resuscitated tyrannies, brutal degradation of the millions, the pampered frivolity of the units" which we see in modern society to-day. In short, it is this bination of fraud and force, Jesuitism and Militarism, lawyer and poli, which has produced Anarchists and Anarchism in modem society, this bination of ford fraud ing the moral sense in man and produg madness which makes the Anarchist throw bomb and dynamite against the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic.
chapter 11
In fact, a society without the sense of honour in men, and without morality in its politics, ot, I say, be held together, or at any rate, ot last. For in such a society the poli, upon whom the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic depend to carry out their fraud, will thus argue with himself. He is told that he must do his duty for the good of society. But he, the poor poli, is also a part of that society_to himself and his family, at least, the most important part of that society. Now if by some other way than by being a poli, perhaps by being an anti-poli, he get better pay to improve the bbr>藏书网dition of himself and his family, that also means the good of society. In that way the poli must sooner or later e to the clusion that, as there is .no such thing as a sense of honour and morality in politics, there is then hly reason why, if he get better pay, which means also the good of society_no reason why, instead of being a poli, he should not bee a revolutionist or anarchist- In a society when the poli ones to the clusion that there is no reason why, if he get better pay, he should not bee a revolutionist or anarchist_that society is doomed. Mencius said:_"When fucius pleted his Spring and Autumn Annals"_the book in which he taught the State religion of his _and in which he showed that the society of his time_in which there was then, as in the world to-day, no sense of honour in publi and no morality in politics_was doomed; when fucius wrote that book, "the Jesuits and anarchists (lit. bandits) of his time, became afraid."
But to return from the digression, I say, a society without the sense of honour ot be held together, ot last. For if, as we have seen, even in the relatioween men ected with matters of little or no vital importance such as gambling and trading in human society, the reition of the sense of honour is so important and necessary, how much more so it must be in the relatioween men in human society, which establish the two most essential institutions in that society, the Family and the State. Now, as you all know, the rise of civil society in the history of all nations begins always with the institution of marriage. The Church religion in Europe makes marriage a sacrament, i.e.,something sacred and inviolable. The san for the sacrament of marriage in Europe is given by the Churd the authority for the san is God. But that is only an outward, formal, or so to speak, legal san. The true, ihe really binding san for the inviolability of marriage_as we see it in tries where there is no church religion, is the sense of honour, the law of the gentleman in the man and woman. fucius says, "The reition of the law of the gentleman begins with the reition of the relatioween husband and wife. "** In other words, the reition of the sense of honour_the law of the gentleman_in all tries where there is civil society, establishes the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage establishes the Family.
I said that the State religion which fucius taught is a Code of Honour, and I told you that fucius made this Code out of the law of the gentleman. But now I must tell you that long before fucius time there existed already in a an undefined and unwritten code of the law of the gentleman. This undefined and unwritten code of the law of the gentleman in a before fucius time was known as li (U) the law of propriety, good taste ood manners. Later on in history before fucius time a great statesman arose in a_the man known as the great Law-giver of a, generally spoken of as the Duke of Chou (^^_) (B.C. )_who first defined, fixed, and made a written code of the law of the gentleman, known then in a as li, the law of propriety, good taste ood manners. This first written code of the gentleman in a, made by the Duke of Chou, became known as Chou li_the laws of good manners of the Duke of Chou. This Code of the laws of good manners of the Duke of ay be sideral as the pre-fu religion in a, or, as the Mosaic law of the Jewish nation before Christianity is called, the Religion of the Old Dispensation of the ese people. It was this religion of the old dispensation_the first written code of the law of the gentleman called the Laws of good manners of the Duke of Chou_which first gave the san for the sacrament and inviolability of marriage in a. The ese to this day therefore speak of the sacrament of marriage as Chou Kung Chih Li (J^^-^l^L)_the law of good manners of the Duke of Chou. By the institution of the sacrament of marriage, the pre-fu ion of the Old Dispensation in a established the Family. It secured once for all the stability and permanence of the family in a. This pre-fu ion of the Old Dispensation known as the laws of good manners of the Duke of Chou in a might thus be called a Family religion as distinguished from the State religion which fucius afterwards taught.
Now fucius iate religion which he taught, gave a new Dispensation, so to speak, to what I have called the Family religion which existed before his time. In other words, fucius gave a new, wider and more prehensive application to the law of the gentleman iate religion which he taught; and as the Family religion, ion of the Old Dispensation in a before his time instituted the sacrament of marriage, fucius, in giving this new, wider, and more prehensive application to the law of the gentleman iate religion which he taught, instituted a new sacrament. This new sacrament which fucius instituted, instead of calling it li_the Law of good manners, he called it mio. yi, which I have translated as the Great Principle of Honour and Duty or Code of Honour. By the institution of this mio. yi or Code of Honour fucius gave the ese people, instead of a Family religion, which they had before_a State religion.
fucius, iate religion which he now gave, taught that, as uhe old dispensation of what I have called the Family religion before his time, the wife and husband in a family are bound by the sacrament of marriage, called Chou Kung Chih Li, the Law of good manners of the Duke of Chou_to hold their traarriage inviolable and to absolutely abide by it, so uhe new dispensation of the State religion which he now gave, the people and their sn in ev..ery Slate, the ese people and their Emperor in a, are bound by this new sacrament called mio. yi_ the Great Principle of Honour and Duty or Code of Honour established by this State religion_to hold the tract of allegiaween them as something sacred and inviolable and absolutely to abide by it. In short, this new sacrament called mio. yi, or Code of Honour which fucius instituted, is a Sacrament of the tract of Allegiance, as the old sacrament called Chou Kung Chih Li, the Law of Good Manners of the Duke of Chou which was instituted before his time, is a sacrament of marriage. In this way fucius, as I said, gave a new, wider, and more prehensive application to the law of the gentleman, and thus gave a new dispensation to what I have called the Family religion in a before his time, and made it a State religion.
chapter 12
In other words, this State religion of fucius makes a sacrament of the tract of allegiance as the Family Religion in a before his time, makes a sacrament of the traarriage. As by the sacrament of marriage established by the Family Religion the wife is bound to be absolutely loyal to her husband, so by ihis sacrament of the tract of allegiance called mia yi, or Code of Honour established by the State religion taught by fucius in a, the people of a are bound to be absolutely loyal to the Emperor. This sacrament of the tract of allegian the State religion taught by fucius in a might thus be called the Sacrament ion of Loyalty. You will remember what I said to you that fucius in a way taught the Divine right of kings. But instead of saying that fucius taught the Divine right of kings I should properly have said that fucius taught the Diviy of Loyalty. This Divine or absolute duty of loyalty to the Emperor in a which fucius taught derives its san, not as the theory of the Divine right of kings in Europe derives its san from the authority of a supernatural Being called God or from some abstruse philosophy, but from the law of the gentleman_the sense of honour in man, the same sense of honour whi all tries makes the wife loyal to her husband. In fact, the absolute duty of loyalty of the ese people to the Emperor which fucius taught, derives its san from the same simple sense of honour which makes the mert keep his word and fulfil his tract, and the gambler play the game and pay his gambli.
Now, as what I have called the Family religion, the religion, the religion of the old dispensation in a and the Church religion in all tries, by the institution of the sacrament and inviolability of marriage establishes the Family, so what I have called the State religion in a which fucius taught, by the institution of this new sacrament of the tract of allegiance, establishes the State. If you will sider what a great service the man who first instituted the sacrament aablished the inviolability of marriage in the world has done for humanity and the cause of civilisation, you will then, I think, uand what a great work this is which fucius did when he instituted this new sacrament aablished the inviolability of the tract of allegiahe institution of the sacrament of marriage secures the stability and permanence of the Family, without which the human race would bee extinct. The institution of this sacrament of the tract of allegiance secures the stability and permanence of the State, without which human society and civilisation would all be destroyed and mankind would return to the state of savages or animals. I therefore said to you that the greatest thing which fucius has done for the ese people is that he gave them the true idea of a State_a true, rational, perma, and absolute basis of a State, and in giving them that, he made it a religion, _a State religion.
fucius taught this State religion in a book which, as I told you, he wrote in the very last days of his life, a book to which he gave the name of Spring and Autumn. In this book fucius first instituted the new sacrament of the tract of allegiance called mia yi, or the Code of Honour. This sacrament is therefore often and generally spoken of as Chiu mio. yi (^i-^.^^^. JO, or simply Chiu ta yi_(^^C^CjiC) i. e., the Great Principle of Honour and Duty of the Spring and Autumn Annals, or simply the Great Principle or Code>. of the Spring and Autumn Annals. This book in which fucius taught the Diviy of loyalty is the Magna Charta of the ese nation. It tains the sacred ant, the sacred social tract by which fucius bound the whole ese people and nation to be absolutely loyal to the Emperor, and this ant or sacrament, this Code of Honour, is the one and only true stitution not only of the State and Gover in a, but also of the ese civilisation. fucius said it is by this book that after ages would know him_know what he had done for the world.
I am afraid I have exhausted your patien taking such a very long way to e to the point of what I want to say. But now we have got to the point where I last left you. You will remember I said that the reason why the mass of mankind will always feel the need ion_I mean religion in the European sense of the word_is because religion gives them a refuge, e, the belief in an all powerful Being called God in which they find a sense of permanen their existence. But I said that the system of philosophy and morality which fucius taught, known as fuism, take the place ion, make men, even the mass of mankind do withion. Therefore, there must be, I said, something in fuism which give to men, to the mass of mankind, the same sense of security and sense of permanence which religion gives. Now, I think we have found this something. This something is the Diviy of loyalty to the Emperor taught by fucius iate religion which he has given to the ese nation.
Now, this absolute Diviy of loyalty to the Emperor of every man, woman, and child in the whole ese Empire gives, as you uand, in the minds of the ese population, an absolute, supreme, transdent, almighty power to the Emperor; and this belief in the absolute, supreme, transdent, almighty power of the Emperor it is which gives to the ese people, to the mass of the population in a, the same sense of security which the belief in God in religion gives to the mass of mankind in other tries. The belief in the absolute, supreme, transdent, almighty power of the Emperor also secures in the minds of the ese population the absolute stability and permanence of the State. This absolute stability and permanence of the State again secures the infinite tinuand lastingness of society. This infinite tinuand lasting-ness of society finally secures in the minds of the ese population the immortality of the race. Thus it is this belief in the immortality of the race, derived from the belief in the almighty power of the Emperiven to him by the Diviy of loyalty, which gives to the ese people, the mass of the population in a, the same sense of permanen their existence which the belief in a future life ion gives to the mass of mankind in other tries.
chapter 13
Again, as the absolute Diviy of loyalty taught by fucius secures the immortality of the ra the nation, so the cult of aor-worship taught in fuism secures the immortality of the ra the family. Ihe cult of aorworship in a is not founded mu the belief in a future life as in the belief of the immortality of the race. A ese, when he dies, is not soled by the belief that he will live a life hereafter, but by the belief that his children, grandchildren, great-grand-children, all those dearest to him, will remember him, think of him, love him, to the end of time, and in that way, in his imagination, dying, to a ese, is like going on a long, long journey, if not with the hope, at least with a great "perhaps" of meeting again. Thus this cult of aor-worship, together with the Diviy of loyalty, in fuism gives to the ese people the same sense of permanen their existence while they live and the same solatiohey die which the belief in a future life in religion gives to the mass of mankind in other t.ries. It is for his reason that the ese people attach the same importao this cult of aor-worship as they do to the principle of the Diviy of loyalty to the Emperor. Mencius said: "Of the three great sins against filial piety the greatest is to have no posterity." Thus the whole system of teag of fucius which I have called the State religion in a sists really only of two things, loyalty to the Emperor and filial piety to parents_in ese, g Hsiao. Intact, the three Articles of Faith, called in ese the san kang, three cardinal duties in -fuism or the State religion of a, are, in their order of importance_first, absolute duty of loyalty to the Emperor; sed, filial piety and aor-worship; third, inviolability of marriage and absolute submission of the wife to the husband. The last two of the three Articles were already in what I have called the Family religion, ion of the old dispensation in a before fucius time; but the first Article_absolute duty of loyalty to the Emperoi_was first taught by fuciu>.99lｉｂ?s and laid down by him iate religion ion of the new dispensation which he gave to the ese nation. This first Article of Faith_absolute duty of loyalty to the Emperoi_ in fuism takes the plad is the equivalent of the First Article of Faith in all religions_the belief in God. It is because fuism has this equivalent for the belief in God ion that fuism, as I have shown you, take the place ion, and the ese people, even the mass of the population in a, do not feel the need ion.
But now you will ask me how without a belief in God which religion teaches, how ake men, make the mass of mankind, follow and obey the moral rule which fucius teaches, the absolute duty of loyalty to the Emperor, as you by the authority of God which the belief in God gives, make men follow and obey moral rules given by religion? Before I answer your question, will you allow me first to point out to you a great mistake which people make in believing that it is the san given by the authority of God which makes mehe rules of moral duct. I told you that the san for the sacrament and inviolability of marriage in Europe is given by the
Church, and the authority for the san, the Church says, is from God. But I said that was only an outward formal san. The real true inner san for the inviolability of marriage as we see it in all tries where there is no Church religion, is the sense of honour, the law of the gentleman in the man and woman. Thus the real authority for the obligation to obey rules of moral duct is the moral sehe law of the gentleman, in man. The belief in God is, therefore, not necessary to make men obey rules of moral duct藏书网.
It is this fact which has made sceptics like Voltaire and Tom Paine in the last tury, and rationalists like Sir Hiram Maxim today, say, that the belief in God is a fraud or imposture ied by the founders ion a up by priests. But that is a gross and preposterous libel. All great men, all men with great intellect, have all always believed in God. fucius also believed in God, although he seldom spoke of it. Even Napoleon with his great, practical intellect believed in God. As the Psalmist says: "Only the fool_the man with a vulgar and shallow intellect_has said in his heart, There is no God. " But the belief in God of man of great intellect is different from the belie?f in God of the mass of mankind. The belief in God of men of great intellect is that of Spinoza: a belief in the Divine Order of the Universe. fucius said: "At fifty I khe Ordinance of God" * _i.e., the Divine Order of the Universe. Men of great intellect have given different o this Divine Order of the Universe. The German Fichte calls it the Divine idea of the Universe. In philosophical language in a it is called Tao_the Way. But whatever name men of great intellect may give to this Divine Order of the Universe, it is the knowledge of this Divine Order of the Universe which makes men of great intellect see the absolute y of obeying rules of moral duoral laws whi part of that Divine Order of the Universe.
Thus, although the belief in God is not necessary to make mehe rules of moral duct, yet the belief in God is necessary to make mehe absolute y of obeying these rules. It is the knowledge of the absolute y of obeying the rules of moral duct whiables and makes all men of great intellect follow and obey those rules. fucius says: "A man without a knowledge of the Ordinance of God, i.e., the Divine Order of the Universe, will not be able to be a gentleman or moral man."* But then, the mass of mankind, who have not great intellect, ot follow the reasoning which leads men of great intellect to the knowledge of the Divine Order of the Universe and ot therefore uand the absolute y of obeying moral laws. Indeed, as Matthew Arnold says:
"Moral rules, apprehended as ideas first, and then rigorously followed as laws are and must be for the sage only. The mass of mankind have her force of intelleough to apprehend them as ideas nor force of character enough to follow them strictly as laws. " It is for this reason that the philosophy and morality taught by Plato, Aristotle and Herbert Spencer have a value only for scholars.
chapter 14
But the value ion is that it enables men, enables and make even the mass of mankind who have not force of intelleor force of character, to strictly follow and obey the rules of moral duct . But then how and by what means dion enable and make men do this? People imagihat religion enables and makes mehe rules of moral duct by teag men the belief in God. But that, as I have shown you, is a great mistake. The one and sole authority which makes men really obey moral laws or rules of moral duct is the moral sehe law of the gentleman in them. fucius said: "A moral law which is outside of man is not a moral law.
Even Christ in teag His religion says: "The Kingdom of God is within you." I say, therefore, the idea which people have that religion makes mehe rules of moral duct by means of teag them the belief in God is a mistake. Martin Luther says admirably in his entary on the Book of Daniel: "A God is simply that where-on the huma rests with trust, faith, hope and love. If the resting is right, then the God, too, is right; if the resting is wrong, then the God, too, is illusory. " This belief in God taught by religion is, therefore, only a resting, or, as I call it, a refuge. But then Luther says: "The resting, i.e. the belief in God, must be true, otherwise the resting, the belief, is illusory. In other words, the belief in God must be a true knowledge of God, a real knowledge of the Divine Order of the Universe, which, as we know, only men of great intellect attain and which the mass of mankind ot attain. Thus you see the belief in God taught by religion, which people imagine ehe mass of mankind to follow and obey the rules of moral duct, is illusory. Men rightly call this belief in God_in the Divine Order of the Universe taught by religion_a faith, a trust, or, as I called it, a refuge. heless, this refuge, the belief in God, taught by religion, although illusory, an illusion, helps towards enablio obey the rules of moral duct, for, as I said, the belief in God gives to men, to the mass of mankind, a sense of security and a sense of permanen their existence. Goethe says: "Piety, (From-migkeit) i.e., the belief in God, taught by religion, is not an end in itself but only a means by which, through the plete and perfect ess of mind and temper (Gemuethsruehe) which it gives, to attain the highest state of culture or human perfe." In other words, the belief in God taught by religion, by giving men a sense of security and a sense of permanen their existence, calms them, gives them the necessary ess of mind and temper to feel the law of the gentleman or moral sense in them, which, I say again, is the one and sole authority to make men really obey the rules of moral duoral laws.
But if the belief in God taught by religion only helps to make mehe rules of moral duct, what is it then upon which Religion depends principally to make men, to make the mass of mankind, obey the rules of moral duct? It is inspiration. Matthew Arnold truly says: "The souls of whatever creed, the pagan Empedocles as well as the Christian Paul, have insisted on the y of inspiration, a liviion to make moral as perfect." Now what is this inspiration or liviion in R>eligion, the paramount virtue ion upon which, as I said. Religion principally depends to make men, to enable and make even the mass of mankind obey the rules of moral duoral laws?
You will remem>.ber I told you that the whole system of the teags of fucius may be summed up in one word; the Law of the Gentleman, the equivalent for whi the European languages, I said, is moral law. fucius calls this law of the gentleman a secret. * fucius says: "The law of the gentleman is to be found everywhere, a is a secret. " heless fucius says:
"The simple intelligence of ordinary men and women of the people even know something of this secret. The igure of ordinary men and women of the people, too, carry out this law of the gentleman. " For this reasohe, who also khis secret_the law of the gentleman of fucius, called it an "ope. "Now where and how did mankind e to discover this secret? fucuis said, you will remember, I told you that the reition of the law of the gentleman began with the reition of the relation of husband and wife_the true relatioween a man and woman in marriage. Thus the secret, the ope of Goethe, the law of the gentleman of fucius, was first discovered by a man and woman. But now, a-gain, how did the man and the woman discover this secret_the law of the gentleman of fucius?
I told you that the equivalent in the European languages for the law of the gentleman of fucius, is moral law. Now what is the differeween the law of the gentleman of fucius and moral law_I mean the moral law or law of morality of the philosopher and moralist as distinguished frion or law of morality taught by religious teachers. In order to und9９ｌib?erstand this differeween the law of the gentleman of fucius and the moral law of the philosopher and moralist, let us first find out the differehat there is between religion and the moral law of the philosopher and moralist. fucius says: "The Ordinance of God is what we call the law of our being. To fulfil the law of our being is what we call the Moral Law. The Moral Law when refined and put into proper order is what we call Religion. " * Thus, acc to fucius, the differeween Religion and moral law_the moral law of the philosopher and moralist_is that Religion is a refined and well ordered moral law, a deeper her standard of moral law.
The moral law of the philosopher tells us we must obey the law of our being called Reason. But Reason, as it is generally uood, means our reasoning power, that slow process of mind or intellect whiables us to distinguish and reise the definable properties and qualities of the outward forms of _ things. Reason, our reasoning power, therefore, enables us to see in moral relations only the definable properties and qualities, the mores, the morality, as it is rightly called, the outward manner and dead form, the body, so to speak, ht and wrong, or justice. Reason, our reasoning power alone, ake us see the undefinable, living, absolute essence ht and wrong, or justice, the life or soul, so to speak, of justice. For this reason Laotzu says: "The moral law that be expressed in language is not the.. absolute moral law. The moral idea that be defined with words is not the absolute moral idea. " * The moral law of the moralist again tells us we must obey the law of our being, called sce, i.e., our heart. But then, as the Wise Man in the Hebrew Bible says, there are many devices in a ma. Therefore, wheake sce, our heart, as the law of our being and obey it, we are liable and apt to obey, not the voice of what I have called the soul of justice, the indefinable absolute essence of justice, but the many devices in a man s heart.
chapter 15
In other words Religion tells us in obeying the law of our being we must obey the true law of our being, not the animal or al law of our being called by St. Paul the law of the mind of the flesh, and very well defined by the famous disciple of Auguste te, Monsieur Littre, as the law of self preservation and reprodu; but the true law of our being called by St. Paul the law of the mind of the Spirit, and defined by fucius as the law of the gentleman. In short, this true law of our being, which Religion tells us to obey, is what Christ calls the Kingdom of God within us. Thus we see, as fucius says. Religion is a refined, spiritualized, well-ordered moral law, a deeper higher standard of moral law than the moral law of the philosopher and moralist. Therefore, Christ said: "Except yhteousness (or morality) exceed the righteousness (or morality) of the Scribes and Pharisees (ie., philosopher and moralist) ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. "
Now, like Religion, the law of the gentleman of fucius isalso a refined, well-ordered moral law_a deeper higher standard of moral law than the moral law of the philosopher and moralist. The moral law of the philosopher and moralist tells us we must obey the law of our being called by the philosopher, Reason, and by the moralist, sce. But, like Religion, the law of the gentleman of fucius tells us we must obey the true law of our being, not the law of being of the average man ireet or of the vulgar and impure person, but the law of being of what Emerson calls "the simplest and purest minds" in the world. In fact, in order to know what the law of being of the gentleman is, we must first be a gentleman and have, in the words of Emerson, the simple and pure mind of the gentleman developed in him. For this reason fucius says: "It is the man that raise the standard of the moral law, and not the moral law that raise the standard of the man. ".99ｌｉｂ? *
heless fucius says we know what the law of the gentleman is, if we will study and try to acquire the fine feeling ood taste of the gentleman. The word in ese li (U) food taste ieag of fucius has been variously translated as ceremony, propriety, and good manners, but the word means really good taste. Now? this good taste, the fine feeling and good taste of a gentleman, when applied to moral a, is what, in European language, is called the sense of honour. In fact, the law of the gentleman of fucius is nothing else but the sense of honour. This sense of honour, called by fucius the law of the gentleman, is not like the moral law of the philosopher and moralist, a dry, dead knowledge of the form or formula ht and wrong, but like the Righteousness of the Bible in Christianity, an instinctive, living, vivid perception of the indefinable, absolute essence ht and wrong or justice, the life and soul of justice called Honour.
Now, we ahe question: How did the man and woman who first reised the relation of husband and wife, discover the secret, the secret of Goethe, the law of the gentleman of fucius? The man and woman who discovered this secret, discovered it because they had the fine feeling, the good taste of the gentleman, called w?９9ｌｉb.en applied to moral a the sense of honour, which made them see the undefinable, absolute essence ht and wrong or justice, the life and soul of justice called Honour. But then what gave, what inspired the man and woman to have this fine feeling, this good taste or sense of honour which made them see the soul of justice called Honour? This beautiful sentence of Joubert will explain it. Joubert says: "Les hommes no sont justes qu envers ceux qu ils aiment. Man ot be truly just to his neighbour unless he loves him. Therefore the inspiration which made the man and woman see what Joubert calls true justice, the soul of justice called Honour, and thus ehem to discover the secret_the ope of Goethe, the law of the gentleman of Coufucius _is Love_the love between the man and the woman which gave birth, so to speak, to the law of the gentleman; that secret, the possession of which has enabled mankind not only to build up society and civilisation, but also to establish religion_to find God. You ow uand Goethes fession of faith which he puts into the mouth of Faust, beginning with the words:
Lifts not the Heaven its dome above? Doth not the firm-set Earth beh us lie?
Now, I told you that it is not the belief in God taught by religion, which makes ９９lib.iasm for the person and character of the first Teacher and Founder ion which the immediate disciples inally felt. Men rightly call not only the belief in God, but the belief in religion a faith, a trust; but a trust in whom? In the first teacher and founder of their religion who, in Mo-hammedanism is called the Prophet and in Christianity the Mediator. If you ask a stious Mohammedan why he believes in God and obeys the rules of moral duct, he will rightly answer you that he does it because he believes in Mohammed the Prophet. If you ask a stious Christian why he believes in God and obeys the rules of moral duct, he will rightly answer you that he does it because he loves Christ. Thus you see the belief in Mohammed, the love of Christ, in fact the feeling aion, as I said of unbounded admiration, love, ahusiasm for the first Teacher and Founder ion which it is the fun of the Church to keep up, excite and arouse in men_is the source of inspiration, the real power in all the great religions of the world by which they are able to make men, to make the mass of mankind obey the rules of moral duct.
chapter 17
I have been a long way, but now I ahe question which you asked me awhile ago. You asked me, you will remember, how without a belief in God which religion teaches_how ake men, make the mass of mankind, follow and obey the moral rule which fucius teaches in his State religion_the absolute duty of loyalty to the Emperor? I have shown you that it is not the belief in God taught by religion which really makes men obey moral rules or rules of moral duct. I showed you that religion is able to make mehe rules of moral duct principally by means of an anisation called the Church which awakens and kindles in men an inspiration or liviion necessary to make them to obey those rules. Now, in ao your question I am going to tell you that the system of the teags of fucius, called fuism, the State Mencius, speaking of the two purest and most Christlike characters in ese history, said: "When men heard of the spirit and temper of Po-yi and Shu-ch*i, the dissolute ruffian became unselfish and the cowardly man had ce. " Mencius Bk. Ill, Part II, IX, religion in a, like the Church religion in other tries, makes mehe rules of moral duct also by means of an anisation corresponding to the Church of the Ch?urch religion in other tries. This anisation iate religion of fuism in a is_the school. The school is the Church of the State religion of fucius in a. As you know, the same word " chiao" in ese fion is also the word for education. In fact, as the Chur a is the schoion to the ese means education, culture. The aim and object of the school in a is not, as in modern Europe and America to-day, to teach men how to earn a living, how to make money, but, like the aim and object of the Church religion, to teach men to uand what Mr. Froude calls the primitive a, "Thou shalt not lie" and" Thou shall not steal" ;in fact, to teach men to be good. "Whether we provide for a or versation, " says Dr. Johnson. "whether we wish to be useful or pleasing, the first requisite is the religious and moral knowledge ht and wrong; the , an acquaintah the history of mankind and with those examples which may be said to embody truth and prove by events the reasonableness of opinions. "
But then we have seen that the Church of the Church religion is able to make mehe rules of moral duct by awakening and kindling in men an inspiration or liviion, and that it awakens and kihis inspiration or liviion principally by exg and arousing the feeling aion of unbounded admiration, love, ahusiasm for the character and person of the first Teacher and Founder ion. Now, here there is a differeween the school_the Church of the State religion of fucius in a_and the Church of the Church religion in other tries. The school_ the Church of the State religion in a_it is true, enables and makes mehe rules of moral duct, also like the Church of the Church religion, by awakening and kindling in men an inspiration or liviion. But the means which the school in a uses to awaken and kihis inspiration or liviion in men are different from those of the Church of the Church religion in other tries. The school, the Church of the State religion of fucius in a, does not awaken and kihis inspiration or liviion in men by exg and arousing the feeling of unbounded admiration, love, ahusiasm for fucius. fucius in his lifetime did indeed inspire in his immediate disciples a feeling aion of unbounded admiration, love, ahusiasm, and, after his death, has inspired the same feeling aion in all great men who have studied and uood him. But fucius even while he lived did not inspire, and, after his death, has not inspired in the mass of mankind the same feeling aion of admiration, love, ahusiasm which the founders of all the great religions in the world, as we know, have inspired. The mass of the population in a do not adore and worship fucius as the mass of the population in Mohammedan tries adore and worship Mohammed, or as the mass of the population in European tries adore and worship Jesus Christ. In this respect fucius does not belong to the class of men called founders of a religion. In order to be a founder of a religion in the European sense of the word, a man must have an exceptionally or even an abnormally stroional nature. fucius indeed was desded from a race of kings, the house of Shang, the dynasty which rule藏书网d over a before the dynasty under which fucius lived_a raen who had the stroional nature of the Hebrew people. But fucius himself lived uhe dynasty of the House of Chow_a raen who had the fiellectual nature of the Greeks, a race of whom the Duke of Chou, the founder, as I told you, of the pre-fu religion ion of the old dispensation in a was a true representative. Thus fucius was, if I may use a parison, a Hebrew by birth, with the stroional nature of the Hebrew race, who was trained in the best intellectual culture, who had all that which the best intellectual culture of the civilisation of the Greeks could give him. In fact, like the great Goethe in modern Europe, the great Goethe whom the people of Europe will one day reise as the most perfect type of humanity, the real European which the civilisation of Europe has produced, as the ese have aowledged fucius to be the most perfect type of humanity, the real aman, which the ese civilisation has produced_like the great Goethe, I say, fucius was too educated and cultured a man to belong to the class of men called founders ion. Indeed, even while he lived fucius was not known to be what he was, except by his most intimate and immediate disciples.
The school in a, I say, the Church of the State religion of fucius, does not awaken and kihe inspiration or liviion necessary to make men obey the rules of moral duct by exg and arousing the feeling aion of admiration, love, ahusiasm for fucius. But then how does the school in a awaken and kihe inspiration or liviion necessary to make mahe rules of moral duct? fucius says: "In education the feeling aion is aroused by the study of poetry; the judgement is formed by the study of good taste and good manners; the education of the character is pleted by the study of music. " The school_ the Church of the State religion in a_awakens and kihe inspiration or liviion in men necessary to make them obey the rules of moral duct by teag them poetry_in fact, the works of all really great men in literature, which, as I told you, has the inspiration or liviion that is in the rules of moral duct ion. Matthew Arnold, speaking of Homer and the quality of nobleness in his poetry, says: "The nobleness in the poetry of Homer and of the few great men in literature refihe raw, natural man, transmute him. " In fact, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue and if there be ?9９ｌｉｂ?t>any praise_the school, the Church of the State religion in a, makes men think ohings, and in making them think ohings, awakens and kihe inspiration or liviion necessary to enable and make them obey the rules of moral duct.
chapter 18
But then you will remember I told you that the works of really great men in literature, such as the poetry of Homer, ot reach the mass of mankind, because all great men in literature speak the language of educated men which the mass of mankind ot uand. Such being the case, how thehe system of the teags of fucius, fuism, the State Religion in a, awaken and kindle in the mass of mankind, in the mass of the population in a, the inspiration or liviion necessary to enable and make them obey the rules of moral duow, I told you that the anisation iate Religion of fucius in a corresponding to the Church of the Church Religion in other tries, is the School. But that is not quite correct. The real anisation iate Religion of fucius in a correspondily to the Church of the Church Religion in other tries is_the Family. The real Church_of which the School is but an adjunct_the real and true Church of the State Religion of fucius in a, is the Family with its aral tablet or chapel in every house, and its aral Hall or Temple in every village and town. I have shown you that the source of inspiration, the real motive power by which all the great Religions of the world are able to make men, to make the mass of mankind obey the rules of moral duct, is the feeling aion of unbounded admiration, love ahusiasm which it is the fun of the Church to excite and arouse in men for the first Teachers and Founders of thions. Now the source of inspiration, the real motive power by which the State Religion of fucius in a is able to make men, to enable and make the mass of the population in a obey the rules of moral duct is the " Love for their father and mother." The Church of the Church Religion, Christianity, says: "Love Christ." The Church of the State Religion of fucius in a_the aral tablet in every family_says "Love your father and your mother. " St. Paul says:_"Let every man that he name of Christ depart from iniquity. " But the author of the book on Filial Piety(^^), written in the Han dynasty, the terpart of the lm.ita.tio Christi in a, says: "Let everyone who loves his father and mother depart from iniquity. " In short, as the essehe motive power, the source of real inspiration of the Church religion, Christianity, is the Love of Christ, so the essehe motive power, the source of real inspiration of the State Religion, fuism in a, is the "Love of father and mother"_ Filial Piety, with its cult of aor worship.
fucius says: "To gather in the same place where our fathers before us have gathered; to perform the same ceremonies which they before us have performed; to play the same music which they before us have played: to pay respect to those whom they hoo love those who were dear to them; in fact, to serve them now dead as if they were living, and now departed, as if they were still with us, that is the highest achievement of Filial Piety." fucius, further says:_"By cultivating respect for the dead, and carrying the memory back to the distant past, the good in the people will grow deep. " Cogitavi dies antiques, et anernos ii habui. That is how the State Religion in a, fuism, awakens and kindles ihe inspiration or liviion necessary to enable and make them obey the rules of moral duct, the highest and most important of all these rules being the absolute Duty of Loyalty to the Emperor, just as the highest and most important rules of moral du all the Great Religions of the world is fear of God. In other words, the Church Religion, Christianity, says:_"Fe藏书网藏书网re is no such flict is because the ese people, even the mass of the population in a, do not feel the need ion_I mean Religion in the European sense of the word; and the reason why the ese people do not feel the need ion is because the ese people have in fuism something which take the place ion. That something, I have shown you, is the principle of absolute Duty of Loyalty to the Emperor; the Code of Honour called Mia yi, which fucius teaches iate Religion which he has given to the ese nation. The greatest service, I said, which fucius has done for the ese people is in giving them this State Religion in which he taught the absolute Duty of Loyalty to the Emperor.
Thus much I have thought it necessary to say about fucius and what he has done for the ese nation, because it has a very important bearing upon the subject of our present discussion, the Spirit of the ese People. For I want to tell you and you will uand it from what I have told you, that a aman, especially if he is an educated man, who knowingly fets, gives up or throws away the Code of Honour, the Mia yi iate Religion of fucius in a, Which teaches the absolute Diviy of Loyalty to the Emperor or Sn to whom he has once given his alle-giance, such a aman is a man who has lost the spirit of the ese people, the spirit of his nation and race: he is no longer a real aman.
Finally, let me shortly sum up what I want to say on the subject of our present discussion_the Spirit of the ese People or what is the real aman. The real aman, I have shown you, is a man who lives the life of a man of adult reason with the simple heart of a child, and the Spirit of the ese people is a happy union of soul with intelleow if you will examihe products of the ese mind in their standard works of art and literature, you will find that it is this happy union of soul with the intellect _which makes them so satisfying and delightful. What Matthew Arnold says of the poetry of Homer is true of all ese standard literature, that "it has not only the power of pro>.foundly toug that natural heart of humanity, which it is the weakness of Voltaire that he ot reach, but also address the uanding with all Voltaire s admirable simplicity and rationality. "
chapter 19
Matthew Arnold calls the poetry of the best Greek poets the priestess of imaginative reason. Now the spirit of the ese people, as it is seen in the best spes of the products of their art and literature, is really what Matthew Arnold calls imaginative reason. Matthew Arnold says:_"The poetry of later Paganism lived by the senses and uanding: the poetry of medieval Christianity lived by the heart and imagination. But the mai of the modern spirits life, of the modern European spirit to-day, is her the senses and uanding, nor the heart and imagination, it is the imaginative reason."
Now if it is true what Matthew Arnold says here that the element by which the modern spirit of the people of Europe to-day, if it would live right_has to live, is imaginative reason, then you see how valuable for the people of Europe this Spirit of the ese peo-pie is,_this spirit which Matthew Arnold calls imaginative reason. How valuable it is, I say, and how important it is that you should study it, try to uand it, love it, instead of ign, despising and trying to des藏书网troy it.
But now before I finally clude, I want to give you a warning. I want to warn you that when you think of this Spirit of the ese People, which I have tried to explain to you, you should bear in mind that it is not a sce, philosophy, theosophy, or any "ism, " like the theosophy or " ism" of Madame Blavatsky or Mrs. Besant. The Spirit of the ese People is not even what you would call a mentality_ an active w of the brain and mind. The Spirit of the ese People, I want to tell you, is a state of mind, a temper of the soul, which you ot learn as you learn shorthand or Esperanto_in short, a mood, or in the words of the poet, a serene and blessed mood.
Now last of all I want to ask your permission to recite to you a few lines of poetry from the most ese of the English poets, Wordsworth, which better than anything I have said or say, will describe to you the serene and blessed mood which is the Spirit of the ese People. These few lines of the English poet will put before you in a way I ot hope to do, that happy union of soul with intelle the ese type of humanity, that serene and blessed mood which gives to the real aman his inexpressible gentleness. Wordsworth in his lines on Tintern Abbey says:_
"... nor less, I trust To them I may have owed anift Of aspect more sublime: that blessed mood In which the burthen of the mystery, In which the heavy and the weary weight Of all this unintelligible world, Is lightehat serene and blessed mood In which the affes gently lead us on, _
Until, the breath of this corporeal frame And even motion of our human blood Almost suspended, we are laid asleep In body, and bee a living soul:
While with an eye made quiet by the power Of harmony, and the deep power of joy, We see into the life of things. "
The serene and blessed mood whiables us to see into the life of things: that is imaginative reason, that is the Spirit of the ese People.
THE ESE WOMAN
Matthew Arnold, speaking of the argument taken from the Bible which was used in the House of ons to support the Bill for enabling a man to marry his deceased wifes sister, said: "Who will believe when he really siders the matter, that when the femiure, the feminine ideal and our relations with them are brought into question, the delicate and apprehensive genius of the Indo-European race, the race whivehe Muses, and Chivalry, and the Madonna, is to find its last word on this question in the institution of a Semitic people whose wisest 藏书网King had seven hundred wives and three hundred es?"
The two words I want for my purpose here from the above long quotatiohe words " feminine ideal." Now what is the ese feminine ideal? What is the ese peoples ideal of the femiure and their relations to that ideal? But befoing further, let me, with all defereo Matthew Arnold, and respect for his Indo-European race, say here that the feminine ideal of the Semitic race, of the old Hebrew people is not such a horrid one as Matthew Arnold would have us infer from the fact that their wisest King had a multitude of wives and es. For here is the feminine ideal of the old Hebrew people, as we find it in their literature: "Who find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her. She rises also while it is藏书网 yet night and giveth meat to her household and a portion to her maidens. She layeth her hands to the spindle and her fingers hold the distaff. She is not afraid of snow for her household ; for all her household are clothed in scarlet. She opeh her mouth with wisdom and in her
tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household ah not the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and call her blessed, her husband also and he praiseth her. "
This, I think, is not such a horrid, not such a bad ideal after all,_this feminine ideal of the Semitic race. It is of course not so etherial as the Madonna and the Muses, the feminine ideal of the In-do-European race. However, one must, I think, admit,_the Madonna and the Muses are very well to hang up as pictures in one s room, but if you put a broom into the hands of the Muses or send your Madonna into the kit, you will be sure to have your rooms in a mess and you will probably get in the m no breakfast at all. fucius says, "The ideal is not away from the actuality of human life. Wheake something away from the actuality of human life as the ideal,_that is not the true ideal."* But if the Hebrew feminine ideal ot be pared with the Madonna and the Muses, it very well, I think, pare with the modern European feminine ideal, the feminine ideal of the Indo-European ra Europe and America to-day. I will not speak of the suffragettes in England. But pare the old Hebrew feminine ideal with the modern feminine ideal such as one finds it in modern novels, with the heroine, for instance of Dumas Dame aux elias. By the way, it may i..erest people to know that of all the books in European literature which have been translated into ese, the novel of Dumas with the Madonna of the Mud as the superlative feminine ideal has had the greatest sale and success in the present up-to-date modern a. This Frenovel called in ese the Cha-hua-nuhas even been dramatised and put oage in all the up-to-date ese theatres in a. Now if you will pare the old feminine ideal of the Semitic race, the woman who is not afraid of the The Universal Order XIII.
snow for her household, for she has clothed them all in scarlet, with the feminine ideal of the Indo-European ra Europe to-day, the Camelia Lady who has no household, and therefore clotheth not her household, but herself in scarlet and goes with a Camelia flower on her breast to be photographed: then you will uand what is true and what is false, tinsel civilisation.
chapter 20
Nay, even if you will pare the old Hebrew feminine ideal, the woman who layeth her hands to the spindle and whose fingers hold the distaff, who looketh well to the ways of her household ah not the bread of idleness, with the up-to-date modem ese woman who layeth her hands on the piano and whose fingers hold a big bouquet, who, dressed in tight fitting yellow dress with a band of tinsel gold around her head, goes to show herself and sing before a miscellaneous crowd in the fu Association Hall: if you pare these two feminine ideals, you will then know how fast and far modern a is drifting away from true civilisation. For the womanhood in a nation is the flower of the civilisation, of the state of civilisation in that nation.
But now to e to our question : what is the ese feminine ideal? The ese feminine ideal I answer, is essentially the same as the old Hebrew feminine ideal with one important difference of which I will speak later on. The ese feminine ideal is the same as the old Hebrew ideal in that it is not an ideal merely for hanging up as a picture in one s room; nor an ideal for a man to spend his whole life in caressing and worshipping. The ese feminine ideal is an ideal with a broom in her hands to sweep and the rooms with. In fact the ese written character for a wife is posed of two radicals meaning a woman and meaning a broom. In classical ese, in what I have called the official uniform ese, a wife is called the Keeper of the Provision Room_a Mistress of the Kit . Ihe true feminine ideal, _the feminine
ideal of all people with a true, not tinsel civilisation, such as the old Hebrews, the a Greeks and the Romans, is essentially the same as the ese feminine ideal: the true feminine ideal is always the Hausfrau, the house wife, la dame de menage or chatelaine .
But now to go more into details. The ese feminine ideal, as it is handed down from the earliest times, is summed up in three obediences and Four Virtues. Now what are the four virtues? They are: first womanly character; sed, womanly versation; third, womanly appearance ;and lastly, womanly work . Womanly character means raordinary talents or intelligence, but modesty, cheerfulness, chastity, stancy, orderliness, blameless dud perfect manners. Womanly versation means not eloquence or brilliant talk, but refined choice of words, o use coarse or violent language, to know when to speak and when to stop speaking. Womanly appearance means not beauty or prettiness of face, but personal liness and faultlessness in dress and attire. Lastly, womanly work mean藏书网s not any special skill or ability, but assiduous attention to the spinning room, o waste time in laughing and giggling and work i to prepare and wholesome food, especially when there are guests in the house. These are the four essentials in the duct of a woman as laid down in the "Lessons for Women", written by Tsao Ta Ku or Lady Tsao, sister of the great historian Pan Ku of the Han Dynasty.
Then again what do the Three Obediences in the ese feminine ideal mean? They mean really three self sacrifices or "live tors?" That is to say, when a woman is unmarried, she is to live for her father; when married, she is to live for her husband ; and, as a widow, she is to live for her children. In fact, the chief end of a woman in a is not to live for herself, or for society; not to be a reformer or to be president of
the womans natural feet Society; not to live even as a saint or to do good to the world; the chief end of a woman in a is to live as a good daughter, a good wife and a good mother.
A fn lady friend of mine once wrote and asked me whether it is true that we ese believe, like the Mohammedans, that a woman has no soul. I wrote bad told her that we ese do not hold that a woman has no soul, but that we hold that a woman, _a true ese woman has no self. Now speaking of this "９９ｌiｂ?no self" in the ese woman leads me to say a few words on a very difficult subject, _a subject which is not only difficult, but, I am afraid almost impossible for people with the modern European education to uand, viz. age in a. This subject of age, I am afraid, is not only a difficult, but also a dangerous subject to discuss in public. But, as the English poet says.
Thus fools rush in where angels fear to tread,
I will try my best here to explain why age in a is not su immoral as people generally imagine.
The first thing I want to say on this subject of age is that it is the selflessness in the ese woman which makes age in a not only possible, but also no immoral. But, before I go further, let me tell you here, that age in a does not mean having many wives . By Law in a, a man is allowed to have only one wife, but he may have as many handmaids or es as he like. In Japanese a handmaid or e is called te-kaki, a hand rae-kaki an eye rack;_i. e. to say, a rack where to rest your hands or eyes on when you are tired. Now? the feminine ideal in a, I said, is not an ideal for a man to spend his whole life in caressing and worshipping. The ese feminine ideal is, for a wife to live absolutely, selflessly for her husband. Therefore when a husband who is sick or invalided from overwork with his brain and mind, re-quires a handmaid, a hand rack or eye rack to enable him to get well and to fit him for his life work, the wife in a with her selflessness, gives it to him just as a good wife in Europe and America gives an armchair oat s milk to her husband when he is sick or requires it. In fact it is the selflessness of the wife in a, her sense of duty, the duty of self s99liｂ?acrifice which allows a man in a to have handmaids or es.
But people will say to me, "why ask selflessness and sacrifily from the woman? What about the man?" To this. I answer, does not the man, _ the husband, who toils and moils to support his family, and especially if he is a gentleman, who has to do his duty not only to his family, but to his King and try, and, in doing that has, some time even to give his life: does he not also make sacrifice? The Emperor Kanghsi in a valedictory decree which he issued on his death bed, said that "he did not know until then what a life of sacrifice the life of an Emperor in a is. " A, let me say here by the way, Messrs. J. B. Bland and Backhouse in their latest book have described this Emperor Kanghsi as a huge, helpless, horrid Brigham Young, who was dragged into his grave by the multitude of his wives and children. But, of course, for modern men like Messrs. J. P. Bland and Backhouse, age is inceivable except as something horrid, vile and nasty, because the diseased imagination of such men ceive of nothing except nasty, vile and horrid things. But that is her here nor there. Now what I want to say here is that the life of every true man_from the Emperor down to the ricksha coolie_and every true woman, is a life of sacrifice. The sacrifice of a woman in a is to live selflessly for the man whom she calls husband, and the sacrifice of the man in a is to provide for, to protect at all costs the woman or women whom he has taken into his house and also the children they may bear him. Io people who talk of the immorality of age in a, I would say that to me the ese
mandarin who keeps es is less selfish, less immoral than the European in his motor car, who picks up a helpless woman from the public street and, after amusing himself with her for one night, throws her away again on the pavement of the public street the m. The ese mandarin with his es may be selfish, but he at least provides a house for his es and holds himself for life responsible for the maintenance of the women he keeps. In fact, if the mandarin is selfish, I say that the European in his motor car is not only selfish, but a coward. Ruskin says, "The honour of a true soldier is verily not to be able to slay, but to be willing and ready at all times to be slain. " In the same way I say, the honour of a woman_a true woman in a, is not only to love arue to her husband, but to live absolutely, selflessly for him. In fact, this Religion of Selflessness is the religion of the woman, especially, the gentlewoman or lady in a, as the Religion of Loyalty which I have tried elsewhere to explain, is the religion of the man, _the gentleman in a. Until fners e to uand these twions, the &quion of Loyalty and the Religion of Selflessness" of the ese people, they ever uand the real aman, or the real ese woman.
But people will again say to me, "What about love? a man who really loves his wife have the heart to have other women besides her in his house?" To this I answer, yes, _ Why not? For the real test that a husband really loves his wife is not that he should spend his whole life in lying down at her feet and caressihe real test whether a man truly loves his wife is whether he is anxious and tries ihing reasonable, not only to protect her, but also not to hurt her, not to hurt her feelings. Now t a strange woman into the house must hurt the wife, hurt her feelings. But here, I say, it is what I have called the Religion of Selflessness which protects the wife from being hurt: it is this absolute Selflessness in the woman in a
which makes it possible for her not to feel hurt when she sees her husband bring another woman into the house. In other words, it is the selflessness in the wife in a whiables, permits the husband to take a e without hurting the wife. For here, let me point out, a gentleman, _a real gentleman in a, akes a e without the sent of his wife and a real gentlewoman or lady in a whehere is a proper reason that her husband should take a e, will never refuse to give her sent. I know of many cases where having no children the husband after middle age wao take a e, but because the wife refused to give her sent, desisted. I know even of a case where the husband, because he did not want to exact this mark of selflessness from his wife who was sid in bad health, refused, when urged by the wife, to take a e, but the wife, without his knowledge and sent, not only bought a e, but actually forced him to take the e into the house. In fact, the prote for the wife against the abuse of age in a is the love of her husband for her. Instead, therefore of saying that husbands in a ot truly love their wives because they take es, one should rather say it is because the husband in a so truly loves his wife that he has the privilege and liberty of taking es without fear of his abusing that privilege and liberty. This liberty, this privilege is sometimes and evehe sense of honour in the men iion is low as now in this anarchic a, of ten abused. But still I say the prote for the wife in a where the husband is allowed to take a e, is the love of her husbaud for her, the love of her husband, and, I must add here, his tact _the perfect good taste in the real ese gentleman. I wonder if one man in a thousand among the ordinary Europeans and Ameris, who keep more than one woman in the same house without turning the house into a fighting cockpit or hell. In short, it is this tact, .he perfect good taste in the real ese
gentleman which makes it possible for the wife in a not to feel hurt, when the husband takes and keeps a handmaid, a hand rack, an eye ra the same house with her. But to sum up, _it is the Religion of selflessness, the absolute selflessness of the woman, _the gentlewoman or lady and the love of the husband for his wife and his tact,_the perfect good taste of a real ese gentleman, which, as I said, makes age in a, not only possible, but also not immoral.. fucius said, "The Law of the Gentleman takes its rise from the relatioween the husband and the wife. "
chapter 21
Now in order to vihose who might still be sceptical that husbands in a truly love, deeply love their wives, I could produce abundant proofs from ese history and literature. For this purpose I should particularly like to quote and translate here an elegy written on the death of his wife by YuaCHO, a poet of the Tang dynasty. But unfortuhe piece is too long for quotatiohe Civic Law. This ceremony therefore may be called the moral ious marriage.
After this es the ceremony called the mutual salutatioween bride and bride-groom. The bride standing on the right side of the hall first goes on her knees before the bride-groom, _he going on his ko her at the same time. Then they ge places. The bride-groom now standing where the bride stood, goes on his ko her, _ she returning the salute just as he did. Now this ceremony of chiao pai mutual salutation, I wish to point out here, proves beyond all doubt that in a there is perfect equality between man and womaween husband and wife.
As I said before, the ceremony of plighting troth may be called the moral ious marriage as distinguished from what may called the civic marriage, whies three days after._In the moral ious marriage, the man and woman bees husband and wife before the moral Law_befod. The tract so far is solely between the man and woman. The State or, as in a, the Family takes the place of the State in all social and civic life_the State ag only as Court of appeal, _the Family takes no isance of the marriage or tract between the man and woman here in this, what I have called the moral ious marriage. In fa this first day and until the civic marriage takes pla the third day of the marriage, the bride is not only not introduced, but also not allowed to see or be seen by the members of the bride-grooms family.
chapter 22
Thus for two days and two nights the bride-groom and the bride in a live, so t?o speak not as legal, but, as sweetheart-husband and sweetheart-wife . Ohird day, _then es the last ceremony in the ese marriage_the Miao-, the temple presentation or civic marriage. I say, ohird day because that is the rule deriguer as laid down in the Book of Rites. But now to save trouble and expe is generally performed on the day after. This ceremony_the temple presentation, takes place, when the aral temple of the family is nearby, _of course in the aral temple. But for people living in towns and cities where there is no aral temple of the family nearby, the ceremony is performed before the miniature aral chapel or shrine_which is in the house of every respectable family, even the poorest in a. This aral temple, chapel or shrih a tablet or red piece of paper on the wall, as I have said elsewhere, is the church of the State Religion of fucius in a corresponding to the church of the Church Religion in Christian tries.
This ceremony_the temple presentation begins by the father of the bridegroom or failing him, the senior member of the family, going on his knees before the aral tablet_thus announg to the spirits of the dead aors that a young member of the family has nht a wife home into the family. Then the bridegroom and bride oer the other, each goes on his and her knees before the same a..ral tablet. From this moment the man and woman bees husband and wife, _not only before the moral Law od, _ but before the Family, before the State, before Civic Law. I have therefore called this ceremony of miao , temple presentation in the ese marriage, _the civic or civil marriage. Before this civic or civil marriage, the woman, the bride, _acc to the Book of Rites,_is not a legal wife-When the bride happens to die before this ceremony of temple presentation, she is not allowed_acc to the Book of Rites_to be buried in the family burying ground of her husband and her memorial tablet is not put up in the aral temple of his family .
Thus we see the tra a legal civic marriage in a is not between the woman and the man. The tract is between the woman
and the family of her husband. She is not married to him, but into his family. In the visiting card of a ese lady in a, she does not write, for instance, Mrs. Ku Hung-ming, but >99liｂ?literally "Miss Feng, goo the home of the family (inally from) Tsin An adjusts her dress." _The traarriage in a beiween the woman and the family of her husband,_the husband and wife either of them repudiate the tract without the sent of the husbands family. This I want to point out here, is the fual differeween a marriage in a and a marriage in Europe and America. The marriage in Europe and America, _is what we ese _would call a sweet-heart marriage, a marriage, bound solely by love between the individual man and the individual woman. But in a the marriage is, as I have said, a civic marriage, a traot between the woman and the man, but between the woman and the family of her husband, _in which she has obligations not only to him, but also to his family, and through the family, to society, _to the social or civic order; in fact, to the State. Finally let me point out here that it is this civiception of marriage which gives solidarity and stability to the family, to the social or civic order, to the State in a. Until therefore, let me be permitted to say here, _ the people in Europe and Ameriderstand what true civic life means, uand and have a true ception of what it is really to be a citizen, _ a citizen not eae living for himself, but eae living first for his family, and through that for the civic order or State, _there then be no such thing as a stable society, civic order or State irue sense of the word. _A State such as we see it in modern Europe and Ameri to-day, where the men and woman have not a true ception of civic life, _such a State with all its parliament and maery of gover, may be called, if you like, _a big ercial , or as it really is, in times of war, a gang ands and pirates, _but not a State. In fact, I may be permitted further to say
here, it is the false ception of a State as a big ercial having only the selfish material is of those who have the biggest shares in the to be sidered, _this false ception of a State with the esprit de corps ands, which is, at bottom, the cause of the terrible war now going on in Europe. In short, without a true ception of civic life there be no true State and without a true State, how there be civilisation. To us ese, a man who does not marry, who has no family, no home which he has to defend, ot be a patriot, and if calls himself a patriot, _we ese call him a brigand patriot. In fa order to have a true ception of a State or civic order, one must first have a true ception of a family, and to have a true ception of a family, of family life, one must first of all have a true ception of marriage, _marriage not as a sweetheart marriage, but as a civic marrage which I have in the above tried to describe.
But to return from the digression. Now you picture to yourself how the sweet-heart wife waiting for the m_to salute the father and mother of her husband, toilet finished, in a low voice, whispers to her sweet-heart husband and asks if her eyebroainted quite a la mode_Here you see, I say, there is love between husband and wife in a, although they have not seen each other before the marriage_even ohird day of the marriage. But if you think the love in the above is not deep enough, then take just these two lines of poetry from a wife to her absent husband.
chapter 23
The day when you think of ing home . Ah then my heart -will already be broken.
Roselind in Shakespeares "As You Like It" says to her cousin Celia:" coz, y pretty little coz, that thou k how many
fathom deep I am in love! But I ot be sounded: my affe hath an unknown bottom, like the bay of Pal. " Now the love of a woman, _of a wife for her husband in a and also the love of the man_of the husband for his wife in a, one truly say, is like Rosolinds love, many fathom deep and ot be sounded; it has an unknown bottom like the bay of Pal.
But, I will now speak of the difference which, I said, there is between the ese feminine ideal and the feminine ideal of the old Hebrew people. The Hebrew lover in the Songs of Solomon, thus addresses his lady-love: "Thou art beautiful,my love, as Tirzah, ely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners " People who have seeiful dark-eyed Jewesses even to day, will aowledge the truth and graphiess of the picture which the old Hebrew lover here gives of the feminine ideal of his race. But in and about the ese feminine ideal, I want to say here, there is nothing terrible either in a physical or in a moral sense. Even the Helen of ese history, _the beauty, who with one glance brings down a city and with anlance destroys a kingdom she is terrible only mataphorically. In an essay on "..;the Spirit of the ese People, " I said that the one word which will sum up the total impression which the ese type of humanity makes upon you is the English word, "gentle. " If this is true of the real aman, it is truer of the real ese woman. In fact this "gentleness" of the real aman, in the ese woman, bees sweet meekness. The meekness, the submissiveness of the woman in a is like that of Miltons Eve in the "Paradise Lost, " who says to her husband,
God is thy law, thou, mio know no more Is woman s happiest knowledge and her praise .
Ihis quality of perfect meekness in the ese feminine ideal you will find in the feminine ideal of no other people, _of no
other civilisation, Hebrew, Greek or Roman. This perfect, divine meekness in the ese feminine ideal you will find only in one civilisation, _the Christian civilisation, when that civilisation in Europe reached its perfe, during the period of the Renaissance. If you will read the beautiful story of Griselda in Boccacios Decameron ahe true Christian feminine ideal shown there, you will then uand what this perfect submissiveness, this divine meekness, meeko the point of absolute selflessness, _in the ese feminine ideal means. In short, in this quality of divine meekness, the true Christian feminine ideal is the ese feminine ideal, with just a shade of difference. If you will carefully pare the picture of the Christian Madonna with, _not the Budhist Kuan Yin, _but with the pictures of women fairies and genii painted by famous ese artists, you will be able to see this differehe differeween the Christia>?9９ｌｉｂ.n feminine ideal, and the ese feminine ideal. The Christian Madonna is meek and so is the ese feminine ideal. The Christian Madonna is etherial and so is the ese feminine ideal. But the ese feminine ideal is more than all that; the ese feminine ideal is debonair. To have a ception of what this charm and grace expressed by the word debonair mean, you will have to go to a Greece,
_o ubi campi Spercheosque et virginibus bacchata Lais Taygeta!
In fact you will have to go to the fields of Thessaly and the streams of Spercheios, to the hills alive with the dances of the Lai-an maidens, _the hills of Taygetus.
Indeed I want to say here that even now in a sihe period of the Sung Dynasty (A. D. ), when what may be called the fu Puritanism of the Sung philosphers has narrowed, petrified, and in a way, vulgarised the spirit of fuism, the spirit of the ese civilisation_sihen, the womanhood in a has lost much of the grad charm, _expressed by the word debonair. Therefore if you want to see the grad charm expressed by the word debonair irue ese feminine ideal, you _will have to go to Japahe women there at least, even to this day, have preserved the pure ese civilisation of the Tang Dynasty. It is this grad charm expressed by the word debonair bined with the divine meekness of the ese feminine ideal, which gives the air of distin to the Japanese woman, _ even to the poorest Japanese woman to-day.
In e with this quality of charm and grace expressed by the word debonair, allow me to quote to you here a few words from Matthew Arnold with which he trasts the brick?９９ｌiｂ?-and-mortar Protestant English feminine ideal with the delicate Catholic French feminine ideal. paring Eugenic de Guerin, the beloved sister of the Frenaurice de Guerin, with an English woman who wrote poetry, Miss Emma Tatham,_Matthew Arnold says: "The Frenan is a Catholi Languedoc; the English woman is a Protestant at Margate, Margate the brid mortar image of English Protestantism, representing it in all its prose, all its uneliness, _a me add, all its salubrity. Betweeernal form and fashion of these two lives, betweeholic Madlle de Guerin s nadalet at the Languedoc Christmas, her chapel of moss at Easter time, her daily reading of the life of a saint, _between all this and the bare, blank, narrowly English setting of Miss Tatham s Protestantism, her "union in Church fellowship with the worshippers at Hawley Square, Margate, " her singing with the soft, sweet voice, the animating lines:
chapter 24
My Jesus to know, and feel His Blood flow Tis life everlasting, tis heaven below "
her young female teachers belonging to the Sunday school and her
"Mr. Thomas Rowe, a venerable class-leader" _what a dissimilarity. In the ground of the two lives, a likeness; in all their circumstances, what unlikeness! An unlikeness, it will be said, in that which is non-essential and indifferent. Non-essential,_ yes; indifferent,_no. The signal want of grad charm _ in the English Protestantisms setting of its religious life is not an indifferent matter; it is a real weakness. This ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.
Last of all I wish to point out to you here the most important quality of all, in the ese feminine ideal, the quality which preemily distinguishes her from the feminine ideal of all other people or nations a or modern. This quality in the women in a, it is true, is on to the feminine ideal of every people or nation with any pretension to civilisation, but this quality, I want to say here, developed in the ese feminine ideal to such a degree of perfe as you will find it nowhere else in the world. This quality of which I speak, is described by the two ese words yu hsienwhich, in the quotation I gave above from the "Lessons for Women, " by Lady Tsao, _I translated as modesty and cheerfulness. The ese word yu literally meaired, secluded, occult and the word hsien ( ?) literally means " at ease or leisure. " For the ese word yu, _the English "modesty, bashfulness" only gives you an idea of its meaning. The German word Sittsamkeit es o it. But perhaps the French pudeur es o it of all. This pudeur, I may say here, this bashfulness, the quality expressed by the ese word yu is the essence of all womanly qualities. The more a woman has this quality of pudeur developed ihe more she has of womanliness, _of femininity, in fact, the more she is a perfect or ideal woman. When on the trary a woman loses this quality expressed by the ese word yu, loses this bashfulness, this pudeur, she then loses altogether her womanliness, her femininity,
and with that, her perfume, her fragrand bees a mere piece of huma or flesh. Thus, it is this pudeur, this quality expressed by the ese word yu in the ese feminine ideal which makes ht to make every true Chi..nese woman instinctively feel and know that it is wrong to show herself in public; that it is i , acc to the ese idea, to go on a platform and sing before a crowd in the hall even of the fu Association. In fi is this yu hsien, this love of seclusion, this sensitiveness a-gainst the "garish eye of day;" this pudeur in the ese feminine ideal, which gives to the true ese woman in a as to no other woman in the world, _a perfume, a perfume sweeter than the perfume of violets, the ineffable fragrance of orchids.
In the oldest love song, I believe, of the world, which I translated for the Peking Daily wo years ago_the first pie the Shih g or Book of Poetry, the ese feminine ideal is thus described,
The birds are calling in the air, _ An islet by the river-side ;
The maid is meek and debonair, Oh! Fit to be our Prince s bride .
The words yao t iao have the same signification as the words yu sien meaning literally yao) secluded, meek, shy, and tiao attractive, debonair, and the words shu nu mean a pure, chaste girl or woman. Thus here in the oldest love song in a, you have the three essential qualities in the ese feminine ideal, viz. love of seclusion, bashfulness or pudeur, ineffable grad charm expressed by the word debonair and last of all, purity or chastity. In short, the real or true ese woman is chaste; she is bashful, has pudeur; and she is attractive and debonair. This then is the ese feminin?.
ee translation would be something like this:
TO MY WIFE Fret not, _though poor we yet pass the year ;
Let the north wind blow ne er so chill and drear, year when pead willow are in bloom, You II yet see Spring and sunlight in our home.
Here is another spe longer and more sustained. It is a poem by Tu Fu, the Wordsworth of a, of the Tang Dynasty. I will here first give my English translation. The subject is
MEETING WITH AN OLD FRIEND In life, friends seldom are brought near;
Like stars, eae shines in its sphere. To-night,_oh what a happy night [ We sit beh the same lamplight. Our youth and strength last but a day. You and I_ah! our hairs are grey . Friends! Half are in a better land, With tears we grasp each other s hand. Twenty more years, _short, after all, I once again asd your hall. Whe, you had not a wife ;
Now you have children, _such is life Beaming, they greet their father ^ chum ;
They ask me from where I have e. Before our say, we each have said, The table is already laid. Fresh salads from the garden near,
Rice mixed with millet, _frugal cheer . When shall we meet ? tis hard to know . And so let the wine freely flow. This wine, I know, will do no harm. My old friend s wele is so warm . To-morrow I go, _to be whirled. Again into the wide, wide world.
The above, my version I admit, is almost doggerel, which is meant merely to give the meaning of the ese text. But here is the ese text which is not doggerel, but poetry _poetry simple to the verge of colloquialism, yet with a grace, dignity pathos and nobleness which I ot reprodud which perhaps it is impossible to reproduce, in English in such simple language.
JOHN SMITH IN A
" The Philisti only ignores all ditions of life which are not his own but he also demands that the rest of mankind should fashion its mode of existeer his own ."*.... GOETHE.
Mr. W. Stead once asked: "What is the secret of Marie Corellis popularity?" His answer was: "Like author, like reader; because the John Smiths who read her novels live in Marie Corelli s world and regard her as the most authoritative expo of the Universe in which they live, move and have their being." What Marie Corelli is to the John Smiths i Britain, the Rev. Arthur Smith is to the John Smiths in a.
Now the differeween the really educated person and the half educated one is this. The really educated person wants to read books which will tell him the real truth about a thing, whereas the half educated person prefers to read books which will tell him what he wants the thing to be, what his vanity prompts him to wish that the thing should be. John Smith in a wants very much to be a superior person to the aman and the Rev. Arthur Smith writes a book to prove clusively that he, John Smith, is a very much superior person to the aman. There-fore, the Rev. Arthur Smith is a person very dear to John Smith, and the "ese Characteristics" bee a Bible to John Smith.
But Mr. W. Stead says, "It is John Smith and his neighbours who now rule the British Empire." sequently I have lately takerouble to read the books which furnish John Smith with his ideas
* "Der Philister niur andere Zustan99ｌｉｂ.
influence of John Smith s Anglo-Saxon ideals is really taking effe a. Uhis influence John aman too is now wanting to glorify the ese Empire. The old ese literati with his eight-legged essays was a harmless humbug. But fners will find to their cost that the new ese literati who uhe influence of John Smiths Anglo-Saxon ideals is clam for a stitution, is likely to bee an intolerable and dangerous nuisance. In the end I fear John Bull Senior will not only find his Maer goods trade ruined, but he will eve to the expense of sending out a General Gordon or Lord Kiter to shoot his poor old friend John aman who has bee non entis uhe civilising influence of John Smiths Anglo-Saxon ideals. But that is her here nor there.
What I want to say here in plain, slish is this. It is a woo me that the Englishman who es out to a with his head filled with all the arrant nonsense written in books about the ese, get along at all with the ese with whom he has to deal. Take this spe, for instance, from a big volume, entitled "The Far East: its history and its questions, " by Alexis Krausse.
"The crux of the whole question affeg the Powers of the Western nations in the Far East lies in the appreciation of the true inwardness of the Oriental mind. An Oriental not only sees things from a different standpoint to (!) the Octal, but his whole train of thought and mode of reasoning are at variahe very sense of perception implanted in the Asiatic varies from that with which we are endowed!
After reading the last senten Englishman in a, when he wants a piece of -white paper, if he follows the ungrammatical Mr.
Krausses advice, would have to say to his boy:_"Boy, bring me a piece of black paper. " It is, I think, to the credit of practical men a-mong fners in a that they put away all this nonsense about the true inwardness of the Oriental mind when they e to deal practically with the ese. In fact I believe that those fners get o with the ese and are the most successful men in a who stick toplusequal , and leave the a plus b equal c theories of Oriental inwardness and Anglo-Saxon ideals to John Smith and Mr. Krausse. Indeed when one remembers that in those old days, before the Rev. Arthur Smith wrote his "ese Characteristics," the relatioween the heads or taipans of great British firms such as Jardine, Matheson and their ese pradores * were always those of mutual affe, passing on to one or meions; when one remembers this, one is ined to ask what good, after all, has clever John Smith with his a plus b equal c theories of Oriental inwardness and Anglo-Saxon ideals doher to ese or fners?
chapter 29
Is there then no truth in Kipling s famous di?99ｌib.ctum that East is East a is West? Of course there is. When you deal withplusequal , there is little or no differe is only when you e to problems as a plus b equal c that there is a great deal of differewee a. But to be able to solve the equation a plus b equal c betwee a, one must have real aptitude fher mathematics. The misfortune of the world to-day is that the solution of the equation a plus b equal Far Eastern problems, is in the hands of John Smith who not only rules the British Empire, but is an ally of the Japaion, _John Smith who does not uand the elements even of algebraical problems. The solu-* ese employed by fn firms in a to be agents between them and ese merts.
tion of the equation a plus b equal c betwee a is a very plex and difficult problem. For in it there are many unknown quantities, not only such as the East of fucius and the East of Mr. Kang Yu-wei and the Viceroy Tuan Fang, but also the West of Shakespeare and Goethe and the West of John Smith. Indeed when you have solved your a plus b equal c equation properly, you will find that there is very little differeween the East of fucius and the West of Shakespeare and Goethe, but you will find a great deal of differeweehe West of Dr. Legge the scholar, and the West of the Rev. Arthur Smith. Let me give a crete illustration of what I mean.
The Rev. Arthur Smith, speaking of ese histories, says:_
"ese histories are antediluvian, not merely in their attempts to go back to the ragged edge of zero of time for a point of departure, but ierminable length of the sluggish and turbid current which carries on its bosom not only the mighty vegetation of past ages, but wood, hay and stubble past all reing. a relatively timeless race could either pose or read such histories: the ese memory could store them away in its capacious abdomen! "
Now let us hear Dr. Legge on the same subject. Dr. Legge, speaking of thestandard dynastic histories of a, says:
"No nation has a history so thhly digested; and on the whole it is trustworthy."
Speaking of anreat ese literary colle. Dr. Legge says:_"The work was not published, as I once supposed by Imperial authority, but uhe superintendend at the expense (aided by other officers) of Yuen Yun, Governeneral of Kwangtung and Kwangse, ih year of the last reign, of Kien-lung . The publication of so extensive a work shoublic spirit and zeal for literature among the high officials of a which should keep for-
eigners from thinking meanly of them. "
The above then is what I mean when I say that there is a great deal of differe only between the East a but also between the West of Dr. Legge, the scholar who appreciate and admire zeal for literature, and the West of the Rev. Arthur Smith who is the beloved of John Smith in a.
A GREAT SINOLOGUE
Don t fet to be a gentleman of sense, -while you try to be a great scholar ;
Don t bee a fool, while you try to be a great scholar .
fucius Sayings, Ch:VI. II.
I have lately been reading Dr. Giles "Adversaria Sinica, " and in reading them, was reminded of a saying of another British sul Mr. Hopkins that "when fn residents in a speak of a man as a sinologue, they generally think of him as a fool. "
Dr. Giles has the reputation of being a great ese scholar. sidering the quantity of work he has dohat reputation is not undeserved. But I think it is now time that an attempt should be made to accurately estimate the quality and real value iles work.
In one respect Dr. Giles has the advantage over all sinologues past and present,_he possesses the literary gift: he write good idiomatiglish. But oher hand Dr. Giles utterly lacks the philosophical insight and sometimes even on sense. He translate ese sentences, but he ot interpret and uand ese thought. In this respect. Dr. Giles has the same characteristics as the ese literati. fucius says, "When men s education or book learnihe better of their natural qualities, they bee literati."
To the ese literati, books and literature are merely materials for writing books and so they write books upon books. They live, move and have their being in a world of books, having nothing to do with the world of real human life. It never occurs to the literati that books and literature are only means to an end. The study of books and literature to the true scholar is but the means to enable him to inter-
pret, to criticise, to uand human life.
Matthew Arnold says, "It is through the apprehensioher of all literature, _the entire history of the human spirit, _or of a single great literary work as a ected whole, that the power of literature makes itself felt. " But in all that Dr. Giles has written, there is not a single sentence which betrays the fact that Dr. Giles has ceived or even tried to ceive the ese literature as a ected whole.
It is this want of philosophical insight in Dr. Giles which makes him so helpless in the arra of his materials in his books. Take for instance his great diary. It is in no sense a diary at all. It is merely a colle of ese phrases aeranslated by Dr. Giles without any attempt at sele, arra, order or method. As a diary for the purposes of the scholar. Dr. Giles diary is decidedly of less value thahe old diary of Dr. Williams.
chapter 30
Dr. Giles ese biographical diary, it must be admitted, is a work of immense labour. But .?here again Dr. Giles shows an utter lack of the most ordinary judgment. In such a work, one would expect to find notices only of really notable men.
Hie manus ob patriam pugnando vulnera passi, Quique sacerdotes casti, dum vita ma, Quique pii votes et Phoebo digna locuti, Ias aut qui vitam excoluere per artes, Quique sui memores aliquos fecere merendo.
But side by side with sages and heroes of antiquity, with mythical and mythological personages, we find General Tg Ki-tong,
Mr. Ku Hung-ming, Viceroy g Chi-tung and Captain Lew Buah, _99ｌｉb?he last whose sole title to distin is that he used often to treat his fn friends with unlimited quantities of champagne!
Lastly these "Adversaria,"_Dr. Giles latest publication_will not, I am afraid, enhance Dr. Giles reputation as a scholar of sense and judgment. The subjects chosen, for the most part, have hly practical or human i. It would really seem that Dr. Giles has takerouble to write these books not with any iion to tell the world anything about the ese and their literature but to show what a learned ese scholar Dr. Giles is and how much b?99liｂ?
etter he uands ese than anybody else. Moreover, Dr. Giles, here as elsewhere, shows a harsh and pugnacious dogmatism which is as un-philosophical, as unbeing a scholar as it is unpleasing. It is these characteristics of sinologues like Dr. Giles which have made, as Mr. Hopkins says, the very name of sinologue and ese scholarship a byword and s among practical fn residents in the Far East.
I shall here select two articles friles latest publication and will try to show that if hitherto writings of fn scholars on the subjects of ese learning and ese literature have been without human or practical i, the fault is not in ese learning and ese literature.
The first article is entitled "What is filial piety." The point iicle turns upon the meaning of two ese characters. A disciple asked what is filial piety. fucius said: se nan fa^ (lit, colour difficult).
Dr. Giles says, "The question is, and has been for twenty turies past, what do.these two characters mean?" After g and dismissing all the interpretations and translations of native and fn scholars alike... Dr. Giles of course finds out the true meaning. In order to shiles harsh and unscholarly dogmatiner, I shall here quote Dr. Giles words with which he announces his discovery. Dr.
Giles says:_
"It may seem presumptuous after the above exordium to declare that the meaning lies a la Bill Stumps (! ) upon the surface, and all you have to do, as the poet says, is to
Stoop, and there it is;
Seek it nht nor left!
"When Tzu-hsia asked fucius, What is filial piety? the latter replied simply,
" se to defi, nan is difficult, a most intelligible and appropriate answer."
I shall not here enter into the ies of ese grammar to show that Dr. Giles is wrong. I will only say here that if Dr. Giles is right in supposing that the character se is a verb, then in good grammatical ese, the sentence would not read se nan, but se chih wei nanto defi, is difficult. The impersonal pronoun chi it, is here absolutely indispensable, if the character se here is used as a verb.
But apart from grammatiiceties, the translation as given by Dr. Giles of fucius answer, when taken with the whole text, has no point or sense in it at all.
Tzu hsia asked, what is filial piety? fucius said, " The difficulty is with the manner of doing it. That merely when there is work to be dohe young people should take the trouble of doing it, and when there is wine and food, the old folk are allowed to partake it, _do you really think that is filial piety?" (Discourses and Sayings Ch. .. ) Now the whole point iext above lies in this, _that importance is laid not upon what duties you perform towards your parents, but upon how _in what manner, with irit, you per-
_ pare another saying of fucius Il!f^"fe Oi iao yen ling se, plausible speed fine manners (Discourses and Sayings Ch. .. )
form those duties.
The greatness and t?rue efficacy of fucius moral teag, I wish to say here, lies in this very point which Dr. Giles fails to see, _ the point hat in the performanoral duties, fucius insisted upon the importa of the what, but of the how. For hereihe differeween what is called morality and religioween mere rules of moral dud the vivifying teag of great and true religious teachers. Teachers of morality merely tell you what kind of a is moral and what kind of a is immoral. But true religious teachers do not merely tell you this. True religious teachers do not merely inculcate the doing of the outward act, but insist upon the importance of the mahe inwardness of the act. True religious teachers teach that the morality or immorality of our as does not sist in what we do, but in how we do it.
chapter 31
This is what Matthew Arnold calls Christ s method in his teag. When the poor widow gave her mite, it was not what she gave that Christ called the attention of his hearers to, but how she gave it. The moralists said, "Thou shalt not it adultery." But Christ said, "I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath already itted adultery. "
In the same way the moralists in fucius time said: Children must cut firewood and carry water for their parents and yield to them the best of the food and wine in the house: that is filial peity. But fucius said, "No; that is not filial piety." True filial piety does not sist in the mere outerformance of these services to our parents. True filial piety sists in how, in what manner, with irit we perform these services. The difficulty, said fucius, is with the manner of doing it. It is, I will finally say here, by virtue of this method in his teag, of looking into the inwardness of moral as that fucius bees, not as the Christian missionaries say, a mere moralist and philosopher, but a great and true religious teacher.
As a further illustration of fucius method, take the present reform movement in a. The so-called progressive mandarins with applause from fn neers are making a great fuss_even going to Europe and America, _trying to find out what reforms to adopt in a. But unfortuhe salvation of a will not depend upon what reforms are made by these progressive mandarins, but upon how these reforms are carried out. It seems a pity that these progressive mandarins, _instead of going to Europe and America, to study stitution could not be made to stay at home and study fucius. For until these mandarins take to heart fucius teag and his method and attend to the how instead of the what in this matter of reform, nothing but isery and suffering will e out of the present reform movement in a.
The other article in Dr. Giles "Adversaria Sinica" which I will briefly examine, is entitled_ "The four classes. "
The Japanese Baron Suyematzu in an interview said that the Japanese divided their people into four classes, _soldiers, farmers, artisans and warriors. Upon this Dr. Giles says. "It is incorrect to translate shih (rb) as soldier; that is a later meaning." Dr. Giles further says, "in its earliest use the word shih (dr) referred to civilians. "
Now the truth is just oher side. In its earliest use, the word shih (dr) referred to gentlemen who in a a, as it is now in Europe, bore arms, _the noblesse of the sword. Hehe officers and soldiers of an army were spoken of as shih tsu.
The civilian official class in a a were called shi _ cleric.t>us.When the feudal system in a was abolished (. B.C. , ) and fighting ceased to be the only profession of gentlemen, this civilian official class rose into prominence, became lawyers and stituted the noblesse of the robe as distinguished from the shihthe noblesse of the sword.
H. E. the Viceroy g of Wug once asked me why the
fn suls who were civil funaries, when in full dress, wore swords. In reply I said that it was because they were shih whi a a meant not a civilian scholar, but a gentleman who bore arms and served in the army. H. E. agreed and the day gave orders that all the pupils in the schools in Wug should wear military uniform.
This question therefore which Dr. Giles has raised whether the ese word shih means a civilian or a military man has a great practical i. For the questioher a iure will be indepe or e under a fn yoke will depend upoher she will ever have an effit army and that question again will depend upoher the educated and g class in a will ever regairue a meaning and ception of the word shihnot as civilian scholar, but as a gentleman who bears arms and is able to defend his try against aggression.
ESE SCHOLARSHIP
PART I
Not long ago a body of missionaries created a great deal of amusement by styling themselves, on the cover of some stific tracts, as "famous savants" su ju (Titfill) . The idea was of course extremely ridiculous. There is certainly not one aman in the whole Empire who would veate to himself the ese word ju, whicludes in it all the highest attributes of a scholar or literary maen hear, however, a European spoken of as a ese scholar. In the advertisement of the a Review, we are told that " among the missionaries a high degree of ese scholarship is assiduously cultivated. " A list is then given ular tributors, "all, " we are to believe, "well-known names, indicative of sound scholarship and thh mastery of their subject. &藏书网quot;
Now in order to estimate the high degree of scholarship said to be assiduously cultivated by the missionary bodies in a, it is not necessary to take such high ideal standards as those propounded by the German Fichte in his lectures upoerary Man, or the Ameri Emerson in his Literary Ethics. The late Ameri Mio Germany, Mr. Taylor, was aowledged to be a great German scholar; but though an Englishman who has read a few plays of Schiller, or sent to a magazine some verses translated from Heine, might be thought a German scholar among his tea drinking circles, he would scarcely have his name appear as su print or placard. Yet among Europeans in a the publication of a few dialogues in some provincial patois, or colle of a hundred proverbs, at oles
a man to be called a ese scholar. There is, of course, no harm in a name, and, with the exterritorial clause ireaty, an Englishman in a might with impunity call himself fucius if so it pleases him.
We have beeo sider this question because it is thought by some that ese scholarship has passed, or is passing, the early pi, and is about to enter a age, when students of ese will not be tent with diary-piling or such other brick-carrying work, but attempts will be made at works of stru, at translations of the most perfect spes of the national literature, and not only judgment, but final judgment, supported with reasons and arguments, be passed upon the most veed names of the ese literary Pantheon. We now propose to exami, how far it is true that the knowledge of ese among Europeans is undergoing this ge; ndly, what has already been done in ese scholarship; rdly, what is the actual state of ese scholarship at the present day; and in the last place, to point out what we ceive ese scholarship should be. It has been said that a dwarf standing upon the shoulders of a giant is apt to imagine himself of greater dimensions than the giant; still, it must be admitted that the dwarf, with the advantage of his position, will certainly and a wider and more extensive vieill, the９９lib.refore, standing upon the shoulders of those who have preceded us, take a survey of the past, present, and future of ese scholarship; and if, in our attempt, we should be led to express opinions not wholly of approval of those who have gone before us, these opinions, we hope, may not be strued to imply that we in any lume ourselves upon our superiority: we claim only the advantage of our position.
chapter 32
First, then, that the knowledge of ese among Europeans has ged, is only so far true, it seems to us, that the greater part of the difficulty of acquiring a knowledge of the language has been removed.
"The once prevalent belief, " says Mr. Giles, "in the great difficulty of acquiring a colloquial knowledge, even of a single ese dialect has long siaken its place among other historical fis." Indeed, even with regard to the written language, a student in the British sular Service, after two years residen Peking and a year or two at a sulate, ow readily make out at sight the general meaning of an ordinary despatch. That the knowledge of ese a-mong fners in a has so far ged, we readily admit; but what is tended for beyond this we feel very mued to doubt.
After the early Jesuit missiohe publication of Dr. Morri-sons famous diary is justly regarded as the point de depart of all that has been aplished in ese scholarship. The work will certainly remain a standing mo obbr>..f the earness, zeal and stiousness of the early Protestant Missionaries. After Morrison came a class of scholars of whom Sir John Davis and Dr. Gutzlaff might be taken as representatives. Sir John Davis really knew no ese, and he was ho enough to fess it himself. He certainly spoke Mandarin and could perhaps without much difficulty read a novel written in that dialect. But suowledge as he then possessed, would now-a-days scarcely qualify a man for an interpreter-ship in any of the sulates. It is heless very remarkable that the notions about the ese of most Englishmen, even to this day, will be found to have been acquired from Sir John Davis s book on a. Dr. Gutzlaff perhaps knew a little more ese than Sir John Davis; but he attempted to pass himself off as knowing a great deal more than he did. The late Mr. Thomas Meadows afterwards did good servi exposing the preten藏书网sion utzlaff, and such other men as the missionaries Hue and Du Halde. After this, it is curious to find Mr.Boulger, in his ret History of a, quoting these men as authorities.
In France, Remusat was the first to occupy a Chair of ese Professorship in any European Uy. Of his labours we are not in a position to express an opinion. But one book of his attracted notice: it was a translation of a novel, "The Two Cousins. The book was read by Leigh Hunt, and by him reeo Carlyle, and by Carlyle to John Stirling, who read it with delight, and said that the book was certainly written by a man of genius, but "a man of genius after the dragon pattern, "the Ju Kiao Li, * as the novel is called in ese, is a pleasant enough book to read, but it takes no high place even among the inferior class of books of which it is a spe. heless it is alleasant to think that thoughts and images from the brain of a aman have actually passed through such minds as those of Carlyle and Leigh Hunt.
After Remusat followed Stanislas Julien and Pauthier. The Germa Heine says that Julien made the wonderful and important discovery that Mons. Pauthier did not uand ese at all and the latter, oher hand, also made a discovery, hat Monsieur Julien knew no Sanscrit. heless the pi work done by these writers was very siderable. One advahey possessed was that they were thh masters of their own language. Another French writer might be mentioned, Mons. D Harvey St. Denys, whose translation of the T ang poets is a breach made into oment of ese literature in whiothing has been done before or since.
In Germany Dr. Plath of Munich published a book on a, which he entitled " Die Manchurei. " Like all books written in Germany, it is a solid piece of work thhly well dos evident design was to give a history of the in of the present Manchu dynasty in a. But the latter portions of the book tain information oions ected with a, which we know not where to find in any other book written in a European language. Such work as Dr. Williams s Middle Kingdom is a mere nursery story-book pared with it. Anerman ese scholar is Herr von Strauss, formerly the Minister of a little German principality which has sincebeen swallowed up by Prussia. The old Minister in his retirement a-mused himself with the study of ese. He published a translation of Lao Tzu, aly of the Shih King. Mr. Faber, of ton, speaks of some portions of his Lao Tzu as being perfect. His translabbr>tion of the Odes is also said to be very spirited. We have, unfortunately, not been able to procure these books.
The scholars we have named above may be regarded as sinologues of the earliest period, beginning with the publication of Dr. Morrisonss diary. The sed period began with the appearance of two standard works: st, the Tzu Erh Chih of Sir Thomas Wadend, the ese Classics of Dr. Legge.
As to the first, those who have now gone beyond the Mandarin colloquial in their knowledge might be ined tard it lightingly. But it is, notwithstanding, a great work_the most perfect, within the limits of what was attempted, of all the English books that have been published on the ese language. The book, moreover, was written in respoo a g y of the time. Some such book had to be written, and lo! it was done, and done in a way that took away all ce of porary as well as future petition.
chapter 33
That the work of translating the ese Classics had to be done, was also a y of the time, and Dr. Legge has aplished it, and the result is a dozen huge, ponderous tomes. The quantity of work done is certainly stupendous, whatever may be thought of the quality. In presence of these huge volumes we feel almost afraid to speak. heless, it must be fessed that the work does not altogether satisfy us. Mr. Balfour justly remarks that in translating these classics a great deal depends upoerminology employed by the translator. Now we feel that the terminology employed by Dr. Legge is harsh, crude, ie, and in some places, almost unidiomatic. So far for the form. As to the matter, we will not hazard our own opinion, but will let the Rev. Mr. Faber of ton speak for us. "Dr. Legges own notes on Mencius, "he says, "show that Dr. Legge has not a philosophiderstanding of his author." We are certain that Dr. Legge could not have read and translated these works without having in some way tried to ceive and shape to his own mind the teag of fucius and his school as a ected whole; yet it is extraordinary that her in his notes nor in his dissertations has Dr. Legge let slip a single phrase or senteo show what he ceived the teag of fucius really to be, as a philosophic whole. Altogether, therefore, Dr. Legge s judgment on the value of these works ot by any means be accepted as final, and the translator of the ese Classics is yet to e. Sihe appearance of the two works above mentioned, many books have been written on a: a few, it is true, of really great scholastic importance; but none, we believe showing that ese scholarship has reached an important turning point.
First, there is Mr. Wylie s "Notes on ese Literature. " It is, however, a mere catalogue, and not a book with any literary pretension at all. Another is the late Mr. Mayerss "ese Readers Manual . " It is certainly not a work that lay claim to any degree of perfe. heless, it is a very great work, the most ho coious and uending of all the books that have been written on a. Its usefulness, moreover, is inferior only to the Tzu-Erh-Chi of Sir Thomas Wade.
Another ese scholar of note is Mr. Herbert A. Giles of the British sular Service. Like the early French sinologues, Mr. Giles possesses the enviable advantage of a clear, vigorous, aiful
style. Every object he touches upon bees at once clear and luminous. But with one or two exceptions, he has not been quite fortunate in the choice of subjects worthy of his pen. One exception is the "Straories from a ese Studio," which may be taken as a model of what translation from the ese should be. But the Liao-chai-chih-i, a remarkably beautiful literary work of art though it be, belongs yet not to the highest spes of ese literature.
ges labours, Mr.Balfours ret translation of the Nan-hua King of g-tzu is a work of certainly the highest ambition. We fess to have experienced, when we first heard the work announced, a degree of expectation and delight which the annou of an Englishmaering the Hanlin College would scarcely have raised in us. The Nan-hua King is aowledged by the ese to be one of the most perfect of the highest spes of their national literature. Sis appearawo turies before the Christian era, the influence of the book upoerature of a is scarcely inferior to the works of fucius and his schools; while its effect upon the language and spirit of the poetical and imaginative literature of succeeding dynasties is almost as exclusive as that of the Four Books and Five ese upon the philosophical works of a. But Mr.Balfours work is not a translation at all; it is simply a mistranslation. This, we aowledge, is a heavy, and for us, daring judgment to pass upon a work upon which Mr. Balfour must have spent many years. But we have ve, and it will be expected of us to make good our judgment. We believe Mr. Balfour would hardly desend to join issue wit.?h us if we were to raise the question of the true interpretation of the philosophy of g-tzu. "But,"_we quote from the ese preface of Lin Hsi-g, a ret editor of the Nan-hua King_"in reading a book, it is necessary to uand first the meaning of each single word: then only you strue the sentehen only you perceive the arra of the para-graphs; and then, last of all, you get at the tral proposition of the whole chapter." Now every page of Mr. Balfour s translation bears marks that he has not uood the meaning of many single words, that he has not strued the sentences correctly, and that he has missed the arra of the paragraphs. If these propositions which we have assumed be proved to be true, as they easily be done, being merely points regarding rules of grammar and syntax, it then follows very clearly that Mr. Balfour has missed the meaning aral proposition of whole chapters.
But of all the ese scholars of the present day we are ined to place the Reverend Mr. Faber of ton at the head. We do not think that Mr. Fabers labours are of more scholastic value or a higher degree of literary merit than the works of others, but we find that almost every sentence he has written shows a grasp of literary and philosophic principles such as we do not find in any other scholar of the present time. What we ceive these principles to be we must reserve for the portion of the present paper, when we hope to be able to state the methods, aims, and objects of ese scholarship.
chapter 34
ESE SCHOLARSHIP
PART II
Mr.Faber has made the remark that the ese do not uand any systematic method of stifiquiry. heless in one of ese Classics, called " Higher Education * , " a work which is sidered by most fn scholars as a Book of Platitudes, a ation is given of the order in which the systematic study of a scholar should be pursued. The student of ese ot perhaps do better than follow the course laid down in that book namely, to begin his study with the individual, to proceed from the individual to the family, and from the family to the Gover.
First, then: it is necessary and indispensable that the student should endeavour to arrive at a just knowledge of the principles of individual duct of the ese. Sedly, he will examine and see how these principles are applied and carried out in the plex social relations and family life of the people. Thirdly, he will be able then to give his attention, and direct his study, to the gover and administrative institutions of the try. Such a programme as we have indicated, , of course, be followed out only in general outlio carry it fully out would require the devotion and undivided energies of almost a whole lifetime. But we should certainly refuse to sider a man, a ese scholar or a attribute to him any high degree of scholarship, unless he had in some way made himself familiar with the principles above indicated. The Germa Goethe says: "In the* Known among fners as the "Great Learning .works of man, as in those of nature, what is really deserving of attention, above everything, is_the iion." Now i.udy of national character, it is also of the first importao pay attention, not only to the as and practice of the people, but also to their notions and theories; to get a knowledge of what they sider as good and what as bad, what they regard as just and what as unjust, what they look upon as beautiful and what as not beautiful, and how they distinguish wisdom from foolishness. This is what we mean when we say that the student of ese should study the principles of individual duct. In other words, we mean to say that you must get at the national ideals . If it is asked how this is to be attained: we answer, by the study of the national literature, in which revelations of the best and highest as well as the worst side of the character of a people be read. The one object, therefore, which should ehe attention of the fn student of ese, is the standard national literature of the people: whatever preparatory studies it may by necessary for him to gh should serve only as means towards the attai of that one object. Let us now see how the student is to study the ese literature.
"The civilisations of Europe, " says a German writer, "rest upon those of Greece, Rome and Palestihe Indians and Persians are of the same Aryan stock as the people of Europe, and are therefore related; and the influence of the intercourse with the Arabs during the Middle Ages, upon European culture has not even to this day, altogether disappeared. " But as for the ese, the in and development of their civilisatio upon foundations altogether fn to the culture of the people of Europe. The fn student of ese literature, therefore, has all the disadvao overe which must result form the want of unity of primary ideas and notions. It will be necessary for him, not only to equip himself with these fn notions and ideas, but also, first of all, to find their equivalents in the Europe languages, and if these equivalents do , to disie them, and to see to which side of the universal nature of man these ideas and notions may be referred. Take, for instan藏书网ce, those ese words of stant recurren the Classics, and generally translated into English as "benevolence, ""justice," and "propriety" (U). Now when we e to take these English words together with the text, we feel that they are not adequate: they do not ote all the ideas the ese words tain. Again, the word "humanity, " is perhaps the most exact equivalent for the ese word translated "benevolence;" but then, "humanity" must be uood in a sense different from its idiomatic use in the English language. A venturesome translator would use the "love" and &quhteousness" of the Bible, which are perhaps as exact as any other, having regard both for the sense of the words and the idiom of the language. Now, however, if we disie and refer the primary notions which these words vey, to the universal nature of ma, at o their full signifiamely, "the good, ""the true, " and "the beautiful. "
But, moreover, the literature of a nation, if it is to be studied at all, must be studied systematically and as one ected whole, and nmentarily and without plan or order, as it has hitherto been done by most fn scholars. "It is, " says Mr. Matthew Arnold, "it is through the apprehensioher of all literature, _the entire history of the human spirit, _or of a single great literary work, as a ected whole that the real power of literature makes itself felt. " Now how little, we have seen, do the fn students ceive the ese literature as a whole! How little, therefore, do they get at its significe! How little, in fact, do they know it! How little does it bee a power in their hands, towards the uanding of the character of the people! With the exception of the labours of Dr. Legge and of one or two other scholars, the people of Europe know of the ese literature principally through the translations of novels, and even these not
of the best, but of the most onplace of their class. Just fancy, if a fner were to judge of the English literature from the works of Miss Rhoda Broughton, or that class of novels whi the reading stock of school-boys and nursery-maids! It was this class of ese literature which Sir Thomas Wade must have had in his mind, when in his wrath he reproached the ese with "tenuity of intellect. "
chapter 35
Another extraordinary judgment which used to be passed upon ese literature was, that it was excessively over-moral. Thus the ese people were actually accused of over morality, while at the same time most fners are pretty well agreed that the ese are a nation of liars! But we ow explain this by the fact that, besides the trashy novels we have already noticed, the work of translation a-mong students of ese was formerly fined exclusively to the fu Classievertheless, there are of course a great many other things in these writings besides morality, and, with all debbr>fereo Mr.Balfour, we think that "the admirable does" these books tain are decidedly not "utilitarian and worldly" as they have been judged to be. We will just submit two sentences and ask Mr. Balfour if he really thinks them "utilitarian and mundane." "He who sins against Heaven, " said fucius in ao a Minister, " he who sins against Heaven has no place where he turn to and pray." Again, Mencius says:"! love life, but I also lhteousness: but if I ot keep them both, I would give up life and chohteousness. "
We have thought it worthwhile to digress so far in order to protest against Mr. Balfours judgment, because we think that such smart phrases as "a bondslave to antiquity, " "a past-master in casuistry" should scarcely be employed in a work purposely philosophical, much less applied to the most veed name in a. Mr. Balfour robably led astray by his admiration of the Prophet of Nan-hua, and, in his eagero emphasize the superiority of the Taoist over
the orthodox school, he has beerayed into the use of expressions which, we are sure, his calmer judgment must n.
But to return from ression. We have said that the ese literature must be studied as a ected whole. Moreover we have hat the people of Europe are aced to ceive and form their judgment of the literature of a solely from those writings with which the name of fucius is associated; but, in fact, the literary activity of the ese had only just begun with the labours of fucius, and has since tihrough eighteen dynasties, including more than two thousand years. At the time of fucius, the literary form of writing was still very imperfectly uood.
Here let us remark that, iudy of a literature, there is one important point to be atteo, but which has hitherto been pletely lost sight of by fn students of ese; namely, the form of the literary writings. "To be sure, " said the poet Wordsworth, "it was the matter, but then you know the matter always es out of the manner." Now it is true that the early writings with which the name of fucius is associated do not pretend to any degree of perfe, as far as the literary form is ed: they are sidered as classical or standard works not so much for their classical elegance of style or perfe of literary form, as for the value of the matter they tain. The father of Su Tung-po, of the Sung dynasty, remarks that something approag to the formation of a prose style may be traced in the dialogues of Mencius. heless ese literary writings, both in prose and poetry, have since been developed into many forms and styles. The writings of the Western Hans, for instance, differ from the essays of the Sung period, mu the same way as the prose of Lord Ba is different from the prose of Addisoldsmith. The wild exaggeration and harsh di of the poetry of the six dynasties are as uhe purity, vigour, and brilliancy of the T ang poets as the early wreak and immature manner of Keats is uhe strong, clear, and correct splendour of Tennyson.
Having thus, as we have shown, equipped himself with the primary principles and notions of the people, the student will then be in a position to direct his study to the social relations of the people; to see how these principles are applied and carried out. But the social institutions, manners and s of a people do not grow up, like mushrooms, in a night, but are developed and formed into what they are, through louries. It is therefore necessary to study the history of the people. Now the history of the ese people is as yet almost unknown to European scholars. The so-called History of a, by Mr. Demetrius Boulger, published retly, is perhaps the worst history that could have been written of a civilised people like the ese. Such a history as Mr. Boulger has written might be tolerated if written of 藏书网some such savage people as the Hottentots. The very fact that such a history of a could have been published, serves only to show how very far from being perfect yet is the knowledge of ese among Europeans. Without a knowledge of their history, therefore, no correct judgment be formed of the social institutions of a people. Such works as Dr. Williamss Middle Kingdom and other works on a from want of suowledge, are not only useless for the purpose of the scholar, but are even misleading for the mass of general readers. Just to take one instahe social ceremony of the people. The ese are certainly a ceremonious people, and it is true that they owe this to the influence of the teag of fucius. Now Mr. Balfour may speak of the pettifogging observances of a ceremonial life as much as he pleases; heless, even "the bows and scrapes of external de, " as Mr. Giles calls them, have their roots deep in the universal nature of man, in that side of human nature, namely, which we have defined as the sense of the beautiful. "In the usbbr>e of ceremony, " says a disciple of fucius, "what is important, is to be natural; this is what is really beautiful in the ways of the a Em-perors. " Again, it is said somewhere in the Classics: "Ceremony is simply the expression of reverence. "( the Ehrfurcht of Goethe s Wilk elm Meister) We now see how evident it is that a judgment of the manners and s of a nation should be founded upon the knowledge of the moral principles of the people- Moreover the study, of the Gover and political institutions of a try, _which, we have said should be reserved by the student to the last stage of his labours, _must also be founded upon an uanding of their philosophical principles and a knowledge of their history.
chapter 36
We will clude with a quotation from " The Higher Education, " or the Book of Platitudes, as fners sider it. "The Gover of the Empire," it is said in that book, "should begin with the proper administration of the State; the administration of the State begins with the regulation of the family; the regulation of the family begins with the cultivation of the individual." This, then, is what we mean by ese Scholarship.
This article on ese Scholarship was written and published in the "N.C. daily news" in Shanghai in .
APPENDIX
the religion OF mob-worship OR the war AND the way out
Frankreich s traurig Geschick, die Grosser! mogen s bedenken,
Aber bedenken fiirwahr sollen es Kleine nech mehr ;
Grossen gingen zu Grunde ; dock wer beschittze die Menge
Gegen die Mengef Da -war Menge der Meyrann.
Goethe
Professor Lowes Dison of Cambridge Uy in an eloquent passage of his article on "The War and the Way out," says: "The future (the future of civilisation in Europe, he means) ot be moulded to any purpose until the plain men and women, workers with their hands and workers with their brains in England and in Germany and in all tries get together and say to the people who have led them into this catastrophe and will lead them into such again and again, "No more! No more! And never again! you rulers, soldiers and diplomats, you whh the long agony of history have ducted the destinies of mankind and ducted them to hell, we do now repudiate you. Our labour and our blood have been at your disposal. They shall be so no more. You shall not make the peace as you have made the war. The Europe that shall e out of this war shall be our Europe. And it shall be one in whiother European
Dreadful is Frances misfortuhe Classes should truly bethink them,
But s?ill more of a truth, the Masses should lay it to heart. Classes were smashed up; well then, but who will proteow the Masses
Gainst the Masses? Against the Masses the Masses did rage.war shall be never possible. "
That is th9９ｌib.e dream of the socialists now in Europe. But such a dream, I am afraid, ever be realised. When the plain men and women in the tries of Europe get rid of the rulers, soldiers and diplomats and take into their own hands the question of pead war with another try, I am perfectly sure, before that very question is decided, there will be quarrels, broken heads and wars between the plain men and women themselves in every try. Take the case of the Irish question i Britain. The plain men and women in Ireland in trying to take into their own hands the question even of how to govern themselves were actually flying at each others throats and if this greater war had not e, would at this moment, be cutting each others throats.
Now in order to find a way out of this war, we must first of all, find out the in, the cause of this war; find out who was really responsible for this rof essor Dison would have us believe that it was the rulers, soldiers and diplomats who have led the plain men and women into this catastrophe,_into this hell of a war. But I think, I prove, that it was not the rulers, soldiers and diplomats who have led the plain men and women into this war, but it was the plain men and women who have driven and pushed the poor helpless rulers, soldiers and diplomats of Europe into this hell of a war.
Let us first take the case of the actual rulers, _the Emperors, Kings and Presidents of Republiow in Europe. Now it is an undisputed fact that with the exception perhaps of the Emperor of Germany, the actual rulers of the tries now at war have had no say whatever in the making of this war. In fact the actual rulers of Europe today. Emperors, Kings and Presidents, bound in hand and foot and gagged by the mouth as they all are by stitutions and Magna Chartas of Liberty, _these actual rulers have no say whatever in the gover or duct of public affairs in their tries. Poor King Gee of Great Britain, wheried to say something to prevent a civil war over the Irish question, eremptorily told by the plain men and women i Britain to hold his tongue and he ha藏书网d actually to apologise through his Prime Mio the plain men and women f to do his duty as a King to prevent a civil war! In fact, the actual rulers of Europe today have beere expensive oral figures as the figures on a seal with which Gover official dots are stamped. Thus being mere oral figures without any say or will of their own as far as the gover of their tries is ed, how it be said, that the actual rulers of Europe are responsible for this war?
Let us examihe soldiers whom Professor Dison and everybody now denounces for being responsible for this war. Ruskin in addressing the cadets at Woolwich, says: "The fatal er９9ｌｉb?ror of modern institutions is to take away the best blood and strength of the nation, all the soul substance of it, that is brave, and careless of reward and sful of pain and faithful in trust; and to cast that into steel and make a mere sword of it, taking away its void will; but to keep the worst part of the nation, whatever is cowardly, avaricious, sensual, and faithless, and to give to this the authority, to this the chief privilege where there is the least capacity of thought."The fulfilment of your vow for the defence of England, "Ruski on to say addressing the soldiers of Great Britain, "will by no means sist in carrying out such a system. You are no true soldiers if you only mean to stand at a shop door to protect shop boys who are cheating in-side. " Now Englishmen, and true English soldiers too, who denounce Militarism and Prussian Militarism,think, should read and ponder over these words of Ruskin. But what I want to say here is that it is evident from what Ruskin says here, that if the actual rulers in Europe have practically no say, the soldiers of Europe today have absolutely no say _whatever in the gover and duct of affairs in their tries. What Tennyson says of the British soldiers at Balaclava, is true of the poor soldiers now in this war, "Theirs was not to reason why, theirs was but to do and die. " In fact if the acutal rulers in Europe today have beere expensive oral figures, the soldiers in Europe now have beere dangerous meical automatons. Being more meical automatons without any voice or will of their own as far as the gover of their tries is ed, how then it be said that the soldiers in Europe are responsible for this war?
chapter 37
Last of all, let us examihe case against the diplomats now in Europe. Now, acc to the theories of Gover, the Magua Chartas of Liberty and stitutions of Europe, the diplomats_the actual Statesmen and Ministers in charge of the gover and duct of public affairs in a try now are there merely to carry out the will of the people: in other words, merely to do whatever the plain men and women in the try tell them to do. Thus we see that the diplomats, _the Statesmen and Ministers in the Gover obbr>f the tries in Europe today, have also beere maes, talking maes; in fact mere puppets as in a Marioes show; puffed-up puppets without any will of their own, worked, pulled and moved up and down by the plain men and women. Being mere hollow puffed-up puppets, with only a voice, but without any will of their own, how then it be said that the diplomats, _the Statesmen and Ministers now in European tries are responsible for this war?
Ihe most curious thing, it seems to me, in the gover of all the European tries today is that every one who is actually in charge of the duct of affairs in the Gover, _ruler, soldier as well as diplomat or Statesman and Minister, is not allowed to have any will of his own; not allowed to have any power to do what he thinks best for the security and good of the nation, but every plain man and woman, _John Smith, editor of the " Patriotic Times, "
Bobus of Houndsditch, on Carlyle s time, sausage maker and jam manufacturer, but now owner of a big Dreadnought ship building yard, and Moses Lump, money lender, _are given full power to have all their will and all the say in the gover of the try; in fact, the power to tell the actual ruler, soldier and diplomat what they are to do for the good and security of the nation. Thus you will find, if you go deep enough into the matter, that it is these three persons, _John Smith, Bobus of Houndsditd Moses Lump, who are responsible for this war. For it was these three persons, John Smith, Bobus and Moses L９9ｌｉｂ?ump, I want to point out here, who created that monstrous modern Mae, _the modern Militarism in Europe, and it was this monstrous Mae which has brought on this war.
But now it _will be asked why have the actual rulers, soldiers and diplomats of Europe so cowardly abdicated in favour of these three persons, John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump? I answer, because the plain men and women, _even the good ho plain men and women, such men as Professor Dison, _instead of giving their loyalty and support to the actual rulers, soldiers and diplomats of their try, have taken the side of John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump against their own rulers, soldiers and diplomats. The two reasons a-gain why the plain men and women in Europe support and take the side of John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump, are: first, because John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump tell the plain men and women that they John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump belong to the party of plain men and women; and, sedly, because the plain men and women in Europe from their childhood have been taught that the Nature of Man is evil; that every man, whenever he is ied with power, will abuse his power; and further that every man as soon as he gets strong enough to be able to do it, will be sure to want to rob and murder his neighbour. In fact, I want to say here the reason why John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump have been able to get the plain men and women in Europe to help them to force the actual rulers, soldiers and diplomats of Europe to create the monstrous modern mae, which has brought on this terrible war, is because the plain men and women in every try, when in a crowd, are always selfish and cowardly.
Thus, if you go into the root of the matter, you will see that it is not the rulers, soldiers and diplomats, not even John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump, but it is really the good ho plain men and women, such men as Professor Dickison himself, who are responsible for this war. But Professor Dison will repudiate and say: We plain men and women did not want this war. But then, who wahis war? I answer. Nobody wahis war. Well then, what brought on this war? I answer, It anic which brought on this war; the panic of the mob, _the panic which seized and took possession of the crowd of plain men and women in all European tries when last August that monstrous modem mae in Russia which the plain men and women had helped to create, began to move. In short, it anic, I say, _the panic of the mob, panic of the crowd of the plain men and women unig itself to and seizing and paralysing the brains of the rulers, soldiers and diplomats of the tries now at war and making them helpless which has brought on this terrible war. Thus we see, it was not, as Professor Dison says, the rulers, soldiers and diplomats, who have ducted ahe plain men and women of Europe into this catastrophe, but it was the plain men and women, _ the selfishness, the cowardid at the last moment, the funk, the panic of the plain men and women who have driven and pushed the poor helpless rulers, soldiers and diplomats of Europe into this catastrophe, _into this hell of a war. Ihe tragic hopelessness of the situation now in Europe I want to say here, lies in the abject, pitiful, pitiable helplessness of the actual rulers, soldiers and diplomats of the tries now at war at the present moment.
It is evident therefore from what I have shown in the above, that if there is to be pea Europe now and iure, the first thing to be done is not, as Professor Dison says, t or call in, but to remove and keep out the plain men and women who, when in a crowd, are so selfish and cowardly; who are so liable to panic whehe question of pead war arises. In other words, if there is to be pea Europe, the first thing to be do seems to me, is to protect the rulers, soldiers and diplomats from the plain men and women; to protect them from the mob,_the panic of the crowd of plain men and women which makes them helpless. In faot to speak of the future, if the present actual situation now in Europe is to be saved, the only way to do it, it seems to me, is first to rescue the rulers, soldiers and diplomats of the tries now at war, from their present helplessness. The tragic hopelessness of the situation now in Europe, I wish to point here, is that everybody wants peace, but nobody has the ce or power to make peace. I say therefore, the first thing to be done is to rescue the rulers, soldiers and diplomats from their present helplessness; to find some means to give them power,_ power to find a way to make peace. That, I think, be done only in one way and that is for the people of Europe, _for the people of the tries now at war, to tear up their present stitutions and Magna Chartas of Liberty, and make a new Magna, Charta_a Magna Charta of Loyalty_such as we ese have in ion of good citizenship here in a.
chapter 38
By this new Magna Charta of I^oyalty, the people of the tries now at war must swear: first not to discuss, meddle or interfere in any way with the politics of the present war; sedly, absolutely to accept, submit to and abide by whatever terms of peace their actual rulers may decide upon among themselves. This new Magna Charta of Loyalty, will at once give the actual rulers of the tries now at ower and, with power, ce to make peace; in fact, power and ce at oo order and and peace. I am perfectly sure that as soon as this power is givehe actual rulers of the tries now at war, will at once order and and peace. I say, I am perfectly sure of this, because the rulers of the tries now at war, uhey are absolute incurable lunatics or demons, which 藏书网everybody must admit that they are not, _no, not even, I will veo say here, the most slandered man now in Europe, the Emperor of Germany, _they, the rulers of the tries now at war, must see that for them together to tio spend nine million pounds sterling of the blood and sweat-earned money of their people everyday in order to slaughter the lives of thousands of i men and to destroy the homes and happiness of thousands of i women, is really nothing but infernal madness. The reason why the rulers, soldiers and diplomats of the tries now at war ot see this, is because they feel themselves helpless; helpless before the panic of the mob, _the panic of the crowd of plain men and women; in fact, as I said because the panic of the crowd, _the panic of the mob has seized and paralysed their brains. I say therefore the first thing to be done, if the present actual situation now in Europe is to be saved, is to rescue the rulers, soldiers and diplomats of the tries now at war from the panic of the mob, _the panic of the cro９９ｌiｂ.wd of plain men and women by giving them power.
The tragic hopelessness of the situation now in Europe, I want to say here further, lies not only in the helplessness of the rulers, soldiers and diplomats, but also in the helplessness of everybody in the tries now at war. Everybody is helpless and ot see that this war, wanted by nobody and brought on only by the panic of the mob, is an infernal madness, because, as I said, the panic of the mob has seized and paralysed the brains of everybody. One see this even in Professor Dison, who writes to inveigh against the war,_to denouhe rulers, soldiers and diplomats fing on this rofessor Dison too, without being scious of it, has the panic of the mob in his brain. He begins his article by stating that this article of his is not a "stop the war" paper. He goes on to say:
"Being in the war, I think, as all Englishmen think, we must go on fighting until we emerge from it with our terroritory and security intad with the future peace of Europe assured as far as human wisdom assure it. " The iy and security of the British Empire and the future peace of Europe to be obtained only by going on indefinitely spending nine million pounds sterling of good money and slaughtering thousands of i men everyday! The monstrous absurdity of such a proposition, I believe, has only to be stated, to be seen by any one who has not the panic of the mob in his brain. The peace of Europe! Why, I think if this rate of spending and slaughtering goes on for ah of time, there will certainly be peace, but no Europe left on the map of the world. Indeed if there is anything which will show how really and utterly unfit the plain men and womeo decide on the question of pead war, this attitude of mind of a man even like Professor Dison clusively shows it.
But the point I want to insist upon here, is that everybody even in the tries now at war wants peace, but nobody has the power to make peace, to stop the war. Now the fact that nobody has the power to make peace, to stop the war, m..akes everybody believe that there is no possible way of making peace; makes everybody despair of the possibility of making peace. This despair of the possibility of making peace it is which prevents everybody in the tries now at war from seeing that this war wanted by nobody and brought on only by the panic of the mob, is really nothing but an infernal madness. The first thing to be doherefore, in order to make everybody see that this war is nothing but an infernal madness is to show everybody that there is a possibility of making peace . In order to make every-body see that there is a possibility of making peace, the very first and simple thing to do is at oo stop the war; to i some oh full power to stop the war; to ihe rulers of the tries now at war with absolute power by making, as I said, a Magna Charta of Loyalty, _absolute power to order and and the war to be stopped at once. As soon as everybody sees that the war be stopped, everybody in the tries now at war, everybody except perhaps a few absolute incurable lunatics, will be able to see that this war wanted by nobody and brought on only by the panic of the mob,_is really nothing but an infernal madness; that this war, if tinued, will be ruinous even to the tries which will emerge victorious from it. As soon as the rulers of the tries now at war have the power to stop the war and everybody in the tries now at war sees and realises that this war is an infernal madness, it will then and only the only possible, but easy for a man like President Wilson of the Uates to make a successful appeal, as the Ex-President Roosevelt did during the Russo-Japanese war, to the rulers of the tries now at war to order and and the war to be stopped at ond then to find a way to make a perma peace. I say it will be easy then for a man like President Wilson to make a successful appeal for peace because, I believe, in order to make peace, the only important thing the rulers of the tries now at war will have to do is, to build a special lunatic asylum and arrest and clap into it the few absolute incurable lunatics, _men like Professor Dison who have the panic of the mob in the brain, _the panic for the iy and security of the British Empire and the future peace of Europe!
chapter 39
Thus, I say, the one and only way out of this war, is for the people of the tries now at war, to tear up their present Magna Char-tas of Liberty and stitutions, and make a new Magna Charta, a Magna Charta not of Liberty, but a Magna Charta of Loyalty, such as we ese have in ion of good citizenship here in a.
To prove the efficacy of what I now propose, let me here call the attention of the people of Europe and America to the fact that it was the absolute loyalty of the people of Japan and Russia to their rulers which made it possible for the Ex-President Roosevelt to make a successful appeal to the late Emperor of Japan and the present Emperor of Russia to stop the Russo-Japanese war and to and and order the peace to be made at Portsmouth. This absolute loyalty of the people in the case of Japan is secured by the Magna Charta of Loyalty in our ese Religion of good citizenship which the Japanese learnt from us. But in Russia where there is nion of good citizenship with its Magna Charta of Loyalty, the absolute loyalty of the Russian people has to be secured by the power of the Knout.
Now see what happened, after the Treaty of Portsmouth, in a try with a Religion of good citizenship and its Magna Charta of Loyalty, like Japan, and a try without such a Religion and such a Charta like Russia. In Japan, after the Treaty of Portsmouth, the plain men and women in Tokyo whion of good citizenship had been spoilt by the New Learning of Europe, raised a clamour and tried to create a panic, _but the Magna Charta of Loyalty in the hearts of the true unspoilt Japanese people with the help of a few poli in one day put down the clamour and panic of the plain men and women and there has been not only internal pea Japan but pea the Far East ever since. * But in Russia after the Treaty of Portsmouth, the plain men and women everywhere in the try, also raised a clamour and tried to create a panid, because there is nion of good citizenship in Russia, the Knout, _which secured the abso-Pea the Far East, I say, until lately the mob-worshipping Statesmen of Great Britain got their apt pupils the now also mob-worshipping Statemen of Japan, men like t Okuma, who is the greatest mob-worshipper now in japan, _to make war against a handful of German clerks in Tsingtau!
lute loyalty of the Russian people, broke and thus ever sihe plain men and women in Russia have had full liberty to make riots and stitutions, to raise clamour and create panic._panic for the iy and security of the Russian Empire and the Slavonic rad for the future peace of Europe! The result of all this was that when a petty difference of opinion arose between the Austrian Emperor and the Emperor of Russia over the degree of punishment to be meted out for the people responsible for the murder of the Austrian Arch-Duke, the plain men and women, the mob in Russia we99lｉｂ?re able to raise such a clamour and create such a panic for the iy and security of the Russian Empire, that the Emperor of Russia and his immediate advisers were driven to mobilise the whole Russian army, in other words, to move that monstrous modern mae created by John Smith, Bobus and Moses Lump. When that monstrous modern mae,_ the modern Miliarism in Russia, began to move, there was immediately a general panic among the plain men and women in all Europe and it was this general panic among the plain men and women in Europe seizing and paralysing the brains of the rulers and diplomats of the tries now at war and making them helpless, which, as I have already shown, brought on this terrible war.
Thus the real in of this war, if you go deep into the very root of the matter, was the Treaty of Portsmouth. I say the Treaty of Portsmouth was in of this war, because after that Treaty, the Knout,_the power of the Knout,_in Russia broke and there was nothing to protect the Emperor of Russia from the plain men and women, _from the panic of the crowd of plain men and women, _in fact, from the panic of the mob in Russia, _the panic of the mob for the iy and security of the Russian Empire and the Slavonic race! The Germa Heih wonderful insight sidering that he was the most liberal of all Liberals, in fact the Champion of the Liberalism of his time, says: "The Absolutism in Russia is really a Dictatorship rather than anything else with which t into life and make possible the carrying out of the liberal ideas of our modem times (der Absolutismus in Russland ist vielmehr eine Dictatur um die liberalen Ideen unserer e in s Lebeen zu lassen)" . In fact, I say again, after the Treaty of Portsmouth the Dictatorship, _the Knout, the power of the Knout in Russia broke and there was nothing to protect the ruler, soldier and diplomat of Russia from the mob,_that, I say, was the real in of this war. In other words, the real in and cause of this war was the fear of the mob in Russia.
In Europe in the past the responsible rulers of all the European tries were able to maintain civil order in their own tries and to keep iional pea Europe, because they feared and worshipped God. But now, I want to say, the rulers, soldiers and diplomats in all European tries of today instead of fearing and worshipping God, fear and worship the mob, _fear and worship the crowd of plain men and women in their try. The Russian Emperor, Alexander I, who made the Holy Allian Europe after the Napoleonic wars, was able not only to maintain civil order in Russia, but to keep iional pea Europe because he feared God. But the present Emperor in Russia is not able to maintain civil order in his own try and to keep iional pea Europe, because, instead of fearing God, he fears the mob. I Britain rulers like well, were able to maintain civil order in their own try and to keep iional pea Europe, because they worshipped God. But the actual rulers of Great Britain today, responsible Statesmen like Lrey, Messrs. Asquith, Churchill and Loyd Gee, are not able to maintain civil order in their own try and keep iional pea Europe, because, instead of worshipping God, they worship the mob, _worship not only the mob in their own try, but also the mob in other tries. The late Prime Minister of Great Britain
Mr. Campbell Bannerman, when the Russian Duma was dissolved, shouted at the top of his voice, " Le Duma. est mart. Vive Ie Duma \
chapter 40
I have said that the real in and cause of this war was the fear of the mob in Russia. Now I want to say here that, the real first in and cause of this war was not the fear of the mob in Russia. The first in and cause, _the fa o not only of this war, but of all the anarchy, horror and misery in the world today, _is the worship of the mob, the worship of the mob now in all European tries and in America,9９ｌｉｂ? _especially i Britain. It was the worship of the mob i Britain which caused and brought on the Russo-Japanese war. After the Russo-Japanese war came the Treaty of Portsmouth and the Treaty of Portsmouth, with the help of the shout of the British Prime Minister, broke the Knout, _the power of the Knout, broke what Heine calls the Dictatorship and created the fear of the mob in Russia which, as I said, has brought on this terrible war. It is, I may ially say here, this worship of the mob i Britain, this worship of the mob among Englishmen and fners in a; in fact this Religion of the worship of the mob imported from Great Britain and Amerito a, _which has brought on the Revolution and the present nightmare of a Republi a now threatening to destroy the most valuable asset of civilisation of the world today, the real aman. I say therefore that this worship of the mob i Britain_this Religion of the worship of the mob in Europe and America today, unless it is at o down, will destroy not only the civilisation of Europe, but all civ藏书网ilisation in the world.
* The panic of the